aqiba

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.

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.

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.

HALAKHAH: “The following transgress prohibitions,” etc. “Rebbi Yose said, come and see how blind are the eyes of people who lend on interest. If a person calls another one idolator, or adulterer, or murderer, the other will want to destroy him. But this one pays witnesses and a scribe and tells them, come and testify that I negated the roots [of Judaism]. Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar said, they negate much more than the roots, for they declare the Torah false and Moses an idiot and say, if Moses had known how much we are earning, he would not have written it. Rebbi Aqiba says, interest is difficult since even a favor can be interest. If one told him to buy vegetables on the market for him, even though he gave him the money, this is interest. Rebbi Simeon said, interest is difficult since even greeting can be interest. If he never greeted him but because he took a loan from him he is quick to greet him, this is interest. In this sense, Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar used to say, about a person who has money and does not lend it on interest the verse says: ‘his money he did not lend on interest,’ etc. Rebbi Samuel bar Immi said, we would not know what this tottering was if Salomon had not come and explained: ‘to save those taken to death.’”

MISHNAH: One does not divide the courtyard unless there be four cubits for each one, nor the field unless there be nine qab for each one; Rebbi Jehudah says, nine half qabbim for each one. Not the vegetable garden unless there be half a qab for each one; Rebbi Aqiba says, the area of a quarter [qab]. Not the dining hall, nor the storage room, nor the dovecote, nor the stole, nor the bathhouse, nor the olive press unless there is one for each of them. This is the principle: Anything which is divided and retains its name one divides, otherwise one does not divide. When is that? If the two of them do not agree. However, if both of them want it, they may divide even if it is less. But Holy Scripture they should not divide even if both of them want it.

MISHNAH: One distances carcasses, and graves, and tanneries 50 cubits from the town, and one builds a tannery only to the East of a town. Rebbi Aqiba says, one may build in any direction except to the West, and distances himself by 50 cubits.

HALAKHAH: “One distances carcasses,” etc. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: To the place where one prepares the skins. In the House of Rebbi Yannai they said, up to the place where one might smell what he makes. It was stated so: “Rebbi Aqiba says, he may build it in any direction and distances himself, except to the West because that [wind] is frequent.” Rebbi Mana went to accompany a person afflicted with a skin disease. His father told him, do not walk to the East of him but rather to the West of him.

MISHNAH: Rebbi Ismael says, three months in the first and three months in the last with twelve months in the middle, for a total of eighteen months. Rebbi Aqiba says, one month in the first and one month in the last with twelve months in the middle, for a total of fourteen months. Rebbi Ismael said, when has this been said? A field of grain. But for an orchard, if he harvested his yield, lifted his olives, and collected his cut figs it counts for three years.

HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Ismael says, the first three months,” etc. Samuel said, these are the words of Rebbi Ismael and Rebbi Aqiba. But the Sages say, three years grain cutting, three years grape harvesting, three years olive harvesting. Rav said, these are the words of Rebbi Ismael and Rebbi Aqiba. But the Sages say, three years from day to day. Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: Just as they disagree here, so they disgree about Elijah’s years.

HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Ismael says, the first three months,” etc. Samuel said, these are the words of Rebbi Ismael and Rebbi Aqiba. But the Sages say, three years grain cutting, three years grape harvesting, three years olive harvesting. Rav said, these are the words of Rebbi Ismael and Rebbi Aqiba. But the Sages say, three years from day to day. Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: Just as they disagree here, so they disgree about Elijah’s years.

MISHNAH: Neither the cistern nor the cellar even though he wrote over to him “its bottom and height,” and he has to buy himself access, the words of Rebbi Aqiba, but the Sages say that he does not have to buy himself access. Rebbi Aqiba agrees that if he said “except these”, he does not have to buy himself access. 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.

MISHNAH: Neither the cistern nor the cellar even though he wrote over to him “its bottom and height,” and he has to buy himself access, the words of Rebbi Aqiba, but the Sages say that he does not have to buy himself access. Rebbi Aqiba agrees that if he said “except these”, he does not have to buy himself access. 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.

MISHNAH: Neither the cistern nor the cellar even though he wrote over to him “its bottom and height,” and he has to buy himself access, the words of Rebbi Aqiba, but the Sages say that he does not have to buy himself access. Rebbi Aqiba agrees that if he said “except these”, he does not have to buy himself access. 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.

HALAKHAH: “Neither the cistern,” etc. Then why did he write “its bottom and height”? That if he wants to dig down, he may dig down and if he wants to increase its height, he may increase its height. Rav Abba bar Rav Huna in the name of Rav: Practice follows Rebbi Aqiba in our version which is following the rabbis in Rebbi Ḥiyya’s version. Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rav Jeremiah in the name of Rav: Practice follows Rebbi Aqiba in Rebbi Ḥiyya’s version which is following the rabbis in the Babylonians’ version.

HALAKHAH: “Neither the cistern,” etc. Then why did he write “its bottom and height”? That if he wants to dig down, he may dig down and if he wants to increase its height, he may increase its height. Rav Abba bar Rav Huna in the name of Rav: Practice follows Rebbi Aqiba in our version which is following the rabbis in Rebbi Ḥiyya’s version. Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rav Jeremiah in the name of Rav: Practice follows Rebbi Aqiba in Rebbi Ḥiyya’s version which is following the rabbis in the Babylonians’ version.

There, they said: Admon and Rebbi Aqiba. Rebbi La said, they disagree when nothing was specified. 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 specified. Then Rebbi Aqiba said, he does not have to buy access, but the rabbis say, he does have to buy access.

There, they said: Admon and Rebbi Aqiba. Rebbi La said, they disagree when nothing was specified. 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 specified. Then Rebbi Aqiba said, he does not have to buy access, but the rabbis say, he does have to buy access.

MISHNAH: He who sells a field sold the stones which are needed for it, and the posts in a vineyard which are needed for it, and grain standing on the ground, and a reed fence taking up less than a bet rova‘, and a watchman’s hut not made with mortar, and a carob tree not yet grafted, and a virgin sycamore tree. But he sold neither the stones which are not needed for it, nor the posts in a vineyard which are not needed for it, nor grain harvested from the ground. But if he said to him, “it and all it contains,” all is sold. In no case did he sell either a reed fence taking up more than a bet rova‘, or a watchman’s hut made with mortar, or a grafted carob tree, or an anvil sycamore tree. Neither the cistern, nor the wine press, nor a dovecote whether deserted or intact; and he has to buy himself access, the words of Rebbi Aqiba; but the Sages say that he does not not have to buy himself access. Rebbi Aqiba agrees that if he said “except these”, he does not not have to buy himself access. If he sold them to another person, Rebbi Aqiba said, he does not have to buy access, but the Sages say, he does have to buy access. When has this been said? For the seller. But one who gives a gift, gives everything. Brothers who divided [an inheritance]: if one acquired a field he acquired everything. Somebody taking possession of a proselyte’s property: if he took possession of a field, he took possession of everything. If somebody dedicated a field to the Temple, he dedicated everything; Rebbi Simeon says that he who dedicated a field to the Temple only dedicated a grafted carob tree and an anvil sycamore tree.

MISHNAH: He who sells a field sold the stones which are needed for it, and the posts in a vineyard which are needed for it, and grain standing on the ground, and a reed fence taking up less than a bet rova‘, and a watchman’s hut not made with mortar, and a carob tree not yet grafted, and a virgin sycamore tree. But he sold neither the stones which are not needed for it, nor the posts in a vineyard which are not needed for it, nor grain harvested from the ground. But if he said to him, “it and all it contains,” all is sold. In no case did he sell either a reed fence taking up more than a bet rova‘, or a watchman’s hut made with mortar, or a grafted carob tree, or an anvil sycamore tree. Neither the cistern, nor the wine press, nor a dovecote whether deserted or intact; and he has to buy himself access, the words of Rebbi Aqiba; but the Sages say that he does not not have to buy himself access. Rebbi Aqiba agrees that if he said “except these”, he does not not have to buy himself access. If he sold them to another person, Rebbi Aqiba said, he does not have to buy access, but the Sages say, he does have to buy access. When has this been said? For the seller. But one who gives a gift, gives everything. Brothers who divided [an inheritance]: if one acquired a field he acquired everything. Somebody taking possession of a proselyte’s property: if he took possession of a field, he took possession of everything. If somebody dedicated a field to the Temple, he dedicated everything; Rebbi Simeon says that he who dedicated a field to the Temple only dedicated a grafted carob tree and an anvil sycamore tree.

MISHNAH: He who sells a field sold the stones which are needed for it, and the posts in a vineyard which are needed for it, and grain standing on the ground, and a reed fence taking up less than a bet rova‘, and a watchman’s hut not made with mortar, and a carob tree not yet grafted, and a virgin sycamore tree. But he sold neither the stones which are not needed for it, nor the posts in a vineyard which are not needed for it, nor grain harvested from the ground. But if he said to him, “it and all it contains,” all is sold. In no case did he sell either a reed fence taking up more than a bet rova‘, or a watchman’s hut made with mortar, or a grafted carob tree, or an anvil sycamore tree. Neither the cistern, nor the wine press, nor a dovecote whether deserted or intact; and he has to buy himself access, the words of Rebbi Aqiba; but the Sages say that he does not not have to buy himself access. Rebbi Aqiba agrees that if he said “except these”, he does not not have to buy himself access. If he sold them to another person, Rebbi Aqiba said, he does not have to buy access, but the Sages say, he does have to buy access. When has this been said? For the seller. But one who gives a gift, gives everything. Brothers who divided [an inheritance]: if one acquired a field he acquired everything. Somebody taking possession of a proselyte’s property: if he took possession of a field, he took possession of everything. If somebody dedicated a field to the Temple, he dedicated everything; Rebbi Simeon says that he who dedicated a field to the Temple only dedicated a grafted carob tree and an anvil sycamore tree.

Rebbi Tanḥum from Kefar Gun in the name of Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose: Four. One collects grasses from everywhere on condition that one not uproot. And one relieves himself behind a wall. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Tanḥum: Up to a place where he lets wind and is not heard. And one grazes in forests, even the tribe of Jehudah in the tribe of Naftali, and one gives Naftali an entire region South of the lake, as it is said, “lake and South of it he inherits,” the words of Rebbi Yose the Galilean. Rebbi Aqiba says, “lake” is Lake Samokhonites, “and South” is Lake Tiberias. And one may step to one side. Rav Jehudah in the name of Rav: Even into a field full of saffron. How? Does one have to pay or not? Since Rav Jehudah said, even into a field full of saffron, that means, one pays. Rebbi La said, since Rav Jehudah said, even into a field full of saffron, that means, one does not pay. But one cannot deviate more than necessary. Let us hear from the following: Rabban Gamliel and Rebbi Joshua were on the road [and stepped aside because of obstacles on the road] when they saw Jehudah ben Pappos, who was sinking, coming towards them. Rabban Gamliël said to Rebbi Joshua: Who is this one who makes an exhibition of himself? He answered: This is Jehudah ben Pappos, all whose deeds are done for Heaven’s sake.

MISHNAH: If somebody sells a plot to another to build a house, or he contracts to build him a wedding building for his son, a widow’s seat for his daughter, builds four by six cubits, the words of Rebbi Aqiba. Rebbi Ismael says, this is a cowshed. If one wants to build a cowshed, he builds four by six cubits, a small room six by eight, a large one eight by ten, a dining hall ten by ten, and its height equal to half its length and width; the reason is the Temple and its walls. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, a building like the Temple?

MISHNAH: “I am selling you a bet kor of dust measured by the surveyor’s measuring tape,” if a little bit be missing, he deducts, if it be a little more, he has to refund. If he said “more or less,” even if it was deficient by a quarter [qab] per se’ah or redundant by a quarter [qab] per se’ah, he received it. For more than that one makes a computation. What does he return? Money. But if he agreed, he returns land to him. Then why did they say, he returns money to him? To empower the seller, for if this one retained for himself a space for nine qab, or in a vegetable garden the space for half a qab (or following Rebbi Aqiba a bet rova‘) he returns land to him. Not only the quarter [qab] he has to return but all the excess.

There, we have stated: “Rebbi Aqiba says, any real estate …” Rebbi Mattaniah said, explain it if it had space for one stalk but a pearl was hidden in it.

HALAKHAH: “If the house collapsed on him and his father,” etc. Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, this implies that Ben Azzai was a colleague and student of Rebbi Aqiba.

HALAKHAH: “A simple document has two witnesses,” etc. It was stated: “Zuzin which are” and the rest was erased. Five, but the other says, they were only two. There, they say, Ben Azzai and Rebbi Aqiba. One of them said, he pays two and swears about the remainder. But the other said, since if this one had not agreed to anything, the other could only have collected two, he should only have to swear on what he conceded.

When a person came to Rebbi Aqiba to have a suit decided before him, he told him: “You should know before Whom you are standing, before Him Who commanded and the world came into existence, as it is said: The two people who are quarrelling shall stand before the Eternal, not before Aqiba ben Joseph.”

When a person came to Rebbi Aqiba to have a suit decided before him, he told him: “You should know before Whom you are standing, before Him Who commanded and the world came into existence, as it is said: The two people who are quarrelling shall stand before the Eternal, not before Aqiba ben Joseph.”

MISHNAH: Whipping by three [judges]; in the name of Rebbi Ismael they said, by 23. The lengthening of a month by three [judges], the intercalation of a year by three [judges], the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, one starts with three, one discusses with five, and one votes with seven. But if they voted with three, it is intercalated. The leaning of Elders and the breaking of the calf’s neck by three [judges], the words of Rebbi Simeon, but Rebbi Jehudah says, by five. Ḥalîṣah and repudiations by three [judges], [redemption of] the growth of the fourth year and Second Tithe whose value is not known by three [appraisers], also of Temple dedications by three. Estimations of movables by three [appraisers], Rebbi Jehudah says that one of them must be a Cohen; of real estate nine and a Cohen. The same holds for humans. Capital crimes [are judged] by 23. The participants in active or passive bestiality [is judged] by 23, as it is said, you shall slay the woman and the animal, and it says, and you shall slay the animal. The bull to be stoned [is judged] by 23, as it is said, the bull shall be stoned, also its owner shall die; like the owner’s death sentence so is the ox’s death sentence. The wolf and the lion, the bear, and the tiger, and the panther, and the snake are sentenced to death by 23. Rebbi Eliezer says, anyone quick to kill them is meritorious; Rebbi Aqiba says, they are sentenced by 23.

“When they sanctified the year at Usha, on the first day Rebbi Ismael, the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa, 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 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 Zeˋira in the name of Rav Ḥisda: That year was disorganized. What is “on the first, on the second”? Rav Abba in the name of Rav: The first year, the second year! But was it not stated: the first day, the second day?

Rebbi Abba said, in earlier times, every one was ordinating his students; for example Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai ordained Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Joshua, Rebbi Joshua Rebbi Aqiba, and Rebbi Aqiba Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon. He said, Rebbi Meïr shall preside; the face of Rebbi Simeon became yellow. Rebbi Aqiba told him, it is enough that I and your Creator recognize your power. They changed and honored this dynasty, saying: If a court ordained without the consent of the Patriarch, their ordination is no ordination, but if the Patriarch ordained without consent of the court, his ordination is ordination. They changed again and instituted that neither shall the Court ordain without consent of the Patriarch, nor the Patriarch without consent of the Court.

Rebbi Abba said, in earlier times, every one was ordinating his students; for example Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai ordained Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Joshua, Rebbi Joshua Rebbi Aqiba, and Rebbi Aqiba Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon. He said, Rebbi Meïr shall preside; the face of Rebbi Simeon became yellow. Rebbi Aqiba told him, it is enough that I and your Creator recognize your power. They changed and honored this dynasty, saying: If a court ordained without the consent of the Patriarch, their ordination is no ordination, but if the Patriarch ordained without consent of the court, his ordination is ordination. They changed again and instituted that neither shall the Court ordain without consent of the Patriarch, nor the Patriarch without consent of the Court.

Rebbi Abba said, in earlier times, every one was ordinating his students; for example Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai ordained Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Joshua, Rebbi Joshua Rebbi Aqiba, and Rebbi Aqiba Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon. He said, Rebbi Meïr shall preside; the face of Rebbi Simeon became yellow. Rebbi Aqiba told him, it is enough that I and your Creator recognize your power. They changed and honored this dynasty, saying: If a court ordained without the consent of the Patriarch, their ordination is no ordination, but if the Patriarch ordained without consent of the court, his ordination is ordination. They changed again and instituted that neither shall the Court ordain without consent of the Patriarch, nor the Patriarch without consent of the Court.

MISHNAH: The following are the relatives: His brother, his father’s brother and his mother’s brother, his sister’s husband, his father’s sister’s husband and his mother’s sister’s husband, his father-in-law, and his brother-in-law; these, their sons and sons-in-law, but his steps alone. Rebbi Yose said, this is Rebbi Aqiba’s teaching; but the original Mishnah was: His uncle and his uncle’s son, and anybody in line to inherit from him, and any related to him at that moment. If he had been related but became unrelated, he is qualified. Rebbi Jehudah says, even if his daughter had died but he had children from him, he remains a relative.

So far according to Rebbi Aqiba.

Rebbi Yose said, it was necessary that his aunt be mentioned separately, to exclude his mother’s brother’s wife. What is the reason? It is said here his aunt, and it is said there, either his uncle or his uncle’s son shall freehim. Since by his uncle mentioned there, the verse understands his father’s paternal brother, also by his aunt mentioned here, the verse speaks of his father’s paternal brother’s wife. Also his brother’s wife can be inferred from his aunt. Since by his aunt mentioned there, the verse speaks of his father’s paternal brother’s wife, also by his brother’s wife mentioned here, the verse speaks of his paternal brother’s wife. So far following Rebbi Aqiba. Following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Ismael stated: It is said here his brother’s wife and it is said there, a man who would take his brother’s wife, she is niddah. Since a menstruating woman will be permitted after being forbidden, also his [paternal] brother’s wife may be permitted [after being forbidden.] This excludes his maternal brother’s wife, who cannot be permitted after being forbidden.

There, we have stated: Rebbi Jehudah says, if his mother was not fit for his father, he is liable only for one [sacrifice]. Therefore, if his mother was fit for his father, he is liable for two. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: There is no difference. Whether his mother was fit for his father or unfit for his father, he is liable only once. The reason of Rebbi Joḥanan: Your mother is she, you find him guilty because of his mother; this directs the entire chapter towards his mother. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Zeˋira: What caused Rebbi Joḥanan to concentrate on the mother and to leave the father’s wife aside? He told him, for he argues with Rebbi Ismael, as Rebbi Ismael explained: Your father’s wife’s nakedness; the verse refers to the male. Is not his father included in the category of the male? Only to make him liable twice, as we have stated: A person having sexual relations with his father is doubly liable about him. Then should we not state “thirty-seven extirpations in the Torah”? Rebbi Mana said, all denotations of males are one. Your father’s wife’s nakedness; the verse refers to the father’s wife. Your mother’s nakedness, that is his mother who is his father’s wife. From where his mother who is not his father’s wife? Your mother is she; do not uncover her nakedness. How does Rebbi Ismael treat this? He explains it to apply after [the father’s] death. Does Rebbi Aqiba not explain she is your father’s nakedness? There is no difference whether during lifetime or after death. Rebbi Aqiba explains: Your father’s wife’s nakedness, the verse refers to the father’s wife. Your mother’s nakedness, that is his mother who is his father’s wife. From where his mother who is not his father’s wife? Your mother is she; do not uncover her nakedness. How does Rebbi Ismael treat this? He explains it to apply after [the father’s] death. Does not Rebbi Aqiba treat your father’s nakedness, your mother’s nakedness? Since your father refers to your father in any capacity both for punishment and warning, so also your mother refers to one’s mother in any capacity both for punishment and warning. Is it not reasonable to explain that verse except following Rebbi Jehudah who because he does not accept “his mother who is his father’s wife” must explain that your father’s nakedness, your mother’s nakedness refers to your father in any capacity both for punishment and warning, so also your mother refers to your mother in any capacity both for punishment and warning. Rebbi Zeˋira said, this implies that one infers from parallel language even if it is free only from one side. Rebbi Yudan said to him, this is obvious for Rebbi Aqiba since Rebbi Aqiba infers from parallel language even if it is not free.

There, we have stated: Rebbi Jehudah says, if his mother was not fit for his father, he is liable only for one [sacrifice]. Therefore, if his mother was fit for his father, he is liable for two. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: There is no difference. Whether his mother was fit for his father or unfit for his father, he is liable only once. The reason of Rebbi Joḥanan: Your mother is she, you find him guilty because of his mother; this directs the entire chapter towards his mother. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Zeˋira: What caused Rebbi Joḥanan to concentrate on the mother and to leave the father’s wife aside? He told him, for he argues with Rebbi Ismael, as Rebbi Ismael explained: Your father’s wife’s nakedness; the verse refers to the male. Is not his father included in the category of the male? Only to make him liable twice, as we have stated: A person having sexual relations with his father is doubly liable about him. Then should we not state “thirty-seven extirpations in the Torah”? Rebbi Mana said, all denotations of males are one. Your father’s wife’s nakedness; the verse refers to the father’s wife. Your mother’s nakedness, that is his mother who is his father’s wife. From where his mother who is not his father’s wife? Your mother is she; do not uncover her nakedness. How does Rebbi Ismael treat this? He explains it to apply after [the father’s] death. Does Rebbi Aqiba not explain she is your father’s nakedness? There is no difference whether during lifetime or after death. Rebbi Aqiba explains: Your father’s wife’s nakedness, the verse refers to the father’s wife. Your mother’s nakedness, that is his mother who is his father’s wife. From where his mother who is not his father’s wife? Your mother is she; do not uncover her nakedness. How does Rebbi Ismael treat this? He explains it to apply after [the father’s] death. Does not Rebbi Aqiba treat your father’s nakedness, your mother’s nakedness? Since your father refers to your father in any capacity both for punishment and warning, so also your mother refers to one’s mother in any capacity both for punishment and warning. Is it not reasonable to explain that verse except following Rebbi Jehudah who because he does not accept “his mother who is his father’s wife” must explain that your father’s nakedness, your mother’s nakedness refers to your father in any capacity both for punishment and warning, so also your mother refers to your mother in any capacity both for punishment and warning. Rebbi Zeˋira said, this implies that one infers from parallel language even if it is free only from one side. Rebbi Yudan said to him, this is obvious for Rebbi Aqiba since Rebbi Aqiba infers from parallel language even if it is not free.

There, we have stated: Rebbi Jehudah says, if his mother was not fit for his father, he is liable only for one [sacrifice]. Therefore, if his mother was fit for his father, he is liable for two. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: There is no difference. Whether his mother was fit for his father or unfit for his father, he is liable only once. The reason of Rebbi Joḥanan: Your mother is she, you find him guilty because of his mother; this directs the entire chapter towards his mother. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Zeˋira: What caused Rebbi Joḥanan to concentrate on the mother and to leave the father’s wife aside? He told him, for he argues with Rebbi Ismael, as Rebbi Ismael explained: Your father’s wife’s nakedness; the verse refers to the male. Is not his father included in the category of the male? Only to make him liable twice, as we have stated: A person having sexual relations with his father is doubly liable about him. Then should we not state “thirty-seven extirpations in the Torah”? Rebbi Mana said, all denotations of males are one. Your father’s wife’s nakedness; the verse refers to the father’s wife. Your mother’s nakedness, that is his mother who is his father’s wife. From where his mother who is not his father’s wife? Your mother is she; do not uncover her nakedness. How does Rebbi Ismael treat this? He explains it to apply after [the father’s] death. Does Rebbi Aqiba not explain she is your father’s nakedness? There is no difference whether during lifetime or after death. Rebbi Aqiba explains: Your father’s wife’s nakedness, the verse refers to the father’s wife. Your mother’s nakedness, that is his mother who is his father’s wife. From where his mother who is not his father’s wife? Your mother is she; do not uncover her nakedness. How does Rebbi Ismael treat this? He explains it to apply after [the father’s] death. Does not Rebbi Aqiba treat your father’s nakedness, your mother’s nakedness? Since your father refers to your father in any capacity both for punishment and warning, so also your mother refers to one’s mother in any capacity both for punishment and warning. Is it not reasonable to explain that verse except following Rebbi Jehudah who because he does not accept “his mother who is his father’s wife” must explain that your father’s nakedness, your mother’s nakedness refers to your father in any capacity both for punishment and warning, so also your mother refers to your mother in any capacity both for punishment and warning. Rebbi Zeˋira said, this implies that one infers from parallel language even if it is free only from one side. Rebbi Yudan said to him, this is obvious for Rebbi Aqiba since Rebbi Aqiba infers from parallel language even if it is not free.

There, we have stated: Rebbi Jehudah says, if his mother was not fit for his father, he is liable only for one [sacrifice]. Therefore, if his mother was fit for his father, he is liable for two. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: There is no difference. Whether his mother was fit for his father or unfit for his father, he is liable only once. The reason of Rebbi Joḥanan: Your mother is she, you find him guilty because of his mother; this directs the entire chapter towards his mother. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Zeˋira: What caused Rebbi Joḥanan to concentrate on the mother and to leave the father’s wife aside? He told him, for he argues with Rebbi Ismael, as Rebbi Ismael explained: Your father’s wife’s nakedness; the verse refers to the male. Is not his father included in the category of the male? Only to make him liable twice, as we have stated: A person having sexual relations with his father is doubly liable about him. Then should we not state “thirty-seven extirpations in the Torah”? Rebbi Mana said, all denotations of males are one. Your father’s wife’s nakedness; the verse refers to the father’s wife. Your mother’s nakedness, that is his mother who is his father’s wife. From where his mother who is not his father’s wife? Your mother is she; do not uncover her nakedness. How does Rebbi Ismael treat this? He explains it to apply after [the father’s] death. Does Rebbi Aqiba not explain she is your father’s nakedness? There is no difference whether during lifetime or after death. Rebbi Aqiba explains: Your father’s wife’s nakedness, the verse refers to the father’s wife. Your mother’s nakedness, that is his mother who is his father’s wife. From where his mother who is not his father’s wife? Your mother is she; do not uncover her nakedness. How does Rebbi Ismael treat this? He explains it to apply after [the father’s] death. Does not Rebbi Aqiba treat your father’s nakedness, your mother’s nakedness? Since your father refers to your father in any capacity both for punishment and warning, so also your mother refers to one’s mother in any capacity both for punishment and warning. Is it not reasonable to explain that verse except following Rebbi Jehudah who because he does not accept “his mother who is his father’s wife” must explain that your father’s nakedness, your mother’s nakedness refers to your father in any capacity both for punishment and warning, so also your mother refers to your mother in any capacity both for punishment and warning. Rebbi Zeˋira said, this implies that one infers from parallel language even if it is free only from one side. Rebbi Yudan said to him, this is obvious for Rebbi Aqiba since Rebbi Aqiba infers from parallel language even if it is not free.

There, we have stated: Rebbi Jehudah says, if his mother was not fit for his father, he is liable only for one [sacrifice]. Therefore, if his mother was fit for his father, he is liable for two. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: There is no difference. Whether his mother was fit for his father or unfit for his father, he is liable only once. The reason of Rebbi Joḥanan: Your mother is she, you find him guilty because of his mother; this directs the entire chapter towards his mother. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Zeˋira: What caused Rebbi Joḥanan to concentrate on the mother and to leave the father’s wife aside? He told him, for he argues with Rebbi Ismael, as Rebbi Ismael explained: Your father’s wife’s nakedness; the verse refers to the male. Is not his father included in the category of the male? Only to make him liable twice, as we have stated: A person having sexual relations with his father is doubly liable about him. Then should we not state “thirty-seven extirpations in the Torah”? Rebbi Mana said, all denotations of males are one. Your father’s wife’s nakedness; the verse refers to the father’s wife. Your mother’s nakedness, that is his mother who is his father’s wife. From where his mother who is not his father’s wife? Your mother is she; do not uncover her nakedness. How does Rebbi Ismael treat this? He explains it to apply after [the father’s] death. Does Rebbi Aqiba not explain she is your father’s nakedness? There is no difference whether during lifetime or after death. Rebbi Aqiba explains: Your father’s wife’s nakedness, the verse refers to the father’s wife. Your mother’s nakedness, that is his mother who is his father’s wife. From where his mother who is not his father’s wife? Your mother is she; do not uncover her nakedness. How does Rebbi Ismael treat this? He explains it to apply after [the father’s] death. Does not Rebbi Aqiba treat your father’s nakedness, your mother’s nakedness? Since your father refers to your father in any capacity both for punishment and warning, so also your mother refers to one’s mother in any capacity both for punishment and warning. Is it not reasonable to explain that verse except following Rebbi Jehudah who because he does not accept “his mother who is his father’s wife” must explain that your father’s nakedness, your mother’s nakedness refers to your father in any capacity both for punishment and warning, so also your mother refers to your mother in any capacity both for punishment and warning. Rebbi Zeˋira said, this implies that one infers from parallel language even if it is free only from one side. Rebbi Yudan said to him, this is obvious for Rebbi Aqiba since Rebbi Aqiba infers from parallel language even if it is not free.

HALAKHAH: “A man who had sexual relations with a male.” From where the warning for a person having sexual relations with a male? With a male you shall not sleep in women’s ways. From where extirpation? For anybody who would commit any of these abominations will be extirpated, etc. Punishment from where? A man who would sleep with a male in women’s ways, an abomination did both of them commit; they shall be put to death; their blood be on them. You learn their blood be on them from their blood be on them. That is for the active one. For the passive one from where? With a male you shall not sleep in women’s ways, read: to be slept with. So far following Rebbi Aqiba. Following Rebbi Ismael? There shall be no qadeš among the sons of Israel. From where extirpation for the passive homosexual following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Abbahu. It says here qadeš and it says there, also a qadeš was in the land. You learn qadeš from qadeš and qadeš from abomination. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: Abomination from abomination. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, a baraita states this: Both committed an abomination. Both are stoned, both are subject to warning, both by extirpation.

From where the warning for a person having sexual relations with an animal? Do not give your emission into an animal to defile yourself by it. From where extirpation? For anybody who would commit any of these abominations will be extirpated, etc. Punishment from where? A man who would sleep with a animal shall be put to death. You infer their blood be on them from their blood be on them. So far following Rebbi Aqiba. Following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Ismael from his source and Rebbi Aqiba from his source. Extirpation for a male passive partner is not found for Rebbi Ismael. Punishment for a male passive partner is not found for Rebbi Ismael or Rebbi Aqiba, but it is written: One who sacrifices to the forces of nature shall be banned. Since this one is in for stoning and extirpation, also that one is in for stoning and extirpation. What is the difference between them? If one had active homosexual relations followed by passive ones, in Rebbi Ismael’s opinion he is liable only once; in Rebbi Aqiba’s opinion he is liable twice. If one had active relations with an animal followed by passive ones. Both in Rebbi Aqiba’s as in Rebbi Ismael’s opinions he is liable twice. If he had active homosexual relations with both a male and an animal he is liable twice. If he had passive homosexual relations with both a male and an animal he is liable twice. If he had simultaneous active sexual relations with two males, since both of them became guilty because of him, he is liable twice. If he had simultaneous passive sexual relations with two males, since both of them became guilty because of him, he is liable twice. It was stated: For males, an underage boy does not have the status of an adult; a young animal has the status of a fully grown one. Rebbi Eleazar said, he cannot become liable because of it unless it be three years and one day of age.

From where the warning for a person having sexual relations with an animal? Do not give your emission into an animal to defile yourself by it. From where extirpation? For anybody who would commit any of these abominations will be extirpated, etc. Punishment from where? A man who would sleep with a animal shall be put to death. You infer their blood be on them from their blood be on them. So far following Rebbi Aqiba. Following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Ismael from his source and Rebbi Aqiba from his source. Extirpation for a male passive partner is not found for Rebbi Ismael. Punishment for a male passive partner is not found for Rebbi Ismael or Rebbi Aqiba, but it is written: One who sacrifices to the forces of nature shall be banned. Since this one is in for stoning and extirpation, also that one is in for stoning and extirpation. What is the difference between them? If one had active homosexual relations followed by passive ones, in Rebbi Ismael’s opinion he is liable only once; in Rebbi Aqiba’s opinion he is liable twice. If one had active relations with an animal followed by passive ones. Both in Rebbi Aqiba’s as in Rebbi Ismael’s opinions he is liable twice. If he had active homosexual relations with both a male and an animal he is liable twice. If he had passive homosexual relations with both a male and an animal he is liable twice. If he had simultaneous active sexual relations with two males, since both of them became guilty because of him, he is liable twice. If he had simultaneous passive sexual relations with two males, since both of them became guilty because of him, he is liable twice. It was stated: For males, an underage boy does not have the status of an adult; a young animal has the status of a fully grown one. Rebbi Eleazar said, he cannot become liable because of it unless it be three years and one day of age.

From where the warning for a person having sexual relations with an animal? Do not give your emission into an animal to defile yourself by it. From where extirpation? For anybody who would commit any of these abominations will be extirpated, etc. Punishment from where? A man who would sleep with a animal shall be put to death. You infer their blood be on them from their blood be on them. So far following Rebbi Aqiba. Following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Ismael from his source and Rebbi Aqiba from his source. Extirpation for a male passive partner is not found for Rebbi Ismael. Punishment for a male passive partner is not found for Rebbi Ismael or Rebbi Aqiba, but it is written: One who sacrifices to the forces of nature shall be banned. Since this one is in for stoning and extirpation, also that one is in for stoning and extirpation. What is the difference between them? If one had active homosexual relations followed by passive ones, in Rebbi Ismael’s opinion he is liable only once; in Rebbi Aqiba’s opinion he is liable twice. If one had active relations with an animal followed by passive ones. Both in Rebbi Aqiba’s as in Rebbi Ismael’s opinions he is liable twice. If he had active homosexual relations with both a male and an animal he is liable twice. If he had passive homosexual relations with both a male and an animal he is liable twice. If he had simultaneous active sexual relations with two males, since both of them became guilty because of him, he is liable twice. If he had simultaneous passive sexual relations with two males, since both of them became guilty because of him, he is liable twice. It was stated: For males, an underage boy does not have the status of an adult; a young animal has the status of a fully grown one. Rebbi Eleazar said, he cannot become liable because of it unless it be three years and one day of age.

From where the warning for a person having sexual relations with an animal? Do not give your emission into an animal to defile yourself by it. From where extirpation? For anybody who would commit any of these abominations will be extirpated, etc. Punishment from where? A man who would sleep with a animal shall be put to death. You infer their blood be on them from their blood be on them. So far following Rebbi Aqiba. Following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Ismael from his source and Rebbi Aqiba from his source. Extirpation for a male passive partner is not found for Rebbi Ismael. Punishment for a male passive partner is not found for Rebbi Ismael or Rebbi Aqiba, but it is written: One who sacrifices to the forces of nature shall be banned. Since this one is in for stoning and extirpation, also that one is in for stoning and extirpation. What is the difference between them? If one had active homosexual relations followed by passive ones, in Rebbi Ismael’s opinion he is liable only once; in Rebbi Aqiba’s opinion he is liable twice. If one had active relations with an animal followed by passive ones. Both in Rebbi Aqiba’s as in Rebbi Ismael’s opinions he is liable twice. If he had active homosexual relations with both a male and an animal he is liable twice. If he had passive homosexual relations with both a male and an animal he is liable twice. If he had simultaneous active sexual relations with two males, since both of them became guilty because of him, he is liable twice. If he had simultaneous passive sexual relations with two males, since both of them became guilty because of him, he is liable twice. It was stated: For males, an underage boy does not have the status of an adult; a young animal has the status of a fully grown one. Rebbi Eleazar said, he cannot become liable because of it unless it be three years and one day of age.

From where the warning for a person having sexual relations with an animal? Do not give your emission into an animal to defile yourself by it. From where extirpation? For anybody who would commit any of these abominations will be extirpated, etc. Punishment from where? A man who would sleep with a animal shall be put to death. You infer their blood be on them from their blood be on them. So far following Rebbi Aqiba. Following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Ismael from his source and Rebbi Aqiba from his source. Extirpation for a male passive partner is not found for Rebbi Ismael. Punishment for a male passive partner is not found for Rebbi Ismael or Rebbi Aqiba, but it is written: One who sacrifices to the forces of nature shall be banned. Since this one is in for stoning and extirpation, also that one is in for stoning and extirpation. What is the difference between them? If one had active homosexual relations followed by passive ones, in Rebbi Ismael’s opinion he is liable only once; in Rebbi Aqiba’s opinion he is liable twice. If one had active relations with an animal followed by passive ones. Both in Rebbi Aqiba’s as in Rebbi Ismael’s opinions he is liable twice. If he had active homosexual relations with both a male and an animal he is liable twice. If he had passive homosexual relations with both a male and an animal he is liable twice. If he had simultaneous active sexual relations with two males, since both of them became guilty because of him, he is liable twice. If he had simultaneous passive sexual relations with two males, since both of them became guilty because of him, he is liable twice. It was stated: For males, an underage boy does not have the status of an adult; a young animal has the status of a fully grown one. Rebbi Eleazar said, he cannot become liable because of it unless it be three years and one day of age.

Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked of Rebbi Zeˋira: For what reason did Rebbi Ismael and Rebbi Aqiba disagree about a male and an animal but did not disagree about any incest prohibition? He told him, because for all incest prohibitions it is written blood relative, and about these it is not written blood relative. They objected: About the menstruating woman it is not written blood relative; did they disagree about her? Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: For it is written approach, approach; it is as if all were here and there. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Aba in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: To the wife in the separation of her impurity you shall not come near to uncover her nakedness. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, “not to come near” is “not to uncover.”

MISHNAH: The sorcerer is one who does a deed but not one who creates an illusion. Rebbi Aqiba says in the name of Rebbi Joshua: Two are collecting green melons; one who collected cannot be prosecuted, the other one is guilty. The who does a deed is guilty; he who creates an illusion cannot be prosecuted.

HALAKHAH: “The sorcerer is one who does a deed,” etc. A sorceress you shall not let live, whether man or woman, but the Torah taught you the way of the world that most women have a tendency to sorcery. Rebbi Eliezer said, a sorcerer is [executed] by stoning. What is Rebbi Eliezer’s reason? It says here, a sorceress you shall not let live, and it says there, whether human or animal they shall not live. Since shall not live there means by stoning, also here by stoning. What is the rabbis’ reason? It says here, a sorceress you shall not let live, and it says there, you shall not let live anybody. Since you shall not let live there means death by the sword, also you shall not let live here means death by the sword. Rebbi Aqiba said, from this argument I am deciding. It is preferable to learn you shall not let live from you shall not let live rather than from shall not live. What is Rebbi Jehudah’s reason? It says here, a sorceress you shall not let live, and it says there, anybody lying with an animal shall die the death. Since the execution of the animal is by stoning, so here also by stoning.

Example. Rebbi Eliezer, Rebbi Joshua, and Rebbi Aqiba went to bathe at the public baths of Tiberias. A Minean saw them, said what he said, and the cupola caught them. Rebbi Eliezer said to Rebbi Joshua: Joshua ben Ḥanania, look what you can do. When this Minean was leaving, Rebbi Joshua said what he said and the door trapped him. Anybody who entered hit him with his fist, anybody leaving hit him when forcing the door open. He told them, undo what you did; they told him, you undo, then we shall undo. They mutually undid. When they left, Rebbi Joshua said to this Minean, is that all you are wise to? He answered, let us go down to the sea. When they had descended to the sea, this Minean said what he said and the sea was split. He told them, is that not what your teacher Moses did to the sea? They answered, do you not agree that our teacher Moses walked through it? He said to them, yes. They told him, enter it. He entered it. Rebbi Joshua commanded the prince of the sea who swallowed him.

MISHNAH: He who steals the chalice, or who curses by charms, or who copulates with a Gentile woman, one strikes him. If a priest officiated while impure, his brother priests do not bring him to court but the young priests take him outside the courtyard and smash his brain with bats. A non-priest who officiated in the Temple: Rebbi Aqiba said, by strangulation, but the Sages say, by the hands of Heaven.

What is Rebbi Aqiba’s reason? It says here, dying he shall be put to death, and it says there, anybody acceding to the Eternal’s abode will die, etc. What is the rabbis’ reason? It says here, dying he shall be put to death, but it says there, any outsider coming close shall be put to death. It is better to compare shall be put to death with shall be put to death and not shall be put to death with shall die.

MISHNAH: All of Israel have a part in the World to Come. But the following have no part in the World to Come: One who says that the resurrection of the dead is not biblical, or that the Torah is not from Heaven, or the Epicurean. Rebbi Aqiba says, also one who reads outside books, or who whispers over a wound and says, any sickness that I put on Egypt I shall not put on you, for I am the Eternal, your Healer. Abba Shaul said, also one who pronounces the Name by its letters.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, these are the words of Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah, Rebbi Ismael, and Rebbi Aqiba. But the words of the Sages are that the sent-away ram pardons. How does it pardon? Rebbi Zeˋira said, by and by. Rebbi Ḥanina said, at the end. What is the difference between them? If somebody died in-between. In the opinion of Rebbi Zeˋira, he already was pardoned. In the opinion of Rebbi Ḥanina, he was not pardoned. Rebbi Ḥanina said, a baraita supports Rebbi Zeˋira: There is strength in the ram which is not in the Day of Atonement, and in the Day of Atonement which is not in the ram, for the Day of Atonement pardons without a ram, but the ram does not atone except on the Day of Atonement. There is strength in the ram, for it pardons immediately but the Day of Atonement only at nightfall. Rebbi Huna said, the question was raised before Rebbi Jeremiah and he said, explain it if they intended to bring another ram but they did not bring it. Rebbi Yose ben Yose said, but does the Holy One, praise to Him, not see into the future? Then He should pardon immediately.

“Rebbi Aqiba says, also he who reads outside books.” For example, the books of Ben Sirach and Ben Laana. But the books of Homer and all books written from now on, one who reads them is like one who reads a letter. What is the reason? More than these, my son, be careful etc. They are given to be read, not given for exertion.

MISHNAH: The generation of the desert has no part in the World to Come, as it is said: in this desert they shall be terminated and there they will die, the words of Rebbi Aqiba. Rebbi Eliezer says, about them it says, assemble for Me My lovely ones, who sealed My Covenant by a sacrifice. The band of Korah will not be resurrected in the future, as it is said the earth covered them; they were lost from among the congregation, the words of Rebbi Aqiba. Rebbi Eliezer says, about them it says, the Eternal kills and brings to life, He sends down into the pit and raises up.

MISHNAH: The generation of the desert has no part in the World to Come, as it is said: in this desert they shall be terminated and there they will die, the words of Rebbi Aqiba. Rebbi Eliezer says, about them it says, assemble for Me My lovely ones, who sealed My Covenant by a sacrifice. The band of Korah will not be resurrected in the future, as it is said the earth covered them; they were lost from among the congregation, the words of Rebbi Aqiba. Rebbi Eliezer says, about them it says, the Eternal kills and brings to life, He sends down into the pit and raises up.

HALAKHAH: “The generation of the desert has no part in the World to Come,” and will not see the future, as it is said: in this desert they shall be terminated and there they will die. In this desert they shall be terminated, in this world, and there they will die, in the future; and so He says, what I swore in My rage, lest they come to My rest, the words of Rebbi Aqiba. Rebbi Eliezer says, about them it says, assemble for Me My lovely ones, who sealed My Covenant by a sacrifice. Rebbi Joshua said, I swore and I shall keep it; sometimes I do not keep it. Ḥanania the son of Rebbi Joshua’s brother says, it is written: what I swore in My rage; I swore in My rage, I am changing My mind. It was stated: Rebbi Simeon ben Menassia says, about them it says assemble Me My lovely ones, who performed acts of love for Me. The executors of My Covenant, who were extirpated by Me. By sacrifice, they elevated me and were sacrificed for My name. It was stated: Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥa says, about these generations He says, those freed by the Eternal shall return. Rebbi says, these and those have part in the World to Come. What is the reason? It shall be on that day, a great ram’s horn will be blown, and those lost in the land of Assyria will come, these are the Ten Tribes, and those displaced in the land of Egypt, that is the generation of the desert. These and those will bow down before the Eternal on the Holy Mountain [and] in Jerusalem.

MISHNAH: The Ten Tribes will not return in the future, as it is said, He threw them into another country like this day. As this day passes and does never return, so they go, never to return, the words of Rebbi Aqiba. Rebbi Eliezer says, like this day, as the day gets dark and then light, so also they for whom there was darkness there will be light in the future.

HALAKHAH: “The Ten Tribes,” etc. The Ten Tribes have no part in the World to Come, and will not see the future. What is the reason? He threw them into another country like this day. As the day passes and does never return, so they go, never to return, the words of Rebbi Aqiba. Rebbi Simeon ben Jehudah from Kefar-Ikos said in the name of Rebbi Simeon: If their behavior remains as on this day, they will not return; otherwise, they will return.

MISHNAH: All its spoils you shall collect in its public square. If it has no public square, one creates a public square in it. If its public square was outside, one collects it inside, for it is said: In its public square you shall burn the town and all its spoils in fire; its spoils but not Heaven’s spoils. From here they said that dedicated objects in it shall be redeemed, heaves shall be left to rot, Second Tithes and Holy Scriptures shall be put away. Totally for the Eternal, your God. Rebbi Simeon said, if you judge the seduced town, I will credit it for you as if you brought an entire elevation offering before Me. It shall be an eternal mound, it shall not berebuilt. It should not even be made into gardens and orchards, the words of Rebbi Yose the Galilean. Rebbi Aqiba says, it shall not be rebuilt as it was but it may be made into gardens and orchards. Nothing of what should be destroyed shall stick to your hands, so the Eternal may change from His anger to grant you mercy, have mercy on you and increase you, etc. Any time evildoers are in the world, anger is in the world; when the evildoers are lost from the world, anger passes away from the world.

MISHNAH: [Denial] about words of the Sopherim is more serious than about words of the Torah. He who says that there are no phylacteries, to transgress the words of the Torah, is not prosecutable. Five compartments to add to the words of the Sopherim is punishable. One executes him not at the court in his town, nor at the court at Jabneh but one transports him to the Supreme Court in Jerusalem, keeps him until a holiday of pilgrimage, and executes him on the holiday as it is said, the entire people shall see and fear, the words of Rebbi Aqiba. Rebbi Jehudah says, one does not procrastinate in his case but executes him immediately, writes, and sends messengers to all places: Mr. A son of Mr. B was found guilty to be executed by the court.

Rebbi Mana said it without attribution; Rebbi Abin in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: We did state two principles which do not compare. “There are two kinds of oaths which are four kinds”; one has to bring four sacrifices. “There are two kinds of appearances of skin disease which are four kinds”; one has to bring two sacrifices. Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Abin explained it otherwise: “There are two kinds of oaths which are four kinds” was said by Rebbi Aqiba; “there are two kinds of appearances of skin disease which are four kinds” by Rebbi Ismael. Rebbi Ḥaggai asked before Rebbi Yose: why do I need to follow Rebbi Ismael? Does it not come even following Rebbi Aqiba? Knowing and forgetting about impurity of the Sanctuary is the same as knowing and forgetting about impurity of sancta. He told him, does not Rebbi Ismael have forgetting impurity and forgetting the Sanctuary, and we want to follow Rebbi Aqiba? Sometimes there is forgetting impurity and forgetting the Sanctuary but he is liable for only one sacrifice. How is this? If one became impure, realized it, then forgot about impurity, entered the Sanctuary, and left; then he became aware. Here is forgetting impurity and forgetting the Sanctuary but he is liable for only one sacrifice. Sometimes there are many forgettings of impurity and many forgettings of the Sanctuary but he is liable for only one [sacrifice]. How [is this]? If one became impure and realized it, then forgot and while being oblivious of impurity entered the Sanctuary and left; then he became aware. He said, there is no sacrifice due for this impurity. Again he became impure and realized it, then forgot and while being oblivious of impurity entered the Sanctuary and left even several times; in the end he became aware. Here are many forgettings of impurity and forgettings of the Sanctuary but he is liable for only one [sacrifice].

Rebbi Mana said it without attribution; Rebbi Abin in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: We did state two principles which do not compare. “There are two kinds of oaths which are four kinds”; one has to bring four sacrifices. “There are two kinds of appearances of skin disease which are four kinds”; one has to bring two sacrifices. Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Abin explained it otherwise: “There are two kinds of oaths which are four kinds” was said by Rebbi Aqiba; “there are two kinds of appearances of skin disease which are four kinds” by Rebbi Ismael. Rebbi Ḥaggai asked before Rebbi Yose: why do I need to follow Rebbi Ismael? Does it not come even following Rebbi Aqiba? Knowing and forgetting about impurity of the Sanctuary is the same as knowing and forgetting about impurity of sancta. He told him, does not Rebbi Ismael have forgetting impurity and forgetting the Sanctuary, and we want to follow Rebbi Aqiba? Sometimes there is forgetting impurity and forgetting the Sanctuary but he is liable for only one sacrifice. How is this? If one became impure, realized it, then forgot about impurity, entered the Sanctuary, and left; then he became aware. Here is forgetting impurity and forgetting the Sanctuary but he is liable for only one sacrifice. Sometimes there are many forgettings of impurity and many forgettings of the Sanctuary but he is liable for only one [sacrifice]. How [is this]? If one became impure and realized it, then forgot and while being oblivious of impurity entered the Sanctuary and left; then he became aware. He said, there is no sacrifice due for this impurity. Again he became impure and realized it, then forgot and while being oblivious of impurity entered the Sanctuary and left even several times; in the end he became aware. Here are many forgettings of impurity and forgettings of the Sanctuary but he is liable for only one [sacrifice].

Rebbi Mana said it without attribution; Rebbi Abin in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: We did state two principles which do not compare. “There are two kinds of oaths which are four kinds”; one has to bring four sacrifices. “There are two kinds of appearances of skin disease which are four kinds”; one has to bring two sacrifices. Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Abin explained it otherwise: “There are two kinds of oaths which are four kinds” was said by Rebbi Aqiba; “there are two kinds of appearances of skin disease which are four kinds” by Rebbi Ismael. Rebbi Ḥaggai asked before Rebbi Yose: why do I need to follow Rebbi Ismael? Does it not come even following Rebbi Aqiba? Knowing and forgetting about impurity of the Sanctuary is the same as knowing and forgetting about impurity of sancta. He told him, does not Rebbi Ismael have forgetting impurity and forgetting the Sanctuary, and we want to follow Rebbi Aqiba? Sometimes there is forgetting impurity and forgetting the Sanctuary but he is liable for only one sacrifice. How is this? If one became impure, realized it, then forgot about impurity, entered the Sanctuary, and left; then he became aware. Here is forgetting impurity and forgetting the Sanctuary but he is liable for only one sacrifice. Sometimes there are many forgettings of impurity and many forgettings of the Sanctuary but he is liable for only one [sacrifice]. How [is this]? If one became impure and realized it, then forgot and while being oblivious of impurity entered the Sanctuary and left; then he became aware. He said, there is no sacrifice due for this impurity. Again he became impure and realized it, then forgot and while being oblivious of impurity entered the Sanctuary and left even several times; in the end he became aware. Here are many forgettings of impurity and forgettings of the Sanctuary but he is liable for only one [sacrifice].

New paragraph. “There are two kinds of appearances of skin disease which are four kinds.” “Rebbi Yose said, Joshua the son of Rebbi Aqiba asked Rebbi Aqiba. He said to him, why did they say, ‘There are two kinds of looks of skin disease which are four kinds’? He answered him, if not so, what should they have said? He said to him, they could have said ‘starting with eggshell and stronger it is impure.’ He said to him, to tell you that anybody not expert for them and their names may not see skin lesions.”

New paragraph. “There are two kinds of appearances of skin disease which are four kinds.” “Rebbi Yose said, Joshua the son of Rebbi Aqiba asked Rebbi Aqiba. He said to him, why did they say, ‘There are two kinds of looks of skin disease which are four kinds’? He answered him, if not so, what should they have said? He said to him, they could have said ‘starting with eggshell and stronger it is impure.’ He said to him, to tell you that anybody not expert for them and their names may not see skin lesions.”

From where that they can be joined one to the other? Rebbi Mana said, the Sages counted them as two and counted them as four. Just as two can be joined one to the other so also four can be joined one to the other. Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Abin: If it can be joined to what is not of its kind, so much more of its own kind. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun said, it is not written “they will be” but “it will be”. This teaches that they cannot be joined one to the other. Ḥizqiah stated: It is not written “skin diseases” but “skin disease”. This teaches that they cannot be joined one to the other.” “He said to him, they could have said ‘starting with eggshell and stronger it is impure’ but should not have said, ‘there are two kinds of appearances of skin disease which are four kinds.’ He answered him, it teaches that they are not one superior to the other.” Could they not be one superior to the other? If you say so, you would have said the darkened one is impure, the very darkened is impure. But the Torah said, behold, the diseased spot darkened. The darkened one is impure but the very much darkened is pure. It follows what Rebbi Ḥanina said, it is comparable to two kings and their two lieutenants. One king is greater then the other king, one lieutenant is greater than the other lieutenant. But the first one’s lieutenant is not greater than the other king. Samuel said, it is comparable to two kings and two of their ambassadors. One king is greater then the other king, one ambassador is greater than the other ambassador. But the first one’s ambassador is not greater than the other king. Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of Rav (Aḥa) [Ada] bar Aḥawa: A king, and his army commander, and the Arghabeṭa and the Head of the Captivity. Rebbi Eleasar ben Rebbi Yose said before Rebbi Yose: The Mishnah implies that one is no greater than the other. If s´et whose very darkened spot is pure has a second color, the shiny spot, whose very darkened spot is impure, certainly will have a second color. He answered him, look at what you are saying. It has a second degree; should it not also have a third? What causes you to say that the very white spot, whose very darkened spot is impure, is the s´et? The kind of s´et is like eggshell. “שְׂאֵ֤ת, this is s´et. בַהֶ֔רֶת, this is the shiny spot. סַפַּ֨חַת֙ is secondary to the shiny spot. [The diseased spot’s] look is deepened, secondary to s´et. What is the etymology of s´et? Elevated. As the shadow looks elevated compared to the sunny spot. What is the etymology of deepened? It is deep, as the sunny spot looks depressed compared to the shadow. What is the etymology of סַפַּ֨חַת֙? Adjunct. As it is said, adjoin me please to one of the priesthoods, etc.” Rebbi Eleazar said, these are the words of Rebbi Ismael and Rebbi Aqiba. But the words of the Sages are that s´et and the shiny spot are one. Sappaḥat is secondary to either one. The Mishnah says so: “Mispaḥat is turned into s´et or strong mispaḥat.”

HALAKHAH: “In any case where there is knowledge at the start,” etc. From where that we require knowledge at the start and at the end but forgetting in between? The verse says, it was forgotten, it was forgotten two times; this implies that he had knowledge at the start and at the end but forgetting in between. So far for Rebbi Aqiba; following Rebbi Ismael? For Rebbi Ismael [argues] like Rebbi. As Rebbi said, it was forgotten by him, this implies that he knows. “But he knew,” there is knowledge two times. Hence Rebbi Ismael [argues] like Rebbi, and Rebbi like Rebbi Ismael. This comes even according to Rebbi Aqiba; it is the same for knowledge and forgetting about the impurity of the Sanctuary as for knowledge and forgetting about the impurity of sancta. But some want to understand it from the following: He knew and felt guilty. Was it not already said, he became impure and felt guilty? But if it does not refer to knowledge at the beginning, let it refer to knowledge at the end.

HALAKHAH: “In any case where there is knowledge at the start,” etc. From where that we require knowledge at the start and at the end but forgetting in between? The verse says, it was forgotten, it was forgotten two times; this implies that he had knowledge at the start and at the end but forgetting in between. So far for Rebbi Aqiba; following Rebbi Ismael? For Rebbi Ismael [argues] like Rebbi. As Rebbi said, it was forgotten by him, this implies that he knows. “But he knew,” there is knowledge two times. Hence Rebbi Ismael [argues] like Rebbi, and Rebbi like Rebbi Ismael. This comes even according to Rebbi Aqiba; it is the same for knowledge and forgetting about the impurity of the Sanctuary as for knowledge and forgetting about the impurity of sancta. But some want to understand it from the following: He knew and felt guilty. Was it not already said, he became impure and felt guilty? But if it does not refer to knowledge at the beginning, let it refer to knowledge at the end.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, these are the words of Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah, Rebbi Ismael, and Rebbi Aqiba. But the Sages say that the scapegoat pardons. How does it pardon? Rebbi Ze`ira said, by and by. Rebbi Ḥanania said, at the end. What is between them? If somebody died in-between. In the opinion of Rebbi Ze`ira, he already was pardoned. In the opinion of Rebbi Ḥanina, he was not pardoned. Rebbi Ze`ira said, a baraita supports Rebbi Ḥanina: There is strength in the he-goat which is not in the Day of Atonement, and in the Day of Atonement which is not in the he-goat: The Day of Atonement pardons without a he-goat, but the he-goat does not atone without the Day of Atonement. The he-goat pardons immediately but the Day of Atonement only at nightfall. Rebbi Huna said, the question was raised before Rebbi Jeremiah and he said, explain it if they intended to bring another he-goat but they did not bring it. Rebbi Yose said, but does the Holy One, praise to Him, not see into the future? Then He should pardon immediately.

MISHNAH: Rebbi Eliezer says, the crawling animal and he became oblivious, he is liable for forgetting the crawling animal but is not liable for forgetting the Sanctuary. Rebbi Aqiba says, and he became oblivious while he was impure, he is liable for forgetting impurity but is not liable for forgetting the Sanctuary. Rebbi Ismael says, and he became oblivious, and he became oblivious, two times to make him liable for forgetting impurity and forgetting the Sanctuary.

MISHNAH: There are two kinds of oaths which are four kinds: An oath that I shall eat, or that I shall not eat; that I ate, or that I did not eat. An oath that I shall not eat, when he ate the most minute amount, he is liable, the words of Rebbi Aqiba. They said to Rebbi Aqiba, where do we find that one who eats the most minute amount should be liable, that this one be liable? He told them, where do we find that a person talks and has to bring a sacrifice; but this one talks and has to bring a sacrifice!

MISHNAH: There are two kinds of oaths which are four kinds: An oath that I shall eat, or that I shall not eat; that I ate, or that I did not eat. An oath that I shall not eat, when he ate the most minute amount, he is liable, the words of Rebbi Aqiba. They said to Rebbi Aqiba, where do we find that one who eats the most minute amount should be liable, that this one be liable? He told them, where do we find that a person talks and has to bring a sacrifice; but this one talks and has to bring a sacrifice!

HALAKHAH: “There are two kinds of oaths which are four kinds,” etc. One understands “that I shall eat, or that I shall not eat.” “That I ate, or that I did not eat”? Where do we stand? If it is known that he ate and he swore that he did not eat, it is a false oath. But if he was of the opinion that he ate and swore that he did not eat? Rebbi Abba, Rav Jehudah in the name of Rav: If he is inadvertent for its sacrifice or intentional for its sacrifice. But “I was of the opinion that this is not an oath” is permitted. But it must be that he was intentional in the deed but in error about the sacrifice. Did not Rebbi Abbahu say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Intentional about fat and in error about the sacrifice, one warns him, he is flogged and has to bring a sacrifice. This is impossible, as Rebbi La said in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: So did Rebbi Ismael answer Rebbi Aqiba: Do we find a situation where one is liable if intentional because of a false oath and in oblivion because of blurting? Should not Rebbi Aqiba retort, we find a situation where one is liable if intentional because of a false oath and he brings a sacrifice? But we deal here with the case that he was sure that he ate, and he swore, and it turned out that he had not eaten. Not about him who said that this is not an oath? There, if he says this is not an oath; but here if he knows that this is an oath but he errs because of something else.

HALAKHAH: “There are two kinds of oaths which are four kinds,” etc. One understands “that I shall eat, or that I shall not eat.” “That I ate, or that I did not eat”? Where do we stand? If it is known that he ate and he swore that he did not eat, it is a false oath. But if he was of the opinion that he ate and swore that he did not eat? Rebbi Abba, Rav Jehudah in the name of Rav: If he is inadvertent for its sacrifice or intentional for its sacrifice. But “I was of the opinion that this is not an oath” is permitted. But it must be that he was intentional in the deed but in error about the sacrifice. Did not Rebbi Abbahu say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Intentional about fat and in error about the sacrifice, one warns him, he is flogged and has to bring a sacrifice. This is impossible, as Rebbi La said in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: So did Rebbi Ismael answer Rebbi Aqiba: Do we find a situation where one is liable if intentional because of a false oath and in oblivion because of blurting? Should not Rebbi Aqiba retort, we find a situation where one is liable if intentional because of a false oath and he brings a sacrifice? But we deal here with the case that he was sure that he ate, and he swore, and it turned out that he had not eaten. Not about him who said that this is not an oath? There, if he says this is not an oath; but here if he knows that this is an oath but he errs because of something else.

Where do we hold? If about one who said, an oath that I shall eat according to Torah standards, even Rebbi Aqiba will agree. And if about one who says, an oath that I shall not taste, even the rabbis will agree. But we hold, about minute amounts. Are minute amounts eating? Explain it following Rebbi Aqiba who said that a minute amount is eating. What is the difference between them? “An oath that I shall eat this loaf,” and he ate it except a minute amount. In the opinion of Rebbi Aqiba he is liable, in the opinion of the rabbis he is not liable. “That I shall not eat this loaf,” and he ate it except a minute amount. In the opinion of Rebbi Aqiba he is not liable, in the opinion of the rabbis he is liable. Also for blurted oaths it is so: “An oath that my wife may not have any usufruct from me if I shall eat this loaf,” and he ate it except a minute amount. In the opinion of Rebbi Aqiba his wife is forbidden [to have usufruct], in the opinion of the rabbis his wife is permitted. “That I shall not eat this loaf,” and he ate it except a minute amount. In the opinion of Rebbi Aqiba his wife is permitted [to have usufruct], in the opinion of the rabbis his wife is forbidden. Also with property it is the same. “An oath that my properties be forbidden to me if I shall eat this loaf,” and he ate it except a minute amount. In the opinion of Rebbi Aqiba they are forbidden, in the opinion of the rabbis his properties are permitted. “That I shall not eat this loaf,” and he ate it except a minute amount. In the opinion of Rebbi Aqiba his properties are permitted, in the opinion of the rabbis they are forbidden.

Where do we hold? If about one who said, an oath that I shall eat according to Torah standards, even Rebbi Aqiba will agree. And if about one who says, an oath that I shall not taste, even the rabbis will agree. But we hold, about minute amounts. Are minute amounts eating? Explain it following Rebbi Aqiba who said that a minute amount is eating. What is the difference between them? “An oath that I shall eat this loaf,” and he ate it except a minute amount. In the opinion of Rebbi Aqiba he is liable, in the opinion of the rabbis he is not liable. “That I shall not eat this loaf,” and he ate it except a minute amount. In the opinion of Rebbi Aqiba he is not liable, in the opinion of the rabbis he is liable. Also for blurted oaths it is so: “An oath that my wife may not have any usufruct from me if I shall eat this loaf,” and he ate it except a minute amount. In the opinion of Rebbi Aqiba his wife is forbidden [to have usufruct], in the opinion of the rabbis his wife is permitted. “That I shall not eat this loaf,” and he ate it except a minute amount. In the opinion of Rebbi Aqiba his wife is permitted [to have usufruct], in the opinion of the rabbis his wife is forbidden. Also with property it is the same. “An oath that my properties be forbidden to me if I shall eat this loaf,” and he ate it except a minute amount. In the opinion of Rebbi Aqiba they are forbidden, in the opinion of the rabbis his properties are permitted. “That I shall not eat this loaf,” and he ate it except a minute amount. In the opinion of Rebbi Aqiba his properties are permitted, in the opinion of the rabbis they are forbidden.

Where do we hold? If about one who said, an oath that I shall eat according to Torah standards, even Rebbi Aqiba will agree. And if about one who says, an oath that I shall not taste, even the rabbis will agree. But we hold, about minute amounts. Are minute amounts eating? Explain it following Rebbi Aqiba who said that a minute amount is eating. What is the difference between them? “An oath that I shall eat this loaf,” and he ate it except a minute amount. In the opinion of Rebbi Aqiba he is liable, in the opinion of the rabbis he is not liable. “That I shall not eat this loaf,” and he ate it except a minute amount. In the opinion of Rebbi Aqiba he is not liable, in the opinion of the rabbis he is liable. Also for blurted oaths it is so: “An oath that my wife may not have any usufruct from me if I shall eat this loaf,” and he ate it except a minute amount. In the opinion of Rebbi Aqiba his wife is forbidden [to have usufruct], in the opinion of the rabbis his wife is permitted. “That I shall not eat this loaf,” and he ate it except a minute amount. In the opinion of Rebbi Aqiba his wife is permitted [to have usufruct], in the opinion of the rabbis his wife is forbidden. Also with property it is the same. “An oath that my properties be forbidden to me if I shall eat this loaf,” and he ate it except a minute amount. In the opinion of Rebbi Aqiba they are forbidden, in the opinion of the rabbis his properties are permitted. “That I shall not eat this loaf,” and he ate it except a minute amount. In the opinion of Rebbi Aqiba his properties are permitted, in the opinion of the rabbis they are forbidden.

Where do we hold? If about one who said, an oath that I shall eat according to Torah standards, even Rebbi Aqiba will agree. And if about one who says, an oath that I shall not taste, even the rabbis will agree. But we hold, about minute amounts. Are minute amounts eating? Explain it following Rebbi Aqiba who said that a minute amount is eating. What is the difference between them? “An oath that I shall eat this loaf,” and he ate it except a minute amount. In the opinion of Rebbi Aqiba he is liable, in the opinion of the rabbis he is not liable. “That I shall not eat this loaf,” and he ate it except a minute amount. In the opinion of Rebbi Aqiba he is not liable, in the opinion of the rabbis he is liable. Also for blurted oaths it is so: “An oath that my wife may not have any usufruct from me if I shall eat this loaf,” and he ate it except a minute amount. In the opinion of Rebbi Aqiba his wife is forbidden [to have usufruct], in the opinion of the rabbis his wife is permitted. “That I shall not eat this loaf,” and he ate it except a minute amount. In the opinion of Rebbi Aqiba his wife is permitted [to have usufruct], in the opinion of the rabbis his wife is forbidden. Also with property it is the same. “An oath that my properties be forbidden to me if I shall eat this loaf,” and he ate it except a minute amount. In the opinion of Rebbi Aqiba they are forbidden, in the opinion of the rabbis his properties are permitted. “That I shall not eat this loaf,” and he ate it except a minute amount. In the opinion of Rebbi Aqiba his properties are permitted, in the opinion of the rabbis they are forbidden.

Where do we hold? If about one who said, an oath that I shall eat according to Torah standards, even Rebbi Aqiba will agree. And if about one who says, an oath that I shall not taste, even the rabbis will agree. But we hold, about minute amounts. Are minute amounts eating? Explain it following Rebbi Aqiba who said that a minute amount is eating. What is the difference between them? “An oath that I shall eat this loaf,” and he ate it except a minute amount. In the opinion of Rebbi Aqiba he is liable, in the opinion of the rabbis he is not liable. “That I shall not eat this loaf,” and he ate it except a minute amount. In the opinion of Rebbi Aqiba he is not liable, in the opinion of the rabbis he is liable. Also for blurted oaths it is so: “An oath that my wife may not have any usufruct from me if I shall eat this loaf,” and he ate it except a minute amount. In the opinion of Rebbi Aqiba his wife is forbidden [to have usufruct], in the opinion of the rabbis his wife is permitted. “That I shall not eat this loaf,” and he ate it except a minute amount. In the opinion of Rebbi Aqiba his wife is permitted [to have usufruct], in the opinion of the rabbis his wife is forbidden. Also with property it is the same. “An oath that my properties be forbidden to me if I shall eat this loaf,” and he ate it except a minute amount. In the opinion of Rebbi Aqiba they are forbidden, in the opinion of the rabbis his properties are permitted. “That I shall not eat this loaf,” and he ate it except a minute amount. In the opinion of Rebbi Aqiba his properties are permitted, in the opinion of the rabbis they are forbidden.

Where do we hold? If about one who said, an oath that I shall eat according to Torah standards, even Rebbi Aqiba will agree. And if about one who says, an oath that I shall not taste, even the rabbis will agree. But we hold, about minute amounts. Are minute amounts eating? Explain it following Rebbi Aqiba who said that a minute amount is eating. What is the difference between them? “An oath that I shall eat this loaf,” and he ate it except a minute amount. In the opinion of Rebbi Aqiba he is liable, in the opinion of the rabbis he is not liable. “That I shall not eat this loaf,” and he ate it except a minute amount. In the opinion of Rebbi Aqiba he is not liable, in the opinion of the rabbis he is liable. Also for blurted oaths it is so: “An oath that my wife may not have any usufruct from me if I shall eat this loaf,” and he ate it except a minute amount. In the opinion of Rebbi Aqiba his wife is forbidden [to have usufruct], in the opinion of the rabbis his wife is permitted. “That I shall not eat this loaf,” and he ate it except a minute amount. In the opinion of Rebbi Aqiba his wife is permitted [to have usufruct], in the opinion of the rabbis his wife is forbidden. Also with property it is the same. “An oath that my properties be forbidden to me if I shall eat this loaf,” and he ate it except a minute amount. In the opinion of Rebbi Aqiba they are forbidden, in the opinion of the rabbis his properties are permitted. “That I shall not eat this loaf,” and he ate it except a minute amount. In the opinion of Rebbi Aqiba his properties are permitted, in the opinion of the rabbis they are forbidden.

Where do we hold? If about one who said, an oath that I shall eat according to Torah standards, even Rebbi Aqiba will agree. And if about one who says, an oath that I shall not taste, even the rabbis will agree. But we hold, about minute amounts. Are minute amounts eating? Explain it following Rebbi Aqiba who said that a minute amount is eating. What is the difference between them? “An oath that I shall eat this loaf,” and he ate it except a minute amount. In the opinion of Rebbi Aqiba he is liable, in the opinion of the rabbis he is not liable. “That I shall not eat this loaf,” and he ate it except a minute amount. In the opinion of Rebbi Aqiba he is not liable, in the opinion of the rabbis he is liable. Also for blurted oaths it is so: “An oath that my wife may not have any usufruct from me if I shall eat this loaf,” and he ate it except a minute amount. In the opinion of Rebbi Aqiba his wife is forbidden [to have usufruct], in the opinion of the rabbis his wife is permitted. “That I shall not eat this loaf,” and he ate it except a minute amount. In the opinion of Rebbi Aqiba his wife is permitted [to have usufruct], in the opinion of the rabbis his wife is forbidden. Also with property it is the same. “An oath that my properties be forbidden to me if I shall eat this loaf,” and he ate it except a minute amount. In the opinion of Rebbi Aqiba they are forbidden, in the opinion of the rabbis his properties are permitted. “That I shall not eat this loaf,” and he ate it except a minute amount. In the opinion of Rebbi Aqiba his properties are permitted, in the opinion of the rabbis they are forbidden.

Where do we hold? If about one who said, an oath that I shall eat according to Torah standards, even Rebbi Aqiba will agree. And if about one who says, an oath that I shall not taste, even the rabbis will agree. But we hold, about minute amounts. Are minute amounts eating? Explain it following Rebbi Aqiba who said that a minute amount is eating. What is the difference between them? “An oath that I shall eat this loaf,” and he ate it except a minute amount. In the opinion of Rebbi Aqiba he is liable, in the opinion of the rabbis he is not liable. “That I shall not eat this loaf,” and he ate it except a minute amount. In the opinion of Rebbi Aqiba he is not liable, in the opinion of the rabbis he is liable. Also for blurted oaths it is so: “An oath that my wife may not have any usufruct from me if I shall eat this loaf,” and he ate it except a minute amount. In the opinion of Rebbi Aqiba his wife is forbidden [to have usufruct], in the opinion of the rabbis his wife is permitted. “That I shall not eat this loaf,” and he ate it except a minute amount. In the opinion of Rebbi Aqiba his wife is permitted [to have usufruct], in the opinion of the rabbis his wife is forbidden. Also with property it is the same. “An oath that my properties be forbidden to me if I shall eat this loaf,” and he ate it except a minute amount. In the opinion of Rebbi Aqiba they are forbidden, in the opinion of the rabbis his properties are permitted. “That I shall not eat this loaf,” and he ate it except a minute amount. In the opinion of Rebbi Aqiba his properties are permitted, in the opinion of the rabbis they are forbidden.

Does not the blasphemer have to bring a sacrifice? The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: They answered him according to his argument. Following your argument, since you say that the blasphemer does not act, where do we find that somebody talks and brings a sacrifice that this one talks and brings a sacrifice? Rebbi Abba from Carthage asked, is not Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish’s argument inverted? There he said, for Rebbi Aqiba the blasphemer does not act. But here he says, the blasphemer is acting in the opinion of Rebbi Aqiba. Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Two Tannaïm following the opinion of Rebbi Aqiba. One said, the blasphemer does not act, and the other said, the blasphemer does act.

Does not the blasphemer have to bring a sacrifice? The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: They answered him according to his argument. Following your argument, since you say that the blasphemer does not act, where do we find that somebody talks and brings a sacrifice that this one talks and brings a sacrifice? Rebbi Abba from Carthage asked, is not Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish’s argument inverted? There he said, for Rebbi Aqiba the blasphemer does not act. But here he says, the blasphemer is acting in the opinion of Rebbi Aqiba. Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Two Tannaïm following the opinion of Rebbi Aqiba. One said, the blasphemer does not act, and the other said, the blasphemer does act.

Does not the blasphemer have to bring a sacrifice? The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: They answered him according to his argument. Following your argument, since you say that the blasphemer does not act, where do we find that somebody talks and brings a sacrifice that this one talks and brings a sacrifice? Rebbi Abba from Carthage asked, is not Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish’s argument inverted? There he said, for Rebbi Aqiba the blasphemer does not act. But here he says, the blasphemer is acting in the opinion of Rebbi Aqiba. Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Two Tannaïm following the opinion of Rebbi Aqiba. One said, the blasphemer does not act, and the other said, the blasphemer does act.

HALAKHAH: “An oath that I shall not eat; when he ate,” etc. Drinking is subsumed under eating but eating is not subsumed under drinking. Rebbi Jonah understood all this from: Therefore, I told the Children of Israel, none of you shall eat blood. Where do we hold? If about congealed blood, was it not stated that congealed blood is neither food nor drink? (But we hold, about minute amounts. Are minute amounts eating? Explain it following Rebbi Aqiba who said that a minute amount is eating.) And was it not stated: If one liquefied the blood and swallowed it, or froze fat and ate it, if there is the volume of an olive he is liable. What does Rebbi Jonah do with this? It is not food to become impure in the impurity of food, or fluid to become impure in the impurity of fluids. Rebbi Jonah changed and explained the Mishnah: You shall spend the money for anything you desire. Where do we hold? If about one who gives the taste of wine into a cooked dish, is that not spoiling the taste? But we hold with everything and the Merciful called it “eating.” The rabbis of Caesarea said, explain if about gomraya and orzaraya, since anything that is auxiliary to food is like food.

Not only unspecified, but even “X”. Not only comprehensive but even in detail. Not only in the future but also in the past. Not only the rabbis but even Rebbi Aqiba. Not only carcass and torn meat but even dust.

MISHNAH: Whether matters of himself, or matters of others, or material matters, or immaterial matters. How is this? An oath that I shall give to X, or that I shall not give, that I gave, or that I did not give, that I shall sleep, or that I shall not sleep, that I slept, or that I did not sleep, that I shall throw a pebble into the sea, or that I shall not throw, that I threw, or that I did not throw. Rebbi Ismael said, he is liable only for the future, for it is said to cause evil or cause good. Rebbi Aqiba said to him, if it is so then this refers only to matters of causing evil or good; from where matters which do not refer to causing evil or good? He answered him, from the additional text of the verse. He answered, just as the additional text of the verse is for this, the additional text of the verse is for the other.

How does Rebbi Ismael explain the verse? Or a person, if he would swear blurting out with his lips, a general statement. To cause evil or cause good, a detail. A general statement followed by a detail; the general statement contains only what is in the detail. But the detail only contains matters of causing evil or good! But it is so: To cause evil or cause good, a detail. Anything which a person will blurt out, a general statement. A detail followed by a general statement, everything is included; this adds matters directed towards the past. But it is so: Or a person, if he would swear blurting out with his lips, a general statement. To cause evil or cause good, a detail. Anything which a person will blurt out, a general statement. A general statement followed by a detail followed by a general statement, you only argue in the pattern of the detail. Since the detail is explicit, matters of causing evil or good, from where matters not causing evil or good? “He answered him, from the additional text of the verse. He answered, just as the verse added for this, the verse added for the other.” You cannot, as Rebbi Hila said in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: So did Rebbi Ismael answer Rebbi Aqiba. Do we find cases where one is liable for intentional action because of a false oath but if in oblivion because of a blurted oath? Could he not have objected, do we find cases where one is liable for intentional action because of a false oath and he has to bring a sacrifice? He said to him, do you agree that there are cases which are not matters of causing evil or good, even if they are not written? He told him, even though I accept cases which are not matters of causing evil or good, are they only written if they be matters of causing evil or good? Therefore never for the past.

So far according to Rebbi Aqiba.

HALAKHAH: “I am putting an oath on you that you should come and testify for me,” etc. From where that this only refers to monetary claims? Rebbi Eliezer said, it uses here “or” and it uses “or” with a deposit. Since the “or” used with a deposit only refers to monetary claims, also the “or” used here only refers to monetary claims. The “or” of the homicide will disprove since they do not refer to monetary claims. One argues about “or” accompanied by an oath from “or” accompanied by an oath; the “or” of the homicide cannot disprove since they are not accompanied by an oath. The “or” of the deviant woman will disprove since they are accompanied by an oath and do not refer to monetary claims. One argues about “or” accompanied by an oath not accompanied by a Cohen from similar “or”; the “or” of the deviant woman cannot disprove since they are accompanied by a Cohen. The “or” of blurting lips will disprove since they do not refer to monetary claims. One argues about “or” where He made intent equal to error from similar “or”; the “or” of blurting lips cannot disprove since there He did not make intent equal to error. Rebbi Aqiba says, for some of these one is liable, for some one is not liable. For monetary claims one is liable; for non-monetary claims one is not liable. Rebbi Simeon says, He made liable here and he made liable for a deposit. Since deposits only refer to monetary claims, so here also it only refers to monetary claims.

It is written, if a man give to his neighbor a donkey, or an ox, or a sheep etc. An oath before the Eternal shall be between the two of them. Stolen, if it was stolen stealing from him. Lost, and if, to include the lost one. So far following Rebbi Aqiba. Following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Ismael stated: Since you say that he pays for theft which is close to duress, for loss which is not close to duress not so much more?

For the borrower only the broken is written. From where loss and theft? It is logical. Since the paid keeper and the renter who do not pay for the broken or the dead have to pay for theft and loss, the borrower who pays for the broken or the dead certainly has to pay for theft and loss. It was stated about this: This is an argument de minore ad majus which cannot be challenged. From where the abducted? It is said here, it was broken or died; and it is said there, it dies or was broken. Since there the abducted was included, here also the abducted was included. So far following Rebbi Aqiba. Following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Ismael follows Rebbi Nathan. Rebbi Nathan says, or, to include the abducted. Or following Rebbi Meïr who said, an equal cut at the place it comes from. Since there one swears for duress, also here one swears for duress. Still following Rebbi Nathan, for Rebbi Nathan said, or it died, to include the abducted one.

Rebbi Joḥanan asked: May the oath of a deviant woman be liable for a blurted oath? Where do we hold? If she is in error in sin and oath she is not deviant. If she is intentional in sin and error there is no sacrifice. Rav follows Rebbi Aqiba. If Rebbi Ismael would argue like Rebbi Meïr it would follow, since Rebbi Meïr said: “Amen that I was not defiled, Amen that I shall not be defiled.” But you may question this.

MISHNAH: The following Gentile properties are forbidden and the prohibition is of usufruct: Wine, and vinegar which originally was wine, and Hadrianic pottery, and heart-removed skins. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, if the tear is circular they are forbidden, oblong permitted. Meat brought into a pagan Temple is permitted but what leaves is forbidden because it is sacrifice to the dead, the words of Rebbi Aqiba. It is forbidden to trade with those who go to ugliness.

Rebbi Abba said, when Rebbi Aqiba went to the tar workers, they came and asked him, how does one purify Gentiles’ jugs? From the following I taught them, since they are permitted if not tarred, if they were tarred but the pitch was shaved off not so much more? But when I came to my colleagues they told me that they are absorbing because of the pitch.

MISHNAH: If Gentiles worship mountains and hills; these are permitted but what is on them is forbidden, as it is said, do not covet silver or gold on them and take for yourself. Rebbi Yose the Galilean said, their gods [are] on the mountains, the mountains are not their gods. Their gods [are] on the hills, the hills are not their gods. Then why is an Ashera forbidden? Because it was held by human hand, and anything held by human hand is forbidden. Rebbi Aqiba said, I shall explain it to you. Any place where you find a high mountain, or an elevated hill, or a sprightly tree, know that there is idolatry.