aqiba

Ben Azay says, the heirs of the first say to the heirs of the second: If you are creditors, take what is yours and leave; otherwise let us split evenly between yourselves and us. Rebbi Aqiba said to him: Biblical inheritance “jumped” on the sons of the second; they take their mother’s ketubah and come back to split. Rebbi Mana said, they disagree if there is an excess denar. But if there is no excess denar, even Rebbi Aqiba will agree with Ben Nanas that both parties split evenly. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said to him, a situation which was stated without disagreement you turn into a disagreement. They must disagree if there is no excess denar. But if there is an excess denar even Ben Nanas agrees with Rebbi Aqiba that biblical inheritance “jumped” on the sons of the second; they take their mother’s ketubah and come back to split.

Ben Azay says, the heirs of the first say to the heirs of the second: If you are creditors, take what is yours and leave; otherwise let us split evenly between yourselves and us. Rebbi Aqiba said to him: Biblical inheritance “jumped” on the sons of the second; they take their mother’s ketubah and come back to split. Rebbi Mana said, they disagree if there is an excess denar. But if there is no excess denar, even Rebbi Aqiba will agree with Ben Nanas that both parties split evenly. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said to him, a situation which was stated without disagreement you turn into a disagreement. They must disagree if there is no excess denar. But if there is an excess denar even Ben Nanas agrees with Rebbi Aqiba that biblical inheritance “jumped” on the sons of the second; they take their mother’s ketubah and come back to split.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody was married to four women when he died,” etc. Rebbi Abuna in the name of Rebbi Samuel: Following Ben Nanas, if one document was produced against (the wife) buyers, they all divide evenly. Rebbi Aqiba said before Rebbi Mana: Does this not disagree with Rebbi Samuel, since Samuel said, sharpness of the judges? As in the case of two mortgages written on one field, to whom they want to hand it over in possession they hand it over. And here, he says so? Not with two mortgages, what about one? He did not hear what Rebbi Abin said in the name of Samuel: There is no difference, whether two mortgages were written on two fields or two mortgages were written on one field, to whom the court decide they hand it over in possession. Rebbi instituted that one follows Ben Nanas in matters of annona, head taxes, and real estate taxes.

MISHNAH: Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, her sale is valid unless there would have been left a field [for sowing] nine qab, and in a garden half a qab, or following the words of Rebbi Aqiba, a fourth. If her ketubah was 400 zuz and she sold to one person worth 100, to a second 100, to a third 100, and to the last the value of a mina and a denar for a mina, the last transaction is invalid but all others are valid.

Rebbi Jeremiah said, both Admon and Rebbi Aqiba said the same thing, as we have stated there: “If he sold them to another person, Rebbi Aqiba said, he does not have to buy access, but the Sages say, he has to buy access.” He had not heard that Rebbi Hila said, Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They disagree when nothing was mentioned. Where do we hold? If it is obvious that access was included, everybody agrees that he does not have to pay for access. If it is obvious that access was not included, everybody agrees that he has to pay for access. But we must hold that nothing was mentioned. Then Rebbi Aqiba said, he does not have to buy access, but the rabbis say, he has to buy access. But in the case here, even while it is clear that he had access, everybody agrees that he has to pay for access.

Rebbi Jeremiah said, both Admon and Rebbi Aqiba said the same thing, as we have stated there: “If he sold them to another person, Rebbi Aqiba said, he does not have to buy access, but the Sages say, he has to buy access.” He had not heard that Rebbi Hila said, Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They disagree when nothing was mentioned. Where do we hold? If it is obvious that access was included, everybody agrees that he does not have to pay for access. If it is obvious that access was not included, everybody agrees that he has to pay for access. But we must hold that nothing was mentioned. Then Rebbi Aqiba said, he does not have to buy access, but the rabbis say, he has to buy access. But in the case here, even while it is clear that he had access, everybody agrees that he has to pay for access.

Rebbi Jeremiah said, both Admon and Rebbi Aqiba said the same thing, as we have stated there: “If he sold them to another person, Rebbi Aqiba said, he does not have to buy access, but the Sages say, he has to buy access.” He had not heard that Rebbi Hila said, Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They disagree when nothing was mentioned. Where do we hold? If it is obvious that access was included, everybody agrees that he does not have to pay for access. If it is obvious that access was not included, everybody agrees that he has to pay for access. But we must hold that nothing was mentioned. Then Rebbi Aqiba said, he does not have to buy access, but the rabbis say, he has to buy access. But in the case here, even while it is clear that he had access, everybody agrees that he has to pay for access.

MISHNAH: All substitute names of vows are like vows, of bans like bans, of oaths like oaths, of nazir vows like nazir vows. If one says to another, I am vowed away from you, I am separated from you, I am distanced from you, that I will not eat from yours, that I will not taste from yours, he is forbidden. I am excommunicated from you, Rabbi Aqiba was stringent in that because of a doubt. As vows of the wicked, he vowed as nazir, a sacrifice, and an oath. As vows of the good ones, he did not say anything. As their freewill gifts, he made a vow of nazir and sacrifice.

HALAKHAH: “All substitute names of vows are like vows,” etc. It is written “Any person who vows,” why does the verse say “a vow”? From here that substitute names of vows are like vows. “Or he swears,” why does the verse say “an oath”? From here that substitute names of oaths are like oaths. “But any ban,” why does the verse say “which he bans”? From here that substitute names of bans are like bans. “A vow of nazir”, why does the verse say “to be a nazir”? From here that substitute names of nazir vows are like nazir vows. So far for Rebbi Aqiba who says that these are expressions of additions. For Rebbi Ismael who said, these are double expressions in the normal style of the Torah, “going you went, desiring you desired, by stealing I was stolen”, from where? “ Any person who vows a vow to the Eternal or swears an oath to forbid a prohibition on himself shall not profane his word,” why does the verse say “he must fulfill anything coming out of his mouth”? From here that substitute names of vows are like vows and substitute names of oaths are like oaths. And from where that substitute names of bans are like bans? “A vow, a vow”. Since “a vow” at one place means that substitute names of vows are like vows and substitute names of oaths are like oaths, “a vow” at the other place means that substitute names of bans are like bans. And from where that substitute names of being a nazir are like being a nazir? “A vow, a vow”. Since “a vow” at one place means that substitute names of oaths are like oaths, “a vow” at the other place means that substitute names of being a nazir are like being a nazir.

How does Rebbi Aqiba explain “he must fulfill anything coming out of his mouth”? From here that if part of a vow is invalid, all of it is invalid. Does Rebbi Ismael not agree with this? Everything derives from there. It follows from there that substitute names of vows are like vows and substitute names of oaths are like oaths and it follows from there that if part of a vow is invalid, all of it is invalid. How does Rebbi Ismael explain “any person who vows a vow of nazir”? From there that a person can obligate himself as nazir while he currently is a nazir. Does Rebbi Aqiba not agree with this? He agrees and everything derives from there. He agrees that from there a person can obligate himself as nazir while he currently is a nazir.

How does Rebbi Aqiba explain “he must fulfill anything coming out of his mouth”? From here that if part of a vow is invalid, all of it is invalid. Does Rebbi Ismael not agree with this? Everything derives from there. It follows from there that substitute names of vows are like vows and substitute names of oaths are like oaths and it follows from there that if part of a vow is invalid, all of it is invalid. How does Rebbi Ismael explain “any person who vows a vow of nazir”? From there that a person can obligate himself as nazir while he currently is a nazir. Does Rebbi Aqiba not agree with this? He agrees and everything derives from there. He agrees that from there a person can obligate himself as nazir while he currently is a nazir.

“I am excommunicated from you, Rabbi Aqiba was stringent in that because of a doubt.” To forbid all his possessions. As you say, “all his property should be banned and he should be separated from the community of the diaspora.” What do the rabbis do with this? An excommunication by the court is weightier.

It was found stated about both cases: It is more restrictive for oaths than for vows that an erroneous oath is forbidden but an erroneous vow is permitted. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked before Rebbi [ ], does Rebbi Aqiba add to the words of the House of Hillel? As we have stated there, “until Rebbi Aqiba came and taught that a vow of which any part was permitted is totally permitted.” He said to him, if you say that there, in the case of a vow which has to be investigated by a Sage, you say that a vow of which any part was invalidated is totally invalidated, here, where it does not need investigation by a Sage, so much more! Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Hila: Because of an erroneous vow; if I had known that my father and my brothers were there I would not have made the vow.

It was found stated about both cases: It is more restrictive for oaths than for vows that an erroneous oath is forbidden but an erroneous vow is permitted. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked before Rebbi [ ], does Rebbi Aqiba add to the words of the House of Hillel? As we have stated there, “until Rebbi Aqiba came and taught that a vow of which any part was permitted is totally permitted.” He said to him, if you say that there, in the case of a vow which has to be investigated by a Sage, you say that a vow of which any part was invalidated is totally invalidated, here, where it does not need investigation by a Sage, so much more! Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Hila: Because of an erroneous vow; if I had known that my father and my brothers were there I would not have made the vow.

HALAKHAH: “One who makes a vow away from the seafaring men,” etc. That you should not say, not from those who go from Acco to Jaffa but those who frequently take to the sea. “From the dwellers on dry land he is forbidden the seafaring men,” not only those who go from Acco to Jaffa but even those who frequently take to the sea. But did he not make a vow regarding the dwellers on dry land? This implies that the seafaring men are part of the dwellers on dry land. If he made a vow away from the seafaring men after thirty days but [a certain mariner] became a land dweller, there is a dispute between Rebbi Ismael and Rebbi Aqiba. For Rebbi Ismael says, after the vow, and Rebbi Aqiba says, after the prohibition. And about children it is a problem.

HALAKHAH: “One who makes a vow away from the seafaring men,” etc. That you should not say, not from those who go from Acco to Jaffa but those who frequently take to the sea. “From the dwellers on dry land he is forbidden the seafaring men,” not only those who go from Acco to Jaffa but even those who frequently take to the sea. But did he not make a vow regarding the dwellers on dry land? This implies that the seafaring men are part of the dwellers on dry land. If he made a vow away from the seafaring men after thirty days but [a certain mariner] became a land dweller, there is a dispute between Rebbi Ismael and Rebbi Aqiba. For Rebbi Ismael says, after the vow, and Rebbi Aqiba says, after the prohibition. And about children it is a problem.

It turns out that one disagreement is like an other other disagreement, as it was stated: On the Day of Atonement, one has to detail one’s deeds, the words of Rebbi Jehudah ben Bathyra. Rebbi Aqiba says, one does not have to detail the sin. Some Tannïm state, one has to detail the vow; some Tannïm state, one does not have to detail the vow. A person made a vow not to earn money. He came before Rebbi Yudan bar Shalom. He asked him, what did you forswear to yourself? He said to him, not to earn money. Rebbi Yudan said to him, is there anyone doing that? He said to him, as a gambler. He said, praise to Him Who chose the Torah and the Sages who said, one has to detail the vow.

“When they sanctified the year at Usha, on the first day Rebbi Ismael, the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Baroqa, led and recited following the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, we did not follow this at Jabneh. On the second day, Rebbi Ḥananiah, the son of Rebbi Yose the Galilean led and recited following the opinion of Rebbi Aqiba. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, this we did follow at Jabneh.” But does this not mean that they sanctified it on the first and the second day? Rebbi Zeїra in the name of Rav Ḥisda: That year was disorganized. What is “the first, the second”? Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav: The first year, the second year! But was it not stated: the first day, the second day?

MISHNAH: One who makes a vow to abstain from vegetables is permitted squash, but Rebbi Aqiba forbids it. They said to Rebbi Aqiba, does it not happen that a person says to his agent, buy vegetables for us, and he says, I found only squash? He said to them, that is true. Would he ever say, I found only legumes? But squash is contained in the notion of “vegetable”. He is forbidden fresh Egyptian beans and permitted dried ones.

MISHNAH: One who makes a vow to abstain from vegetables is permitted squash, but Rebbi Aqiba forbids it. They said to Rebbi Aqiba, does it not happen that a person says to his agent, buy vegetables for us, and he says, I found only squash? He said to them, that is true. Would he ever say, I found only legumes? But squash is contained in the notion of “vegetable”. He is forbidden fresh Egyptian beans and permitted dried ones.

HALAKHAH: Does Rebbi Aqiba think “I found, I did not find”? Then one who forbids meat to himself should be forbidden fish and grasshopper meat since, if a man says to another, buy meat for us, he will return and say, I found only fish! But Rebbi Aqiba must think that squash are vegetables, but the rabbis think that squash are not vegetables. That applies to legal situations. “The vegetables of this garden are sold;” if squash were there, they would be sold in the opinion of Rebbi Aqiba, not sold in the opinion of the rabbis. The same applies to declarations of abandonment or dedications.

HALAKHAH: Does Rebbi Aqiba think “I found, I did not find”? Then one who forbids meat to himself should be forbidden fish and grasshopper meat since, if a man says to another, buy meat for us, he will return and say, I found only fish! But Rebbi Aqiba must think that squash are vegetables, but the rabbis think that squash are not vegetables. That applies to legal situations. “The vegetables of this garden are sold;” if squash were there, they would be sold in the opinion of Rebbi Aqiba, not sold in the opinion of the rabbis. The same applies to declarations of abandonment or dedications.

HALAKHAH: Does Rebbi Aqiba think “I found, I did not find”? Then one who forbids meat to himself should be forbidden fish and grasshopper meat since, if a man says to another, buy meat for us, he will return and say, I found only fish! But Rebbi Aqiba must think that squash are vegetables, but the rabbis think that squash are not vegetables. That applies to legal situations. “The vegetables of this garden are sold;” if squash were there, they would be sold in the opinion of Rebbi Aqiba, not sold in the opinion of the rabbis. The same applies to declarations of abandonment or dedications.

“You shall love your neighbor as yourself”. Rebbi Aqiba says, that is a great principle in the Torah. Ben Azzai says, “this is the book of the descent of man” is a more important principle.

MISHNAH: One creates an opening for a man with his wife’s ketubah. It happened that one vowed usufruct from his wife whose ketubah was 400 denar. She came before Rebbi Aqiba who obliged him to give her her ketubah. He said, Rebbi, my father left 800 denar. My brother took 400 and I 400, would it not be enough if she take 200 and I 200? Rebbi Aqiba told him, even if you have to sell the hair on your head, you will pay her ketubah. He said to him, if I had known that, I would not have vowed. Rebbi Aqiba freed him.

MISHNAH: One creates an opening for a man with his wife’s ketubah. It happened that one vowed usufruct from his wife whose ketubah was 400 denar. She came before Rebbi Aqiba who obliged him to give her her ketubah. He said, Rebbi, my father left 800 denar. My brother took 400 and I 400, would it not be enough if she take 200 and I 200? Rebbi Aqiba told him, even if you have to sell the hair on your head, you will pay her ketubah. He said to him, if I had known that, I would not have vowed. Rebbi Aqiba freed him.

MISHNAH: One creates an opening for a man with his wife’s ketubah. It happened that one vowed usufruct from his wife whose ketubah was 400 denar. She came before Rebbi Aqiba who obliged him to give her her ketubah. He said, Rebbi, my father left 800 denar. My brother took 400 and I 400, would it not be enough if she take 200 and I 200? Rebbi Aqiba told him, even if you have to sell the hair on your head, you will pay her ketubah. He said to him, if I had known that, I would not have vowed. Rebbi Aqiba freed him.

MISHNAH: One opens about festive days and Sabbaths. In earlier times, they said that these days are permitted but the rest forbidden, until Rebbi Aqiba came and taught that a vow which was partially voided is totally voided. How is this? ‘A qônām that I shall not benefit any one of you,’ if one was permitted, all are permitted. ‘That I shall not benefit this one and this one and this one,’ if the first one becomes permitted, all are permitted; if the last one becomes permitted, he is permitted and the others are prohibited. ‘That I shall not benefit, a qorbān for this one, a qorbān for that one’; each single one needs a separate opening. ‘A qônām that I shall not taste wine, for wine is bad for the intestines.’ If they told him, but old [wine] is good for the intestines, old [wine] was permitted; not only old wine is permitted but all wines. ‘A qônām that I shall not taste onion, for onion is bad for the heart.’ If they told him, but the rural kind is good for the heart, rural [onion] was permitted; not only rural is permitted but all onions. It happened that Rebbi Meїr permitted all onions to him.

MISHNAH: If a woman was waiting for her levir, whether it be one or two, Rebbi Eliezer says, he shall dissolve. Rebbi Joshua says, for one but not for two. Rebbi Aqiba says, neither for one nor for two.

HALAKHAH: “If a woman was waiting for her levir,” etc. Following Rebbi Aqiba, who can dissolve? For example, what Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, even a hundred qiddušin are valid for her, who dissolves? And what Rebbi Jacob said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, he can allot her to his underage son, who dissolves? And what Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa sind in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, she does not even need a reparation offering for a possible sin, who dissolves?

MISHNAH: Rebbi Eliezer said, if he can dissolve vows for a wife which he himself acquired, so much more that he should be able to dissolve for a wife which Heaven acquired for him. Rebbi Aqiba answered him: No. What you say is about a wife which he himself acquired, where nobody else has any authority over her; what can you say about the wife which Heaven acquired for him, where others have authority over her? Rebbi Joshua said to him, Aqiba, your words apply to two levirs. What can you reply about one levir? He said to him, the sister-in-law does not belong completely to her man as the wife belongs completely to her husband.

MISHNAH: Rebbi Eliezer said, if he can dissolve vows for a wife which he himself acquired, so much more that he should be able to dissolve for a wife which Heaven acquired for him. Rebbi Aqiba answered him: No. What you say is about a wife which he himself acquired, where nobody else has any authority over her; what can you say about the wife which Heaven acquired for him, where others have authority over her? Rebbi Joshua said to him, Aqiba, your words apply to two levirs. What can you reply about one levir? He said to him, the sister-in-law does not belong completely to her man as the wife belongs completely to her husband.

HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Eliezer said,” etc. “Rebbi Eliezer said, since a woman on whom I had no claim before she entered into my domain, becomes absolutely mine after she entered my domain, is it not logical that a woman on whom I had some claim before she entered my domain, shall become absolutely mine when she enters my domain? Rebbi Aqiba told him, no. If you speak about a woman on whom you had no claim before she entered into your domain, but after she entered your domain she became absolutely yours, then just as you had no part in her so no other man had any part in her. What can you conclude about a woman on whom you had some claim before she entered your domain, and after she entered your domain she became absolutely yours, but just as you had some rights to her so others had the same rights to her! Rebbi Joshua told him, Aqiba, your argument holds for two levirs. What do you respond in the case of a single levir? He said to him, just as you make no difference in the rules of one waiting for one levir or for two levirs, whether he ‘bespoke’ her or did not ‘bespeak’ her, can it not be the same for vows and oaths? He said to him, that is true. He said to him, if you had lived in the times of Rebbi Eleazar ben Arakh, he would have said that ‘bespeaking’ does not acquire completely since he would agree that he cannot dissolve until she enters his domain.

HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Eliezer said,” etc. “Rebbi Eliezer said, since a woman on whom I had no claim before she entered into my domain, becomes absolutely mine after she entered my domain, is it not logical that a woman on whom I had some claim before she entered my domain, shall become absolutely mine when she enters my domain? Rebbi Aqiba told him, no. If you speak about a woman on whom you had no claim before she entered into your domain, but after she entered your domain she became absolutely yours, then just as you had no part in her so no other man had any part in her. What can you conclude about a woman on whom you had some claim before she entered your domain, and after she entered your domain she became absolutely yours, but just as you had some rights to her so others had the same rights to her! Rebbi Joshua told him, Aqiba, your argument holds for two levirs. What do you respond in the case of a single levir? He said to him, just as you make no difference in the rules of one waiting for one levir or for two levirs, whether he ‘bespoke’ her or did not ‘bespeak’ her, can it not be the same for vows and oaths? He said to him, that is true. He said to him, if you had lived in the times of Rebbi Eleazar ben Arakh, he would have said that ‘bespeaking’ does not acquire completely since he would agree that he cannot dissolve until she enters his domain.

MISHNAH: 4: ‘A qônām that I shall not work according to the wishes of my father, or your father, or my brother, or your brother,’ he cannot dissolve. ‘According to your wish,’ he does not have to dissolve. Rebbi Aqiba says, he has to dissolve, maybe she works more than the required minimum. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, he shall dissolve since maybe he would divorce her, then she would be forbidden to return to him.

HALAKHAH: “ ‘A qônām that I shall not work according to the wishes of my father,’ etc. There, we have stated: “If somebody dedicates his wife’s work, she works and eats. The excess? Rebbi Meїr says, it is dedicated; Rebbi Joḥanan the Alexandrian said, it is profane.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, they disagree about the excess over five tetradrachmas. He explains it in the case of one who supports his wife with food but does not give her an obolus for her needs, as we stated: “If he does not give her an obolus for her needs, what she earns is hers”. Rebbi Joḥanan said, they disagree about the excess left after [the husband’s] death; for he explains it if he does not support her with food. But if he supports her with food, everybody agrees that it became dedicated. And here, he cannot dissolve! Rebbi Meїr says. he does not have to dissolve. Rebbi Joḥanan the Alexandrian said, hers. Rebbi Aqiba said, hers. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, his.

“Rebbi Aqiba said, he has to dissolve.” Rebbi Abba said, if she forbids the yields of her work, [vowing] not to work, he can force her up to the weight of five tetradrachmas. More than that he cannot force, for he has to be afraid that she may work more and it turns out that she profits from what is forbidden. Therefore, Rebbi Aqiba says, he has to dissolve his part. Rebbi Hila said, it is impossible for her to make exactly the weight of five tetradrachmas. He could force her up to the weight of five tetradrachmas; more that that he cannot force. He has to be afraid that she might be over the limit by a minute amount; then he would profit from what is forbidden. Therefore ….

“Rebbi Aqiba said, he has to dissolve.” Rebbi Abba said, if she forbids the yields of her work, [vowing] not to work, he can force her up to the weight of five tetradrachmas. More than that he cannot force, for he has to be afraid that she may work more and it turns out that she profits from what is forbidden. Therefore, Rebbi Aqiba says, he has to dissolve his part. Rebbi Hila said, it is impossible for her to make exactly the weight of five tetradrachmas. He could force her up to the weight of five tetradrachmas; more that that he cannot force. He has to be afraid that she might be over the limit by a minute amount; then he would profit from what is forbidden. Therefore ….

HALAKHAH: Some Tannaïm state: “He shall confirm it”, even partially, “he shall dissolve it”, even partially. Some Tannaïm state: “He shall confirm it”, totally, “he shall dissolve it”, totally. Some Tannaïm state: “He shall confirm it”, even partially, “he shall dissolve it”, totally. Some Tannaïm state: “He shall confirm it”, totally, “he shall dissolve it”, even partially. The Mishnah follows him who said, “he shall confirm it”, even partially, “he shall dissolve it”, totally. As we have stated: “If he confirmed for the figs he confirmed everything. If he dissolved for figs it is not dissolved unless he also dissolves for grapes.” If she said, a qônām that I shall not taste a fig nor a grape berry, that is a matter of difference between Rebbi Ismael and Rebbi Aqiba since Rebbi Ismael says, the vow decides, and Rebbi Aqiba says, the prohibition decides.

HALAKHAH: Some Tannaïm state: “He shall confirm it”, even partially, “he shall dissolve it”, even partially. Some Tannaïm state: “He shall confirm it”, totally, “he shall dissolve it”, totally. Some Tannaïm state: “He shall confirm it”, even partially, “he shall dissolve it”, totally. Some Tannaïm state: “He shall confirm it”, totally, “he shall dissolve it”, even partially. The Mishnah follows him who said, “he shall confirm it”, even partially, “he shall dissolve it”, totally. As we have stated: “If he confirmed for the figs he confirmed everything. If he dissolved for figs it is not dissolved unless he also dissolves for grapes.” If she said, a qônām that I shall not taste a fig nor a grape berry, that is a matter of difference between Rebbi Ismael and Rebbi Aqiba since Rebbi Ismael says, the vow decides, and Rebbi Aqiba says, the prohibition decides.

HALAKHAH: “The vow of a widow or a divorcee,” etc. This refers to what Rebbi Ismael says, the vow decides; Rebbi Aqiba says, prohibition decides. If vow and prohibition came together? How is that? She said, I shall be a nazir in 30 days. Her husband heard it and did not dissolve. He divorced her and remarried her within the 30 days. Is that when vow and prohibition come together?

Rav said: “I am a nazir for 30 days and one day,” he is a nazir twice since he could have said “31 days”. The Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “I shall be a nazir [and] one day, I shall be a nazir [and] one hour, I shall be a nazir one and a half times, he is a nazir two times.” What could he have said, “30, and an hour”? A baraita disagrees with the rabbis: Rebbi Ismael and Rebbi Aqiba did not disagree about one who said, “I am a nazir 30 days and one day,” that he is a nazir only once. Where do they disagree? About one who said, “I am a nazir 30 days and in addition one day,” where Rebbi Ismael said, he is a nazir twice, but Rebbi Aqiba said, he is a nazir only once.

Rav said: “I am a nazir for 30 days and one day,” he is a nazir twice since he could have said “31 days”. The Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “I shall be a nazir [and] one day, I shall be a nazir [and] one hour, I shall be a nazir one and a half times, he is a nazir two times.” What could he have said, “30, and an hour”? A baraita disagrees with the rabbis: Rebbi Ismael and Rebbi Aqiba did not disagree about one who said, “I am a nazir 30 days and one day,” that he is a nazir only once. Where do they disagree? About one who said, “I am a nazir 30 days and in addition one day,” where Rebbi Ismael said, he is a nazir twice, but Rebbi Aqiba said, he is a nazir only once.

If he left and re-entered, Rebbi Ṭarphon frees him from prosecution, Rebbi Aqiba declares him guilty. Rebbi Ṭarphon said to him, what did this one add to his desecration? Rebbi Aqiba said, as long as he was there, he was defiling himself by the impurity of seven days. When he left, he was defiling himself by the impurity of evening. When he re-entered, defiling himself by the impurity of (evening). Rebbi Ṭarphon told him, Aqiba! Any who leaves you is as if he left his life.

If he left and re-entered, Rebbi Ṭarphon frees him from prosecution, Rebbi Aqiba declares him guilty. Rebbi Ṭarphon said to him, what did this one add to his desecration? Rebbi Aqiba said, as long as he was there, he was defiling himself by the impurity of seven days. When he left, he was defiling himself by the impurity of evening. When he re-entered, defiling himself by the impurity of (evening). Rebbi Ṭarphon told him, Aqiba! Any who leaves you is as if he left his life.

If he left and re-entered, Rebbi Ṭarphon frees him from prosecution, Rebbi Aqiba declares him guilty. Rebbi Ṭarphon said to him, what did this one add to his desecration? Rebbi Aqiba said, as long as he was there, he was defiling himself by the impurity of seven days. When he left, he was defiling himself by the impurity of evening. When he re-entered, defiling himself by the impurity of (evening). Rebbi Ṭarphon told him, Aqiba! Any who leaves you is as if he left his life.

It was stated: “Rebbi Ismael and Rebbi Aqiba do not disagree about a person about whom two groups of witnesses testify, that he should be nazir according to the minimal testimony. Where do they disagree? About two witnesses, where the House of Shammai say, the testimony is split and there is no nezirut, but the House of Hillel say, five contains two and he shall be a nazir twice.”

MISHNAH: If one of the bloods was sprinkled for her, he cannot dissolve. Rebbi Aqiba says, even if one of the animals was slaughtered for her, he cannot dissolve. When has this been said? If she shaves in purity. But if she shaves in impurity he may dissolve since he can say, I cannot stand an unseemly wife. Rebbi says, he may dissolve even if she shaves in purity, since he can say, I cannot stand a shorn wife.

MISHNAH: Three kinds are forbidden for the nazir: Impurity, shaving, and anything coming from the vine. Everything coming from the vine is added together. He is only guilty when he eats grapes in the volume of an olive; according to the early Mishnah if he drinks a quartarius of wine. Rebbi Aqiba says, even if he dipped his bread in wine for a total volume of an olive, he is guilty.

“Rebbi Aqiba says, even if he dipped his bread in wine for a total volume of an olive, he is guilty.” Rebbi Ḥanania said, only if he dipped in an olive-sized volume of wine. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: For a mixed cup one whips because of soaking. That is, if they did (not) warn because of soaking. But if they warned because of soaking, this does not apply. It is written: “He shall not drink anything soaked in grapes.” Not only soaking grapes, from where soaking grape skins? The verse says “soaked, anything soaked,” that all kinds of soaking are counted. Mixed wine combines with pure wine. Soaking water of grapes combines with grapes. Do soaked grapes and wine combine? If one ate half an olive’s volume of wine and half an olive’s volume of soaking water, is he not guilty. Separately, he is not prosecutable. Because he combined, he is guilty. If he ate (sic!) an olive’s volume of wine and an olive’s volume of soaking water, he is guilty only once. Separately, he is guilty twice. Because he combined, he should be guilty only once.

MISHNAH: What is shaving in impurity? He was sprinkled on the third and seventh [days], shaves on the seventh, and brings his sacrifices on the eighth. If he shaved on the eighth, he may bring his sacrifices on the same day, the words of Rebbi Aqiba. Rebbi Ṭarphon asked him, what is the difference between this one and the sufferer from skin disease? He told him, the purification of this one is bound to his days, but the purification of the sufferer from skin disease is bound to his shaving. He cannot bring his sacrifices unless the sun had set for him.

Rebbi Aqiba said, the start of my practice before the Sages was the following. Once I was on the road when I found a corpse of obligation; I carried it about four mil to a cemetery and buried it. When I came to Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Joshua and told them, they said to me that every step that you walked is counted against you as if you were shedding blood. I said, if I became guilty when I intended to acquire merit, how much worse is it if I do not intend to acquire merit. From that time on I did not interrupt practicing before Sages. He used to say, anybody who did not practice before Sages deserves the death penalty.

MISHNAH: Rebbi Eleazar said in the name of Rebbi Joshua: For any impurity caused by a corpse for which the nazir shaves, one is guilty if entering the Sanctuary, but for any impurity caused by a corpse for which the nazir does not shave, one is not guilty if entering the Sanctuary. Rebbi Meïr said, this should not be less than the impurity of a dead reptile! Rebbi Aqiba said, I argued before Rebbi Eliezer: If for a barley-grain sized bone, which does not cause impurity to a human in a tent, a nazir shaves if he touches or carries it, should it not be logical that for a quartarius of blood, which causes impurity to a human in a tent, a nazir should have to shave if he touches or carries it? He said to me, what is that, Aqiba? This is not a place for an argument de minore ad majus! When I came and expounded that before Rebbi Joshua, he said to me, you have a good argument, but that is what they said was practice.

MISHNAH: Rebbi Eleazar said in the name of Rebbi Joshua: For any impurity caused by a corpse for which the nazir shaves, one is guilty if entering the Sanctuary, but for any impurity caused by a corpse for which the nazir does not shave, one is not guilty if entering the Sanctuary. Rebbi Meïr said, this should not be less than the impurity of a dead reptile! Rebbi Aqiba said, I argued before Rebbi Eliezer: If for a barley-grain sized bone, which does not cause impurity to a human in a tent, a nazir shaves if he touches or carries it, should it not be logical that for a quartarius of blood, which causes impurity to a human in a tent, a nazir should have to shave if he touches or carries it? He said to me, what is that, Aqiba? This is not a place for an argument de minore ad majus! When I came and expounded that before Rebbi Joshua, he said to me, you have a good argument, but that is what they said was practice.

Rav Ḥisda said, [the Mishnah] implies that it is permitted to remove a corpse of obligation. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, explain it if the burial was unauthorized or subject to question. Should one not be afraid that it might be a corpse of obligation? Rebbi Ze‘ira thinks that corpses of obligation are infrequent. “It turns out that there are three kinds of burials. A grave which is found one removes; after removal the place is impure and forbidden for use. A known grave may not be removed; but if it was removed the place is pure and permitted for use. A grave which endangers the public is removed; after removal the place is impure and forbidden for use.” Rebbi Abba bar Cohen instructed in Kefar Aqabia that its place is permitted for use. Does he disagree? There if it preceded the village, here if the village preceded it. It was stated: “A grave surrounded by a village on three sides can be removed,” on two sides, some Tannaïm state that one removes it, some state that one may not remove it. Rav Ḥisda said, he who says that one removes it, if it is within slightly more than 70 cubits. He who says that one does not remove it, if it is outside slightly more than 70 cubits. He who says that one removes it, if [the village] is built in the form of a Γ. He who says that one does not remove it, if [the village] is built in the form of a ה. “All kinds of graves may be removed except the graves of a king or a prophet. They said to him, were not the graves of David’s sons removed but the graves of the sons of Ḥulda were in Jerusalem and nobody ever touched them to remove them. Rebbi Aqiba told them, is that a proof? A duct was there and the impurity exited from there horizontally into the Qidron valley.”

Why are Samaritans disqualified? Rebbi Joḥanan said, because they are lions’ proselytes. But if somebody converted not for Heaven’s sake and then converted for Heaven’s sake, does one not accept him? Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Because the child is a bastard if a Gentile or a slave have intercourse with a Jewish woman. But did not Rebbi Aqiba say, they are genuine proselytes? Because they require levirate marriage from the preliminarily married and free the definitively married. But do not the rabbis say, there is no bastard from a sister-in-law? Because they are not conversant with the fine points in writing bills of divorce. But does not Rabban Gamliel accept their bills of divorce? Rebbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Because they intermingled with the priests of the High Places: “He chose priests from the borderline of the people,”. Rebbi Ila said, from the “thorns” of the people, i. e., from the disqualified of the people.

“The best of his field and the best of his vineyard he shall pay,” i. e., the party responsible for the damage, the words of Rebbi Ismael. Rebbi Aqiba says, “the best of his field and the best of his vineyard”, of the person suffering the damage. It is difficult for Rebbi Aqiba, he suffered damage, and you say so? But the court see what the field was worth before it was damaged and estimates accordingly. As it was stated, it is possible if the grazing was on best quality land, one estimates from best quality, from lowest quality one estimates from lowest quality. How is this? The best of the lowest quality is quite good. If you say so you provide a windfall for the person suffering the damage. One looks at the field as if it was full of first quality [produce] and estimates for him from the best quality land; least quality one estimates from least quality land. It turns out that he pays with best quality for best quality and from least quality for least quality. From where has Rebbi Aqiba that “for tort victims one estimates with best quality land”? It is not from the Torah, it is a decree. “Why did they say, ‘for tort victims one estimates with best quality land’? Because of the robbers. That a man should say, why should I have robbed [land] in my hand, or land subject to a suit for damages on my hand? Tomorrow, the court will see my good field, take it from me, and support it by the verse, ‘the best of his field and the best of his vineyard he shall pay.’ ” So far his real estate. His pledge was inferred from his real estate. Since his real estate [is taken] from the best quality, also his pledge [is taken] from the best.

“The best of his field and the best of his vineyard he shall pay,” i. e., the party responsible for the damage, the words of Rebbi Ismael. Rebbi Aqiba says, “the best of his field and the best of his vineyard”, of the person suffering the damage. It is difficult for Rebbi Aqiba, he suffered damage, and you say so? But the court see what the field was worth before it was damaged and estimates accordingly. As it was stated, it is possible if the grazing was on best quality land, one estimates from best quality, from lowest quality one estimates from lowest quality. How is this? The best of the lowest quality is quite good. If you say so you provide a windfall for the person suffering the damage. One looks at the field as if it was full of first quality [produce] and estimates for him from the best quality land; least quality one estimates from least quality land. It turns out that he pays with best quality for best quality and from least quality for least quality. From where has Rebbi Aqiba that “for tort victims one estimates with best quality land”? It is not from the Torah, it is a decree. “Why did they say, ‘for tort victims one estimates with best quality land’? Because of the robbers. That a man should say, why should I have robbed [land] in my hand, or land subject to a suit for damages on my hand? Tomorrow, the court will see my good field, take it from me, and support it by the verse, ‘the best of his field and the best of his vineyard he shall pay.’ ” So far his real estate. His pledge was inferred from his real estate. Since his real estate [is taken] from the best quality, also his pledge [is taken] from the best.

“The best of his field and the best of his vineyard he shall pay,” i. e., the party responsible for the damage, the words of Rebbi Ismael. Rebbi Aqiba says, “the best of his field and the best of his vineyard”, of the person suffering the damage. It is difficult for Rebbi Aqiba, he suffered damage, and you say so? But the court see what the field was worth before it was damaged and estimates accordingly. As it was stated, it is possible if the grazing was on best quality land, one estimates from best quality, from lowest quality one estimates from lowest quality. How is this? The best of the lowest quality is quite good. If you say so you provide a windfall for the person suffering the damage. One looks at the field as if it was full of first quality [produce] and estimates for him from the best quality land; least quality one estimates from least quality land. It turns out that he pays with best quality for best quality and from least quality for least quality. From where has Rebbi Aqiba that “for tort victims one estimates with best quality land”? It is not from the Torah, it is a decree. “Why did they say, ‘for tort victims one estimates with best quality land’? Because of the robbers. That a man should say, why should I have robbed [land] in my hand, or land subject to a suit for damages on my hand? Tomorrow, the court will see my good field, take it from me, and support it by the verse, ‘the best of his field and the best of his vineyard he shall pay.’ ” So far his real estate. His pledge was inferred from his real estate. Since his real estate [is taken] from the best quality, also his pledge [is taken] from the best.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody throws a bill of divorce to his wife,” etc. “He shall write,” “he shall deliver into her hand.” Not only into her hand; from where also into her garden or into her courtyard? The verse says “he shall deliver, he shall deliver.” Is this following Rebbi Ismael? It is following Rebbi Aqiba. It was stated in the name of Rebbi Ismael, “he took all his land from his hand, up to the Arnon.” Did he take it out of his hand? What means “from his hand”? From his possession.

MISHNAH: Anybody can supplement a bald document following the words of Ben Nanas. Rebbi Aqiba says, one supplements the signatures only by relatives who would be able to testify under other circumstances. What is a bald document? One whose knots are more than its signatures.

Rebbi Joḥanan said: There is no “she shall be divorced”. Rebbi Immi said, several boxes of cases came before Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish and they said, go and complete following Rebbi Aqiba.

After Rebbi Eliezer’s death, four Elders assembled to object to Rebbi Eliezer’s words: Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah, Rebbi Yose the Galilean, Rebbi Tarphon, and Rebbi Aqiba. Rebbi Joshua told them, one does not contradict the lion after his death. Rebbi Tarphon objected: If he said to her, you are permitted to any man except Mr. X; she went and married [the latter’s brother who] died childless; how can she contract the levirate marriage? Does it not turn out that he stipulated against what is written in the Torah, and anybody’s condition contradicting what is written in the Torah is invalid. Then nobody should be permitted to marry his brother’s daughter, lest he come to stipulate against what is written in the Torah. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, one understands the reason. There, the Torah forbade her to him. But here, he forbids to him! Rebbi Ḥananiah objected in the name of Rebbi Phineas: Should one not state “sixteen women” following Rebbi Eliezer? Rebbi Mana said, the reason was already explained: there, the Torah forbade her to him. But here, he forbids to him! Rebbi Jeremiah asked: If he said to her, you are permitted to any man except Mr. X; she went and married the latter’s brother who died childless, how can the latter permit what the first forbade? His words imply that death and divorce permit what the first [husband] prohibited. Rebbi Jeremiah said, he said only death and divorce; therefore, not marriage.

Rebbi Yose the Galilean said: Do we find in the Torah that what is forbidden to one is permitted to the other and what is permitted to one is forbidden for the other? Forbidden to one she is forbidden to everybody;permitted to one is permitted to everybody. Rebbi Aqiba objected: If the one to whom she was prohibited was a Cohen and the divorcer died, would she not be considered a widow for him but a divorcee for all his clan of Cohanim? Where was the Torah more restrictive, for a divorcee or for a widow? The Torah was more restrictive for a divorcee than for a widow. But since a divorcee, where one is more restrictive in all aspects, does not become forbidden with respect to what was permitted by her divorce, would it be logical that the widow should be forbidden from what was permitted her from her aspect of married woman? Even him did the divorce touch. Since both a widow and a divorcee were forbidden even if her aspect of married woman was permitted, with restrictive divorce certainly she should be forbidden even in the aspect that was permitted by her divorce.

MISHNAH: The House of Shammai say, a person should not divorce his wife unless he found her immoral, as it was said: “For he found with her a matter of nakedness.” But the House of Hillel say, even if she spoiled his dish, as it was said: “For he found with her a bad thing.” Rebbi Aqiba said, even if he found another more beautiful than her, as it was said: “It will be if she does not appear pleasing in his eyes, etc.”

It is written: “And the unwell in her menstruation and the sufferer from gonorrhea in his flow.” The earlier Elders used to say, “she shall be in her menstruation”, she shall not use kohl nor any make-up until she comes into water. Rebbi Aqiba said to them: Is that a reason? If you say so, she makes herself ugly and he starts thinking to divorce her. It turns out that the Elders follow the House of Shammai and Rebbi Aqiba the House of Hillel.

It is written: “And the unwell in her menstruation and the sufferer from gonorrhea in his flow.” The earlier Elders used to say, “she shall be in her menstruation”, she shall not use kohl nor any make-up until she comes into water. Rebbi Aqiba said to them: Is that a reason? If you say so, she makes herself ugly and he starts thinking to divorce her. It turns out that the Elders follow the House of Shammai and Rebbi Aqiba the House of Hillel.

Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac asked: How can a ḥăruphah slave girl acquire her autonomy in such a way that she would be freed from flogging, and [free] the one who had intercourse with her from a reparation sacrifice? It is obvious that she cannot leave by a bill of divorce since Rebbi Ḥiyya said in Rebbi Joḥanan’s name: If a person who is half slave and half free entered a preliminary marriage, one does not consider his marriage. In parallel, if he divorced one does not consider his divorce. It is obvious that she can leave by a bill of divorce at least since (Rebbi Ḥiyya said in Rebbi Joḥanan’s name: If a person who is half slave and half free entered a preliminary marriage, one does not consider his marriage. In parallel, if he divorced one does not consider his divorce. It is obvious that she can leave by a bill of divorce at least). Rebbi Yose said in Rebbi Joḥanan’s name: Aquila the proselyte translated before Rebbi Aqiba “and she is a slave girl נֶחֱרֶפֶת to a man”, by “one who was pounded before a man”, as you say, “she spread morsels on it.” Rebbi Ḥiyya said in Rebbi Joḥanan’s name: So Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon explained it before the Sages. “And she is a slave girl נֶחֱרֶפֶת to a man”, by “one who was pounded before a man”, as you say, “in morsels by a pestle.”

Can she regain her autonomy through her master’s death or by the end of six [years]? What is the problem? Following Rebbi Aqiba? But Rebbi Aqiba said that the verse speaks about a woman half slave and half free engaged to be married by a free man. Therefore, his problem is following Rebbi Ismael, since Rebbi Ismael said that the verse speaks about a Canaanite slave girl married to a Hebrew slave, since this is marriage sanctioned by the Torah: “If his master give him a wife.” But his problem is whether she regains her autonomy through her master’s death or by the end of six [years] for him who says that the Hebrew slave does not serve the heir.

Can she regain her autonomy through her master’s death or by the end of six [years]? What is the problem? Following Rebbi Aqiba? But Rebbi Aqiba said that the verse speaks about a woman half slave and half free engaged to be married by a free man. Therefore, his problem is following Rebbi Ismael, since Rebbi Ismael said that the verse speaks about a Canaanite slave girl married to a Hebrew slave, since this is marriage sanctioned by the Torah: “If his master give him a wife.” But his problem is whether she regains her autonomy through her master’s death or by the end of six [years] for him who says that the Hebrew slave does not serve the heir.

HALAKHAH: “A Hebrew slave is acquired by money,” etc. It is written: “If your Hebrew brother or sister be sold to you,” he bracketed the male Hebrew with the female. Since the female Hebrew can be acquired by money or contract, also the male Hebrew can be acquired by money or contract. One understands money since it is written: “She leaves gratis, without money [due].” From where by contract? The female Hebrew is inferred from the free woman, and the male Hebrew from the female. This is a combination of inferences. That follows Rebbi Aqiba who accepts combination of inferences. Following Rebbi Ismael who rejects combination of inferences? It was found that Rebbi Ismael stated: In the case of the word חֻפְשָׁה, “free” is inferred from חֻפְשָׁה. Everywhere Rebbi Ismael rejects combination of inferences and here, he accepts combination of inferences? Rebbi Ismael stated it in the name of the Sages. From where is it derived for Rebbi Ismael? “Sending away, sending away.” Since “sending away” mentioned there means by a contract, also “sending away” here means by a contract. But it does not compare. There it is to gain autonomy, here it is to be acquired by others! Rebbi Mattaniah said, “sale, sale”. Since “sale” mentioned there means by a contract, “sale” here also means by a contract. But since there it is possible by possession, then here it should be possible by possession. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, the male Hebrew is like the female Hebrew.

“If he be not redeemed by these.” Rebbi Yose the Galilean says, by these to freedom, by all others to servitude. Rebbi Aqiba says, by these to servitude, by all others to freedom. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Both interpret the same verse: “Unless he be redeemed by these.” Rebbi Yose the Galilean interprets: “Unless he be redeemed by these” but by others he is made to serve before he leaves. Rebbi Aqiba interprets: “Unless he be redeemed by these”, by these he completes before he leaves. The words of the Sages? Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: In both cases to freedom. It was stated thus: “If his hand achieves,” his own hand. “Or he found for his redemption.” Since his own hand achieves for himself, what others achieve also is for himself.

“If he be not redeemed by these.” Rebbi Yose the Galilean says, by these to freedom, by all others to servitude. Rebbi Aqiba says, by these to servitude, by all others to freedom. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Both interpret the same verse: “Unless he be redeemed by these.” Rebbi Yose the Galilean interprets: “Unless he be redeemed by these” but by others he is made to serve before he leaves. Rebbi Aqiba interprets: “Unless he be redeemed by these”, by these he completes before he leaves. The words of the Sages? Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: In both cases to freedom. It was stated thus: “If his hand achieves,” his own hand. “Or he found for his redemption.” Since his own hand achieves for himself, what others achieve also is for himself.

Rebbi Jehudah ben Rebbi Abun preached: The earlobe was pierced, lest a Cohen become disqualified. Rebbi Meïr says, he was pierced at his cartilage. Therefore, Rebbi Meïr says that a Cohen cannot be pierced lest he become blemished and be disqualified for service. Could not the cartilage be pierced less than the size of a vetch seed? Maybe it would result in the size of a vetch seed. Let it be the size of a vetch! The Torah said, “he shall return to his inheritance,” as he was. He cannot be pierced unless he had a wife and children. “By an awl”. Not only an awl, from where even a buck-thorn, even a thorn, even glass? The verse says, “he pierces”. This follows Rebbi Aqiba.

There, we have stated: “Any real estate is subject to peah and first fruits, the words of Rebbi Aqiba.” What is the use of “any” real estate? Rebbi Mattaniah said, explain it if it had space for one stalk but a pearl was hidden in it.

HALAKHAH: “Any commandment the father has to fulfill towards his son,” etc. “To circumcise him, to redeem him, to teach him Torah, to teach him a trade, and to marry him to a wife. Rebbi Aqiba says, also to teach him to swim in water.” To circumcise him, “on the eighth day, he shall circumcise the flesh of his foreskin.” “To redeem him,” as is written: “Any firstborn human among your sons you shall redeem.” To teach him Torah, “you shall teach them to your sons.” To teach him a trade, Rebbi Ismael stated: “Choose life,” that is a trade. To marry him to a wife, “make it known to your children and grandchildren.” When do you have children and grandchildren: if you marry off your sons when young. Rebbi Aqiba says, also to swim in water. “That you shall live together with your descendants.” How is this? Is it a commandment or is it obligatory? Let us hear from the following: Bar Tarima came to Rebbi Immi and said to him, talk to my father that he should marry me to a woman. He talked to [the father], but the latter refused. That means it is a commandment, for if it were obligatory, he should have forced him. From where that if his father did not do these things for him, he is required to do them himself? The verse says a human you shall redeem”, “you shall circumcise” them, “you shall study them”, “you shall know” yourself, “that you shall live.”

HALAKHAH: “Any commandment the father has to fulfill towards his son,” etc. “To circumcise him, to redeem him, to teach him Torah, to teach him a trade, and to marry him to a wife. Rebbi Aqiba says, also to teach him to swim in water.” To circumcise him, “on the eighth day, he shall circumcise the flesh of his foreskin.” “To redeem him,” as is written: “Any firstborn human among your sons you shall redeem.” To teach him Torah, “you shall teach them to your sons.” To teach him a trade, Rebbi Ismael stated: “Choose life,” that is a trade. To marry him to a wife, “make it known to your children and grandchildren.” When do you have children and grandchildren: if you marry off your sons when young. Rebbi Aqiba says, also to swim in water. “That you shall live together with your descendants.” How is this? Is it a commandment or is it obligatory? Let us hear from the following: Bar Tarima came to Rebbi Immi and said to him, talk to my father that he should marry me to a woman. He talked to [the father], but the latter refused. That means it is a commandment, for if it were obligatory, he should have forced him. From where that if his father did not do these things for him, he is required to do them himself? The verse says a human you shall redeem”, “you shall circumcise” them, “you shall study them”, “you shall know” yourself, “that you shall live.”

Ben Azai preached: “A dead fly will permanently spoil perfumer’s oil.” Does not one dead fly spoil perfumer’s oil? And this person by one sin spoiled all merits he had. Rebbi Aqiba preached: “ So the abyss opened wide and its mouth swallowed the one without law.” It does not say “without laws”, but “without law”, him who has not a single merit that should help him on the scale of merit. That is, for the Future World. But in this world, even if 999 angels plead for his conviction and one angel pleads for his acquittal, the Holy One, praise to Him, lends His weight to the scale of merit. What is the reason? “If there is for him one angel out of a thousand, to tell a man his straightness. He will act with him in grace and say, let him be redeemed, not go down to destruction; I found weregilt.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, if you find a saying of Rebbi Eliezer, son of Rebbi Yose the Galilean, bend your ear like this funnel and listen, since Rebbi Joḥanan reported that Rebbi Eliezer, the son of Rebbi Yose the Galilean, said: Even if 999 angles plead for his conviction and one angel pleads for his acquittal, the Holy One, praise to Him, lends His weight to the scale of merit. Not only this entire angel, but if 999 aspects of that angel plead for conviction and one aspect for acquittal, the Holy One, praise to Him, lends His weight to the scale of merit. What is the reason? It does not say, “if there is for him one angel of a thousand,” but “one out of a thousand”, one aspect out of a thousand aspects of that angel. What is written afterwards? “He will act with him in grace and say, let him be hurt, not go down to destruction; I found weregilt.” “Let him be hurt,” by suffering. “I found weregilt,” he found means to redeem himself. That is, in this world. But in the Future World, if he has a majority of merits, he inherits paradise; a majority of sins, he inherits hell. If he was 50–50. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, “he carries his iniquity.” Rebbi Abbahu said, it is written: “He carries.” What does the Holy One, praise to Him, do? He grabs one of his demerits, and the merits decide. Rebbi Eleazar said: “You, Eternal, are acting in grace, for You will complete for everybody according to his deeds.” And if he has none, You will give him from Yours. That is Rebbi Eleazar’s opinion, for Rebbi Eleazar said, “You, Eternal, are acting in grace,” this teaches that He turns to the aspect of grace.

Some baraita implies that the agent of a person acts in his stead, and some baraita implies that the agent of a person does not act in his stead. “If he definitively will substitute, if he himself will dissolve.” We may hold that a person’s agent cannot act in his stead because Scripture excluded him. “He shall lean his hand,” not the hand of his son nor the hand of his slave nor the hand of his agent. We may hold that a person’s agent can act in his stead but [in this case] Scripture excluded him. “His master shall pierce his ear with an awl;” “his master” but not the latter’s son, “his master” but not the latter’s agent. We may hold that a person’s agent can act in his stead but Scripture excluded him. Some Tannaïm state: “He shall pierce”, to include the agent. This follows Rebbi Aqiba. Following Rebbi Ismael? “His master”, anybody acting on his master’s authority.

Rebbi Yannai said: More than 30 Elders voted: from where that qiddushin have no legal effect on a sister-in-law? The verse says, “the wife of the deceased may not belong to any outside unrelated man”, that she cannot have any existence with an outsider. Rebbi Joḥanan said to him, is that not a Mishnah? “Or after your levir will have performed ḥalîṣah with you, she is not preliminarily married.” And Rebbi Yannai praised him “those who pour out gold from the wallet,” “my son, they should not be removed from your eyes,” “get wise, my son, and make me happy, that I can answer those who insult me”, “give to the wise that he shall become wiser,” “let the wise listen that he increase in knowledge.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, after all these praises I can explain it following Rebbi Aqiba since Rebbi Aqiba said that there exists a bastard from a sister-in-law!

Rebbi Yannai said: More than 30 Elders voted: from where that qiddushin have no legal effect on a sister-in-law? The verse says, “the wife of the deceased may not belong to any outside unrelated man”, that she cannot have any existence with an outsider. Rebbi Joḥanan said to him, is that not a Mishnah? “Or after your levir will have performed ḥalîṣah with you, she is not preliminarily married.” And Rebbi Yannai praised him “those who pour out gold from the wallet,” “my son, they should not be removed from your eyes,” “get wise, my son, and make me happy, that I can answer those who insult me”, “give to the wise that he shall become wiser,” “let the wise listen that he increase in knowledge.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, after all these praises I can explain it following Rebbi Aqiba since Rebbi Aqiba said that there exists a bastard from a sister-in-law!

[In the opinion of Rebbi Jehudah, may a male bastard not marry a female bastard?] Let us hear from the following, as Rebbi Immi said, Rebbi Jacob from Gebal stated before Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Isaac bar Tevele in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Rebbi Jehudah stated that a male bastard should not marry a female bastard so that bastards should disappear from the world. Similarly, is an Ammonite man forbidden to marry an Ammonite woman? Was that needed for the rabbis? For if Rebbi Jehudah thought that this disqualified converts from any of the Eternal’s congregations, then [the Ammonite] could not marry an Ammonite woman since for her he would be of the Eternal’s congregation. He could not marry an Egyptian woman since for her he would be of the Eternal’s congregation. Rebbi Mattania said, one frees a slave girl and marries her to him. Similarly, could an Egyptian man not marry an Egyptian woman? Let us hear from the following, as Rebbi Abbahu stated before Rebbi Joḥanan: “Rebbi Jehudah said, Benjamin, an Egyptian convert, was a student of Rebbi Aqiba. He said, I am an Egyptian convert married to an Egyptian convert. My son is an Egyptian convert; I shall marry him to an Egyptian convert so that my grandson will be qualified to marry into the congregation. Rebbi Aqiba said to him, my son, it is not so. But you marry him to the daughter of an Egyptian woman convert so that there should be three generations on either side.”

[In the opinion of Rebbi Jehudah, may a male bastard not marry a female bastard?] Let us hear from the following, as Rebbi Immi said, Rebbi Jacob from Gebal stated before Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Isaac bar Tevele in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Rebbi Jehudah stated that a male bastard should not marry a female bastard so that bastards should disappear from the world. Similarly, is an Ammonite man forbidden to marry an Ammonite woman? Was that needed for the rabbis? For if Rebbi Jehudah thought that this disqualified converts from any of the Eternal’s congregations, then [the Ammonite] could not marry an Ammonite woman since for her he would be of the Eternal’s congregation. He could not marry an Egyptian woman since for her he would be of the Eternal’s congregation. Rebbi Mattania said, one frees a slave girl and marries her to him. Similarly, could an Egyptian man not marry an Egyptian woman? Let us hear from the following, as Rebbi Abbahu stated before Rebbi Joḥanan: “Rebbi Jehudah said, Benjamin, an Egyptian convert, was a student of Rebbi Aqiba. He said, I am an Egyptian convert married to an Egyptian convert. My son is an Egyptian convert; I shall marry him to an Egyptian convert so that my grandson will be qualified to marry into the congregation. Rebbi Aqiba said to him, my son, it is not so. But you marry him to the daughter of an Egyptian woman convert so that there should be three generations on either side.”

One objects from the Mishnah; sometimes one objects in support of Rebbi Joḥanan, sometimes one objects in support of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. “A person may eat once and be liable for four purification and one reparation sacrifices: An impure person who ate suet which was leftover sacrifice on the Day of Atonement. Rebbi Meïr said, if it was a Sabbath and he took it out on the Sabbath. They told him, it is not from that category.” When they objected in support of Rebbi Joḥanan: If he took it out on the Sabbath, there is no putting down. Why did they say, it is not from that category? When they objected in support of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Why is he not liable if he took it out on the Day of Atonement? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rebbi Meïr follows Rebbi Aqiba, as it was stated: From where that if one unintentionally worked on a Day of Atonement which fell on the Sabbath, he is liable for each one separately? The verse says, “it is Sabbath,” “it is the Day of Atonement.” Rebbi Ismael said, he is liable only once. If he took it out] on the Sabbath and put it down. Why did they say: “it is not from that category”? I would say in explanation that he ate it. Is eating not putting it down? Therefore, it is only reasonable that if he took it out on the Sabbath, he be liable. Then if he took it out [on the Day of Atonement why should he not be liable?

HALAKHAH: “A bull which gored a human,” etc. It was stated: “But the owner of the bull is free,” free from half the weregilt, the words of Rebbi Eliezer. Rebbi Aqiba said to him, Rabbi, is he not destined for the severity of the stoning place? He answered him, I said this only for one which intended to kill an animal but killed a human, etc. Before he objects to Rebbi Eliezer, should he not object to himself? Rebbi Miasha said, explain it if he transgressed and slaughtered it. But some want to say, from what we learn from Rebbi Eliezer who said, I said this only for one which intended to kill an animal but killed a human, a Gentile but killed an Israel, still birth but killed a viable [child], he is not liable. How does Rebbi Aqiba explain “the owner of the bull is free”’? Free from paying for a slave. Does not Rebbi Eliezer agree that he is free from paying for a slave? “If weregilt is imposed on him,” the verse speaks of the notorious. Does not Rebbi Aqiba agree that he is free from half the weregilt? It is said here, “the bull shall be stoned,” and it says there, “the bull shall be stoned.” Since about “the bull” mentioned there, the verse speaks of the notorious, so also about “the bull shall be stoned” mentioned here, the verse speaks of the notorious. But is it not written: “The bull by stoning shall be stoned”? It is better that “the bull shall be stoned” shall be interpreted following “the bull shall be stoned” rather than that “the bull shall be stoned” should be interpreted following “the bull by stoning shall be stoned”.

HALAKHAH: “A bull which gored a human,” etc. It was stated: “But the owner of the bull is free,” free from half the weregilt, the words of Rebbi Eliezer. Rebbi Aqiba said to him, Rabbi, is he not destined for the severity of the stoning place? He answered him, I said this only for one which intended to kill an animal but killed a human, etc. Before he objects to Rebbi Eliezer, should he not object to himself? Rebbi Miasha said, explain it if he transgressed and slaughtered it. But some want to say, from what we learn from Rebbi Eliezer who said, I said this only for one which intended to kill an animal but killed a human, a Gentile but killed an Israel, still birth but killed a viable [child], he is not liable. How does Rebbi Aqiba explain “the owner of the bull is free”’? Free from paying for a slave. Does not Rebbi Eliezer agree that he is free from paying for a slave? “If weregilt is imposed on him,” the verse speaks of the notorious. Does not Rebbi Aqiba agree that he is free from half the weregilt? It is said here, “the bull shall be stoned,” and it says there, “the bull shall be stoned.” Since about “the bull” mentioned there, the verse speaks of the notorious, so also about “the bull shall be stoned” mentioned here, the verse speaks of the notorious. But is it not written: “The bull by stoning shall be stoned”? It is better that “the bull shall be stoned” shall be interpreted following “the bull shall be stoned” rather than that “the bull shall be stoned” should be interpreted following “the bull by stoning shall be stoned”.

HALAKHAH: “A bull which gored a human,” etc. It was stated: “But the owner of the bull is free,” free from half the weregilt, the words of Rebbi Eliezer. Rebbi Aqiba said to him, Rabbi, is he not destined for the severity of the stoning place? He answered him, I said this only for one which intended to kill an animal but killed a human, etc. Before he objects to Rebbi Eliezer, should he not object to himself? Rebbi Miasha said, explain it if he transgressed and slaughtered it. But some want to say, from what we learn from Rebbi Eliezer who said, I said this only for one which intended to kill an animal but killed a human, a Gentile but killed an Israel, still birth but killed a viable [child], he is not liable. How does Rebbi Aqiba explain “the owner of the bull is free”’? Free from paying for a slave. Does not Rebbi Eliezer agree that he is free from paying for a slave? “If weregilt is imposed on him,” the verse speaks of the notorious. Does not Rebbi Aqiba agree that he is free from half the weregilt? It is said here, “the bull shall be stoned,” and it says there, “the bull shall be stoned.” Since about “the bull” mentioned there, the verse speaks of the notorious, so also about “the bull shall be stoned” mentioned here, the verse speaks of the notorious. But is it not written: “The bull by stoning shall be stoned”? It is better that “the bull shall be stoned” shall be interpreted following “the bull shall be stoned” rather than that “the bull shall be stoned” should be interpreted following “the bull by stoning shall be stoned”.

It was stated: “One does not estimate a bet kor because it would diminish, nor a bet qab because it would inflate. But one estimates a bet se’ah of the field in question, how much it was worth and how much is it worth now. Rebbi Jehudah said, when? If it ate shoots of the fig tree or plucked shoots of vines. But if it ate unripe grapes or unripe figs, one estimates them as fully grown fruits. Rebbi Jehudah said in the name of Rebbi Aqiba: If it ate fully grown produce, he pays for fully grown produce, [fruits of] trees, one estimates trees for him. Trees one estimates by the bet se’ah. Rebbi Simeon ben Jehudah said in the name of Rebbi Aqiba: Produce not yet one-third ripe is estimated under the rules of trees.” In the House of Rebbi Yannai they said, one estimates a three-qab in sixty three-qabs. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina said, one estimates a stalk in sixty stalks.

It was stated: “One does not estimate a bet kor because it would diminish, nor a bet qab because it would inflate. But one estimates a bet se’ah of the field in question, how much it was worth and how much is it worth now. Rebbi Jehudah said, when? If it ate shoots of the fig tree or plucked shoots of vines. But if it ate unripe grapes or unripe figs, one estimates them as fully grown fruits. Rebbi Jehudah said in the name of Rebbi Aqiba: If it ate fully grown produce, he pays for fully grown produce, [fruits of] trees, one estimates trees for him. Trees one estimates by the bet se’ah. Rebbi Simeon ben Jehudah said in the name of Rebbi Aqiba: Produce not yet one-third ripe is estimated under the rules of trees.” In the House of Rebbi Yannai they said, one estimates a three-qab in sixty three-qabs. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina said, one estimates a stalk in sixty stalks.

MISHNAH: If somebody starts a fire inside his property, how far does it have to spread? Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah says, one looks at it as if he started it at the center of a bet kor Rebbi Eliezer says, sixteen cubits like a public road; and Rebbi Aqiba says, 50 cubits; and Rebbi Simeon says “the person setting the fire shall certainly pay,” everything depends on the setting of the fire.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody starts a fire inside his property,” etc. “It happened that a fire crossed the Jordan, because it was a firestorm. How far may a fire spread? Rebbi Eliezer says sixteen cubits like a public road, if there is wind thirty cubits. Rebbi Jehudah says thirty cubits, if there is wind fifty cubits. Rebbi Aqiba says 50 cubits, if there is wind a hundred cubits. It happened in Arabia that a fire jumped more than three hundred cubits. When is this? If it jumps. But if there is wood or it burns continuously, he is liable even up to a mil. If it crossed a river or a pond eight cubits wide, he is not liable.”

MISHNAH: He who hits another pays him a tetradrachma; Rebbi Jehudah says in the name of Rebbi Yose the Galilean, a mina. If he slapped him, he pays 200 zuz, with the back of his hand he gives him 400 zuz. If he hurt him on his earlobe, tore out some of his hair, spat on him and the spit touched him, removed his stole, uncovered a woman’s hair, he pays 400 zuz; everything corresponding to his honor. Rebbi Aqiba said, even the poorest in Israel are treated as aristocrats who lost their property, for they are descendents of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. In a case where somebody uncovered a woman’s hair, she came before Rebbi Aqiba who obligated him to pay her 400 zuz. He said to him, Rabbi, give me some time, which he did. He watched her at the entrance of her courtyard and broke a flask before her which contained an as worth of oil. She uncovered her hair, splashed her hand with the oil and worked it onto her head. He had her observed by witnesses and came before Rebbi Aqiba, telling him, to such a one I have to give 400 zuz? He told him, you did not say anything since a person who injures himself, while he is not allowed to do that, is not liable, but others who injure him are liable; a person who cuts down his fruit trees, while he is not allowed to do that, is not liable, but others who cut down his fruit trees are.

MISHNAH: He who hits another pays him a tetradrachma; Rebbi Jehudah says in the name of Rebbi Yose the Galilean, a mina. If he slapped him, he pays 200 zuz, with the back of his hand he gives him 400 zuz. If he hurt him on his earlobe, tore out some of his hair, spat on him and the spit touched him, removed his stole, uncovered a woman’s hair, he pays 400 zuz; everything corresponding to his honor. Rebbi Aqiba said, even the poorest in Israel are treated as aristocrats who lost their property, for they are descendents of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. In a case where somebody uncovered a woman’s hair, she came before Rebbi Aqiba who obligated him to pay her 400 zuz. He said to him, Rabbi, give me some time, which he did. He watched her at the entrance of her courtyard and broke a flask before her which contained an as worth of oil. She uncovered her hair, splashed her hand with the oil and worked it onto her head. He had her observed by witnesses and came before Rebbi Aqiba, telling him, to such a one I have to give 400 zuz? He told him, you did not say anything since a person who injures himself, while he is not allowed to do that, is not liable, but others who injure him are liable; a person who cuts down his fruit trees, while he is not allowed to do that, is not liable, but others who cut down his fruit trees are.

MISHNAH: He who hits another pays him a tetradrachma; Rebbi Jehudah says in the name of Rebbi Yose the Galilean, a mina. If he slapped him, he pays 200 zuz, with the back of his hand he gives him 400 zuz. If he hurt him on his earlobe, tore out some of his hair, spat on him and the spit touched him, removed his stole, uncovered a woman’s hair, he pays 400 zuz; everything corresponding to his honor. Rebbi Aqiba said, even the poorest in Israel are treated as aristocrats who lost their property, for they are descendents of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. In a case where somebody uncovered a woman’s hair, she came before Rebbi Aqiba who obligated him to pay her 400 zuz. He said to him, Rabbi, give me some time, which he did. He watched her at the entrance of her courtyard and broke a flask before her which contained an as worth of oil. She uncovered her hair, splashed her hand with the oil and worked it onto her head. He had her observed by witnesses and came before Rebbi Aqiba, telling him, to such a one I have to give 400 zuz? He told him, you did not say anything since a person who injures himself, while he is not allowed to do that, is not liable, but others who injure him are liable; a person who cuts down his fruit trees, while he is not allowed to do that, is not liable, but others who cut down his fruit trees are.

HALAKHAH: “He who hits another pays him a tetradrachma.” “Rebbi Aqiba said, even the poorest in Israel,” etc. Rav Qarni stated: For a kick, one. For an elbow, three. For sqlvnqyt fifteen. Somebody said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: He who puts an Elder to shame has fully to pay for his shame. A person insulted Rebbi Jehudah ben Ḥanina. The case came before Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish who fined him a pound of gold.

HALAKHAH: “One who robbed from a proselyte,” etc. Ḥilfai and Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina said, this is Rebbi Yose the Galilean’s, as Rebbi Yose the Galiean explained: Of what does the verse speak? About one who robbed from a proselyte, swore to him, who then died, that he would pay the capital and the fifth to the priests and the reparation offering to the altar. “If the man have no relative,” he who needs atonement is obligated; this excludes the one who does not need atonement. Rebbi Aqiba explained when he came from Zephyrium: About one who robbed from a proselyte, swore to him, who then died, that he would pay the capital and the fifth to the priests and the reparation offering to the altar, as it is said: “If the man have no relative,” etc. The only person in Israel who has no relative is the proselyte. Rav and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it is Rebbi Aqiba’s who said that the wrongly acquired property has to be returned in any case.

HALAKHAH: “One who robbed from a proselyte,” etc. Ḥilfai and Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina said, this is Rebbi Yose the Galilean’s, as Rebbi Yose the Galiean explained: Of what does the verse speak? About one who robbed from a proselyte, swore to him, who then died, that he would pay the capital and the fifth to the priests and the reparation offering to the altar. “If the man have no relative,” he who needs atonement is obligated; this excludes the one who does not need atonement. Rebbi Aqiba explained when he came from Zephyrium: About one who robbed from a proselyte, swore to him, who then died, that he would pay the capital and the fifth to the priests and the reparation offering to the altar, as it is said: “If the man have no relative,” etc. The only person in Israel who has no relative is the proselyte. Rav and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it is Rebbi Aqiba’s who said that the wrongly acquired property has to be returned in any case.

MISHNAH: Anything which works and eats shall work and eat. What does not work but eats should be sold because it is said, “and return it to him,” plan to return it to him. What happens with the money? Rebbi Tarphon says, he may use it; therefore if it is lost he is liable for its alienation. Rebbi Aqiba says, he may not use it; therefore if it is lost he is not liable for its alienation.

MISHNAH: If a person appropriates a deposit, the House of Shammai say, he shall be hit by less or more, but the House of Hillel say, [at the price] at the time of delivery; Rebbi Aqiba says, at the time of claim. If somebody intends to take the deposit, the House of Shammai hold him liable but the House of Hillel say, he is liable only from the moment he takes it. How is this? If he tilted the amphora and took a quartarius, and then it broke, he pays only for a quartarius. If he lifted it and took a quartarius, and then it broke, he pays for all.

HALAKHAH: “If a person appropriates a deposit,” etc. So is the Mishnah: At the time of claim in court. Rav Jeremiah in the name of Rav: Practice follows Rebbi Aqiba. Even though the House of Hillel disagree with him? Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya: It happened that there was a case and Rebbi instructed following Rebbi Aqiba. Rav Hoshaia said, if there are no witnesses. But if there are witnesses, everybody agrees with Rebbi Aqiba’s position. There came a case before Rebbi Nasa and he instructed following Rebbi Aqiba.