ben

An androgynus who saw whitish [effluent] and entered the Sanctuary is not liable. If he saw red [effluent] and entered the Sanctuary, he is not liable. If he saw simultaneously whitish and red and entered the Sanctuary, he is liable. There is a Tanna who states: he is not liable. Rebbi Joḥanan said, this is Rebbi Simeon, as it was stated: “Two paths, one pure and one impure. He walked on one of them, entered the Sanctuary on the first one, sprinkled repeatedly, immersed himself, on the second one and entered; he is liable. Rebbi Simeon declares him not liable in this case. Rebbi Simeon ben Jehudah in the name of Rebbi Simeon declares him not liable in all cases.” One understands the androgynus, for whitish [effluent] you declare him to be a woman, for red [effluent] you declare him to be a man. But here there is no known impurity. Rebbi Samuel bar Sosartai said, explain it if he forgot the first. Rebbi Yose asked, where do we hold? If he forgot it forever, it is one path. If he forgot repeatedly, there are two paths. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rebbi Simeon parallels Rebbi Eliezer in the interpretation of Ḥizqiah. Just as Rebbi Eliezer said there, until he knows whether he did become impure by a crawling animal or a corpse, so Rebbi Simeon says here, until he knows whether he did become impure by red [effluent] or by whitish. One understands there since he said, a doubt of awareness is awareness. But here, since he saw whitish and red together, it is certain knowledge.

The measure of prostrating is ten cubits. How is this? If the lengthy path was twenty but the short one ten. He went five. If he went in this direction, five, if in the other, fifteen. Rebbi Yose said, he never becomes liable unless the lengthy path exceed the short one by (ten). How is that? If the lengthy path was thirty but the short one ten. He went five. If he went in this direction, five, if in the other, twenty-five. What is the duration of prostrating? Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: up to a greeting from one person to another. Abba bar Huna in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: up to a greeting from a student to his teacher, “peace be with you, my teacher.”

HALAKHAH: “What is the positive commandment about the menstruating woman,” etc. Cahana said, is it impossible that there was knowledge at the beginning and knowledge at the end and oblivion in between? Rebbi Samuel ben Eudaimon objected before Rebbi Mana: Could that be for the teachers? He told him, we have a problem with those entering and you bring us teachers? What about it? Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said, commandments, commandments. Since commandments mentioned there are about fixed-value [offerings], here also about fixed-value [offerings].

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 eat neither,” etc. “An oath that I shall not eat bread” and he wrapped it in reed leaves or grape leaves and ate, he is liable only once. “An oath that I shall not eat bread nor grape skin nor grape seeds, and he wrapped it in grape skins and grape seeds, he is liable for each one, and if he was a nazir he is liable for three. Rebbi Joḥanan said, in comprehensive form. But in detail, no oaths fall on prohibitions. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, even in comprehensive form no oaths fall on prohibitions.

MISHNAH: If he swore not to observe a commandment but failed not to observe it, he is not liable; to observe a commandment and did not observe it, he is not liable, though it would have been logical that he should be liable, the words of Rebbi Jehudah ben Bathyra. Rebbi Jehudah ben Bathyra said, since he is liable for a permitted purpose, for which he is not sworn to from Mount Sinai, is it not logical that he should be liable about a commandment to which he is sworn from Mount Sinai? They said to him, no. What you say about an oath for permitted purpose where He made “no” equal to “yes”, can you say that about an oath concerning a commandment, where He did not make “no” equal to “yes”? Since one who swears not to observe a commandment but failed not to observe it, is not liable.

MISHNAH: If he swore not to observe a commandment but failed not to observe it, he is not liable; to observe a commandment and did not observe it, he is not liable, though it would have been logical that he should be liable, the words of Rebbi Jehudah ben Bathyra. Rebbi Jehudah ben Bathyra said, since he is liable for a permitted purpose, for which he is not sworn to from Mount Sinai, is it not logical that he should be liable about a commandment to which he is sworn from Mount Sinai? They said to him, no. What you say about an oath for permitted purpose where He made “no” equal to “yes”, can you say that about an oath concerning a commandment, where He did not make “no” equal to “yes”? Since one who swears not to observe a commandment but failed not to observe it, is not liable.

HALAKHAH: “If he swore not to observe a commandment,” etc. Rebbi Mani said, so is the Mishnah: “He is liable, the words of Rebbi Jehudah ben Bathyra.” What Rebbi Jehudah ben Bathyra said refers to prohibitions in general. “An oath that I shall eat carcass meat,” but he did not eat it. He is not liable. “An oath that I shall eat,” and he ate. If you would say that he is liable, they should have objected to him: No. You declare about an oath for permitted purpose where He made “no” equal to “yes” and “yes” equal to “no”, can you declare this about an oath concerning a commandment, where He did not make “no” equal to “yes”?

HALAKHAH: “If he swore not to observe a commandment,” etc. Rebbi Mani said, so is the Mishnah: “He is liable, the words of Rebbi Jehudah ben Bathyra.” What Rebbi Jehudah ben Bathyra said refers to prohibitions in general. “An oath that I shall eat carcass meat,” but he did not eat it. He is not liable. “An oath that I shall eat,” and he ate. If you would say that he is liable, they should have objected to him: No. You declare about an oath for permitted purpose where He made “no” equal to “yes” and “yes” equal to “no”, can you declare this about an oath concerning a commandment, where He did not make “no” equal to “yes”?

From where a warning about an oath for a permitted purpose? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, he shall not profane his word, he shall not make his words profane.

HALAKHAH: “An oath that I shall not eat this loaf,” etc. “An oath that I shall eat this loaf today,” the day passed and then he ate it. Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both say, he is not liable; not for the same reason. The reason of Rebbi Joḥanan, because he cannot be duly warned. The reason of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, because it is a prohibition without action. What is the difference between them? He burned it or threw it into the sea. If you say, because he cannot be duly warned, he is not liable. If you say, because it is a prohibition without action, there is an action.

HALAKHAH: “An oath that I shall not eat this loaf,” etc. “An oath that I shall eat this loaf today,” the day passed and then he ate it. Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both say, he is not liable; not for the same reason. The reason of Rebbi Joḥanan, because he cannot be duly warned. The reason of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, because it is a prohibition without action. What is the difference between them? He burned it or threw it into the sea. If you say, because he cannot be duly warned, he is not liable. If you say, because it is a prohibition without action, there is an action.

Rebbi Yose asked, “an oath, an oath, an oath, that I shall not eat,” and he ate. What is the rule? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun said, let us hear from the following: “'An oath that I shall not eat this loaf, an oath that I shall not eat it, an oath that I shall not eat it;' he is liable once.” Because he mentioned this. Therefore, if he did not mention this, he would be liable for each single one.

“If I did not see a snake like the beam of the olive press.” Did not the snake of king Sapor swallow camels and carts? When they wanted to kill it, they filled camel bags with straw and put glowing coals inside; it swallowed them and died. Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi said, I saw the hide of a snake made over eight spaces between pillars. Rebbi Samuel ben Jacob said, I saw the hide of a snake covering a state coach. Samuel said, square. If square one could state even a small one. Rebbi Yudan the father of Rebbi Mattaniah said, so it is. It is the way of this Tanna to use only big words, as we have stated: “A flying camel.” Could he not have stated, “a flying rat”?

It was stated: Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, there is nothing square from the six Days of Creation. Rebbi Berekhiah objected: Did we not state: “The body of baheret is like a square Cilician grit. The place for a grit is nine lentils. The space for a lentil is four hairwidths; in all 36 hairwidths.” Rebbi (Yosna) said, that in itself says that there is no square. Why was it stated “squared”? That he should square it. And כגעה? It is full of knots. But there is the bunch of pila! It is round below. Some wanted to say, Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said this only about creatures, There is square in foods, there is no square in creatures.

It was stated: Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, there is nothing square from the six Days of Creation. Rebbi Berekhiah objected: Did we not state: “The body of baheret is like a square Cilician grit. The place for a grit is nine lentils. The space for a lentil is four hairwidths; in all 36 hairwidths.” Rebbi (Yosna) said, that in itself says that there is no square. Why was it stated “squared”? That he should square it. And כגעה? It is full of knots. But there is the bunch of pila! It is round below. Some wanted to say, Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said this only about creatures, There is square in foods, there is no square in creatures.

Ḥizqiah said: he who swears that two are two is flogged for a vain oath. Rebbi Menahem in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: He who saw rain falling and said Κύριε πόλυ βρέξον is flogged for a vain oath. Rebbi Onias, Rebbi Jacob ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Samuel ben Naḥman: 24 city councils were in Judea and they all were destroyed because of true vain oaths, as it is written: For the vain did I hit your sons.

Ḥizqiah said: he who swears that two are two is flogged for a vain oath. Rebbi Menahem in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: He who saw rain falling and said Κύριε πόλυ βρέξον is flogged for a vain oath. Rebbi Onias, Rebbi Jacob ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Samuel ben Naḥman: 24 city councils were in Judea and they all were destroyed because of true vain oaths, as it is written: For the vain did I hit your sons.

Ḥizqiah said: he who swears that two are two is flogged for a vain oath. Rebbi Menahem in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: He who saw rain falling and said Κύριε πόλυ βρέξον is flogged for a vain oath. Rebbi Onias, Rebbi Jacob ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Samuel ben Naḥman: 24 city councils were in Judea and they all were destroyed because of true vain oaths, as it is written: For the vain did I hit your sons.

“An oath that I shall eat this loaf today; an oath that I shall not eat it today.” Then he ate it. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he kept the first oath and invalidated the second. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he invalidated the first one and did not keep the second.

“An oath that I shall not eat this loaf today; an oath that I shall eat it today.” Then he ate it. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he invalidated the first oath and kept the second. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he invalidated the first one. One tells him to keep the second with another loaf.

“An oath that I shall eat this loaf today; an oath that I shall eat it today.” Then he ate it. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he kept both of them. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he kept the first one and one tells him to keep the second with another loaf.

“An oath that I shall not eat this loaf today; an oath that I shall not eat it today.” Then he ate it. In Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion he is twice liable. Is he only once liable in Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish’s opinion? Even Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish agrees that he only emphasizes the prohibitions.

“An oath that I shall not eat this loaf today; an oath that I shall not eat it today.” Then he ate it. In Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion he is twice liable. Is he only once liable in Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish’s opinion? Even Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish agrees that he only emphasizes the prohibitions.

This is the principle: One flogs for any prohibition involving an action, but one does not flog if there is no action except for one who substitutes, or swears, or curses a fellow man by the Name. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: This does not include one who substitutes; substituting implies speech and action. From where one who swears falsely? Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: For the Eternal will not cleanse; but the judges will cleanse him. From where one who cursed his fellow man by the Name? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: To fear the Name, etc. The one who swears falsely in the opinion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish from where? Since he swore falsely, he does not fear. The one who cursed his fellow man by the Name in the opinion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish from where? Since he cursed, he does not fear. What is the difference between them? If one swore falsely and cursed a fellow man by the Name. In Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion he is liable for two [punishments]. In Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish’s opinion he is only liable for one.

This is the principle: One flogs for any prohibition involving an action, but one does not flog if there is no action except for one who substitutes, or swears, or curses a fellow man by the Name. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: This does not include one who substitutes; substituting implies speech and action. From where one who swears falsely? Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: For the Eternal will not cleanse; but the judges will cleanse him. From where one who cursed his fellow man by the Name? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: To fear the Name, etc. The one who swears falsely in the opinion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish from where? Since he swore falsely, he does not fear. The one who cursed his fellow man by the Name in the opinion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish from where? Since he cursed, he does not fear. What is the difference between them? If one swore falsely and cursed a fellow man by the Name. In Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion he is liable for two [punishments]. In Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish’s opinion he is only liable for one.

This is the principle: One flogs for any prohibition involving an action, but one does not flog if there is no action except for one who substitutes, or swears, or curses a fellow man by the Name. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: This does not include one who substitutes; substituting implies speech and action. From where one who swears falsely? Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: For the Eternal will not cleanse; but the judges will cleanse him. From where one who cursed his fellow man by the Name? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: To fear the Name, etc. The one who swears falsely in the opinion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish from where? Since he swore falsely, he does not fear. The one who cursed his fellow man by the Name in the opinion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish from where? Since he cursed, he does not fear. What is the difference between them? If one swore falsely and cursed a fellow man by the Name. In Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion he is liable for two [punishments]. In Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish’s opinion he is only liable for one.

This is the principle: One flogs for any prohibition involving an action, but one does not flog if there is no action except for one who substitutes, or swears, or curses a fellow man by the Name. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: This does not include one who substitutes; substituting implies speech and action. From where one who swears falsely? Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: For the Eternal will not cleanse; but the judges will cleanse him. From where one who cursed his fellow man by the Name? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: To fear the Name, etc. The one who swears falsely in the opinion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish from where? Since he swore falsely, he does not fear. The one who cursed his fellow man by the Name in the opinion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish from where? Since he cursed, he does not fear. What is the difference between them? If one swore falsely and cursed a fellow man by the Name. In Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion he is liable for two [punishments]. In Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish’s opinion he is only liable for one.

Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun, Rebbi Huna in the name of Rebbi Yose. It is said here two and it is said there by the mouth of two witnesses. Since there it must be by the testimony of two witnesses, also here by the testimony of two witnesses. Then why does the verse say two? Lest one of them be standing while the other be sitting; one says everything he has to say, but to the other one says, make your statement short. With one he puts up, to the other he is unfriendly.

Or like the following. “One accepts the witnesses’ testimony only if they saw it together. Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥa says, even if they saw it one after the other.” Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac in the name of Rav Isaac who said in the name of Rav: The Sages agree with Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥa with regard to witnesses of firstlings and witnesses of squatters’ rights. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah: the same holds for testimony regarding signs. In that case, it is obvious if one says, I saw two hairs on his back and one says, I saw one hair on his back and the other says, I saw one hair on his belly, that is nothing; so much more his back and his back. Two are saying, we saw one hair on his back; and one is saying, I saw one hair on his belly. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun and Rebbi Hoshaia ben Rebbi Shammai, one said, it is invalid, but the other said, it is valid. He who says it is invalid considers him as one who testifies to half a sign. He who says it is valid? I say, maybe it was rubbed off. One says, I saw two hairs on his back; and one says, I saw two on his belly. Rebbi Abba said, everybody agrees that this is valid. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, everybody agrees that this is invalid [testimony]. Rebbi Yose says, this is in disagreement. Rebbi Yudan said, this is in disagreement. Rebbi Yose said to Rebbi Ḥaggai, does not Rebbi Yudan follow my opinion? He answered, I am disagreeing with his teacher, so much more with him. Rebbi Mana said, Rebbi Ḥaggai was correct. If a document was signed by four seals, if one person (permitted) two, and another (questioned) the other two, and the document was attacked, is that worth anything? Does not every single signature need two witnesses? And here, every single sign needs two witnesses. Rebbi Ḥanina learns it from the years of squatting rights. If one [witness] testified that he ate from the property the first, second, and third years and another testified that he ate it the fourth and fifth years, is that worth anything? Does not every single year need two witnesses? And here, every single sign needs two witnesses.

Or like the following. “One accepts the witnesses’ testimony only if they saw it together. Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥa says, even if they saw it one after the other.” Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac in the name of Rav Isaac who said in the name of Rav: The Sages agree with Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥa with regard to witnesses of firstlings and witnesses of squatters’ rights. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah: the same holds for testimony regarding signs. In that case, it is obvious if one says, I saw two hairs on his back and one says, I saw one hair on his back and the other says, I saw one hair on his belly, that is nothing; so much more his back and his back. Two are saying, we saw one hair on his back; and one is saying, I saw one hair on his belly. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun and Rebbi Hoshaia ben Rebbi Shammai, one said, it is invalid, but the other said, it is valid. He who says it is invalid considers him as one who testifies to half a sign. He who says it is valid? I say, maybe it was rubbed off. One says, I saw two hairs on his back; and one says, I saw two on his belly. Rebbi Abba said, everybody agrees that this is valid. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, everybody agrees that this is invalid [testimony]. Rebbi Yose says, this is in disagreement. Rebbi Yudan said, this is in disagreement. Rebbi Yose said to Rebbi Ḥaggai, does not Rebbi Yudan follow my opinion? He answered, I am disagreeing with his teacher, so much more with him. Rebbi Mana said, Rebbi Ḥaggai was correct. If a document was signed by four seals, if one person (permitted) two, and another (questioned) the other two, and the document was attacked, is that worth anything? Does not every single signature need two witnesses? And here, every single sign needs two witnesses. Rebbi Ḥanina learns it from the years of squatting rights. If one [witness] testified that he ate from the property the first, second, and third years and another testified that he ate it the fourth and fifth years, is that worth anything? Does not every single year need two witnesses? And here, every single sign needs two witnesses.

Or like the following. “One accepts the witnesses’ testimony only if they saw it together. Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥa says, even if they saw it one after the other.” Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac in the name of Rav Isaac who said in the name of Rav: The Sages agree with Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥa with regard to witnesses of firstlings and witnesses of squatters’ rights. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah: the same holds for testimony regarding signs. In that case, it is obvious if one says, I saw two hairs on his back and one says, I saw one hair on his back and the other says, I saw one hair on his belly, that is nothing; so much more his back and his back. Two are saying, we saw one hair on his back; and one is saying, I saw one hair on his belly. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun and Rebbi Hoshaia ben Rebbi Shammai, one said, it is invalid, but the other said, it is valid. He who says it is invalid considers him as one who testifies to half a sign. He who says it is valid? I say, maybe it was rubbed off. One says, I saw two hairs on his back; and one says, I saw two on his belly. Rebbi Abba said, everybody agrees that this is valid. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, everybody agrees that this is invalid [testimony]. Rebbi Yose says, this is in disagreement. Rebbi Yudan said, this is in disagreement. Rebbi Yose said to Rebbi Ḥaggai, does not Rebbi Yudan follow my opinion? He answered, I am disagreeing with his teacher, so much more with him. Rebbi Mana said, Rebbi Ḥaggai was correct. If a document was signed by four seals, if one person (permitted) two, and another (questioned) the other two, and the document was attacked, is that worth anything? Does not every single signature need two witnesses? And here, every single sign needs two witnesses. Rebbi Ḥanina learns it from the years of squatting rights. If one [witness] testified that he ate from the property the first, second, and third years and another testified that he ate it the fourth and fifth years, is that worth anything? Does not every single year need two witnesses? And here, every single sign needs two witnesses.

Or like the following. “One accepts the witnesses’ testimony only if they saw it together. Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥa says, even if they saw it one after the other.” Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac in the name of Rav Isaac who said in the name of Rav: The Sages agree with Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥa with regard to witnesses of firstlings and witnesses of squatters’ rights. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah: the same holds for testimony regarding signs. In that case, it is obvious if one says, I saw two hairs on his back and one says, I saw one hair on his back and the other says, I saw one hair on his belly, that is nothing; so much more his back and his back. Two are saying, we saw one hair on his back; and one is saying, I saw one hair on his belly. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun and Rebbi Hoshaia ben Rebbi Shammai, one said, it is invalid, but the other said, it is valid. He who says it is invalid considers him as one who testifies to half a sign. He who says it is valid? I say, maybe it was rubbed off. One says, I saw two hairs on his back; and one says, I saw two on his belly. Rebbi Abba said, everybody agrees that this is valid. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, everybody agrees that this is invalid [testimony]. Rebbi Yose says, this is in disagreement. Rebbi Yudan said, this is in disagreement. Rebbi Yose said to Rebbi Ḥaggai, does not Rebbi Yudan follow my opinion? He answered, I am disagreeing with his teacher, so much more with him. Rebbi Mana said, Rebbi Ḥaggai was correct. If a document was signed by four seals, if one person (permitted) two, and another (questioned) the other two, and the document was attacked, is that worth anything? Does not every single signature need two witnesses? And here, every single sign needs two witnesses. Rebbi Ḥanina learns it from the years of squatting rights. If one [witness] testified that he ate from the property the first, second, and third years and another testified that he ate it the fourth and fifth years, is that worth anything? Does not every single year need two witnesses? And here, every single sign needs two witnesses.

Or like the following. “One accepts the witnesses’ testimony only if they saw it together. Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥa says, even if they saw it one after the other.” Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac in the name of Rav Isaac who said in the name of Rav: The Sages agree with Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥa with regard to witnesses of firstlings and witnesses of squatters’ rights. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah: the same holds for testimony regarding signs. In that case, it is obvious if one says, I saw two hairs on his back and one says, I saw one hair on his back and the other says, I saw one hair on his belly, that is nothing; so much more his back and his back. Two are saying, we saw one hair on his back; and one is saying, I saw one hair on his belly. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun and Rebbi Hoshaia ben Rebbi Shammai, one said, it is invalid, but the other said, it is valid. He who says it is invalid considers him as one who testifies to half a sign. He who says it is valid? I say, maybe it was rubbed off. One says, I saw two hairs on his back; and one says, I saw two on his belly. Rebbi Abba said, everybody agrees that this is valid. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, everybody agrees that this is invalid [testimony]. Rebbi Yose says, this is in disagreement. Rebbi Yudan said, this is in disagreement. Rebbi Yose said to Rebbi Ḥaggai, does not Rebbi Yudan follow my opinion? He answered, I am disagreeing with his teacher, so much more with him. Rebbi Mana said, Rebbi Ḥaggai was correct. If a document was signed by four seals, if one person (permitted) two, and another (questioned) the other two, and the document was attacked, is that worth anything? Does not every single signature need two witnesses? And here, every single sign needs two witnesses. Rebbi Ḥanina learns it from the years of squatting rights. If one [witness] testified that he ate from the property the first, second, and third years and another testified that he ate it the fourth and fifth years, is that worth anything? Does not every single year need two witnesses? And here, every single sign needs two witnesses.

“I am putting an oath on you,” etc. Does this not disagree with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish who said, there is no money when there is flogging. He explains it following Rebbi Meїr who said, he is flogged and he pays. In any case he did not make him lose money. Is it not that since he wanted to give him but did not give to him; it is as if he made him lose money.

Rebbi La: Both Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both are saying, there is no ”witnesses “here. Why? Because they might die. But might not a document be lost? Therefore, the reason can only be that they might forget their testimony. There, we have stated: “Where is my ox? He told him, it is lost. I want you to swear, he said, Amen. But witnesses testify that he ate it. He has to pay the value. If he confessed himself, he has to pay the value, and the fifth, and the reparation sacrifice.” The Mishnah [applies] if he does not know that there are witnesses. He comes to tell you, even if he knows that there are witnesses. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah says so: “If there were two groups of witnesses, if the first group reneged and after this the second, both are liable.” One understands that the first group becomes liable. Why the second? Not because they might forget their testimony? [Here also, because they (are commanded) to forget their testimony.]

He denied it, not him. “Ben Azzai says, there are three kinds of lost properties. One who knows about it and its finder; about it but not about its finder; neither about it nor about its finder.” Rebbi Onias in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah: All of them to relieve from liability. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Yose: This is not so. Rebbi Yose asked, why should it be to relieve from liability? Rebbi Mana said, the three kinds of lost property cannot be “one who knows about it and its finder; about it but not about its finder; neither about it nor about its finder.” About it and its finder, that is where we hold. But it must be about one who denies [knowledge] about it and its finder; about its finder but not about it; about it but not about its finder. So is the baraita: “About it and its finder.”

“Give me the wheat, and the barley,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the words of Rebbi Jehudah imply collectively one sacrifice, in detail three sacrifices. How is this? A detail wheat, a detail barley, a detail spelt. Collectively one sacrifice, in detail three sacrifices. Detail a third wheat, detail a third barley, detail a third spelt, are these taken together? Come and see; although he holds many details, even so they can be formulated collectively or in detail. In which respect? To make him liable for sacrifices. If he held four kinds, two kinds in one detail, two kinds on two details. even so they can be formulated collectively or in detail. As Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: “And I am greeting X,” one can assume that he signed concerning everything; “I am greeting X,” he signed only for the greeting. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, “I am greeting X,” one can assume that he signed concerning everything. What means “collectively”? Rebbi Joḥanan said, “X divorces Y and Z U.” What means “collectively”? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, “We, X and Z, divorce our wives at place A.” Rebbi Ze`ira said, Rebbi Joḥanan agrees that if he mentions divorce for each one separately that he needs the typical text and witnesses for each one separately. The strength of Rebbi Joḥanan is from the following: “ ‘That I shall not benefit from this one; a qorban for this one and a qorban for that one.’ Each single one needs a separate opening.” Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “If he wrote a separate text for each of them and the witnesses signed at the end, [only] the one with which the witnesses are read is valid.”

“Give me the wheat, and the barley,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the words of Rebbi Jehudah imply collectively one sacrifice, in detail three sacrifices. How is this? A detail wheat, a detail barley, a detail spelt. Collectively one sacrifice, in detail three sacrifices. Detail a third wheat, detail a third barley, detail a third spelt, are these taken together? Come and see; although he holds many details, even so they can be formulated collectively or in detail. In which respect? To make him liable for sacrifices. If he held four kinds, two kinds in one detail, two kinds on two details. even so they can be formulated collectively or in detail. As Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: “And I am greeting X,” one can assume that he signed concerning everything; “I am greeting X,” he signed only for the greeting. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, “I am greeting X,” one can assume that he signed concerning everything. What means “collectively”? Rebbi Joḥanan said, “X divorces Y and Z U.” What means “collectively”? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, “We, X and Z, divorce our wives at place A.” Rebbi Ze`ira said, Rebbi Joḥanan agrees that if he mentions divorce for each one separately that he needs the typical text and witnesses for each one separately. The strength of Rebbi Joḥanan is from the following: “ ‘That I shall not benefit from this one; a qorban for this one and a qorban for that one.’ Each single one needs a separate opening.” Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “If he wrote a separate text for each of them and the witnesses signed at the end, [only] the one with which the witnesses are read is valid.”

Does one tell him, be in the clear with Heaven? Let us hear from the following: “It happened that Rabban Gamliel knocked out a tooth of his slave Tabi. He came to Rebbi Joshua and said to him, I found a reason to manumit my slave Tabi. He told him, you have nothing in your hand; fines only are imposed through witnesses and in court.” This implies that one does not tell him, be in the clear with Heaven. Rebbi Gamliel ben Rebbi Illai asked before Rebbi Mana, does Rabban Gamliel hold with him who says, one is permitted to manumit? He told him, in itself it says that it is forbidden to manumit, for otherwise he should have manumitted him immediately.

If somebody produced both a document and ḥazaqah. Rebbi says, it should be judged by the document. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, it should be judged by ḥazaqah. Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Rav Jeremiah: A case came before Rebbi Jehudah following Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. Rebbi Jeremiah asked before Rebbi Ze`ira: How? Did Rebbi switch his opinion? There he said, it should be judged by the document. But here he said it should be judged by ḥazaqah. Would we say, before he changed his opinion? Even if you say, after he changed his opinion. Rebbi only wanted to determine the truth of the matter. “If somebody occupied real estate on the basis of a document of sale and it was found invalid, this is not ḥazaqah.” Rebbi Jeremiah said, in dispute. Rebbi Samuel said, Rebbi Ze`ira, Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Abinna: it is everybody’s opinion. Rebbi Yose said, there if one produced both a document and ḥazaqah. Here if he came with a document. Rebbi Yudan said, there if he presented two groups of witnesses; here one who contradicts his own proofs.

If somebody produced both a document and ḥazaqah. Rebbi says, it should be judged by the document. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, it should be judged by ḥazaqah. Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Rav Jeremiah: A case came before Rebbi Jehudah following Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. Rebbi Jeremiah asked before Rebbi Ze`ira: How? Did Rebbi switch his opinion? There he said, it should be judged by the document. But here he said it should be judged by ḥazaqah. Would we say, before he changed his opinion? Even if you say, after he changed his opinion. Rebbi only wanted to determine the truth of the matter. “If somebody occupied real estate on the basis of a document of sale and it was found invalid, this is not ḥazaqah.” Rebbi Jeremiah said, in dispute. Rebbi Samuel said, Rebbi Ze`ira, Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Abinna: it is everybody’s opinion. Rebbi Yose said, there if one produced both a document and ḥazaqah. Here if he came with a document. Rebbi Yudan said, there if he presented two groups of witnesses; here one who contradicts his own proofs.

HALAKHAH: “You are holding for me a kor of grain;” etc. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Our Mishnah if he sued him for wheat and he admitted barley; but if he sued him for two kinds and he admitted one of them, everybody agrees that he is not liable. Rebbi Abbahu said about that of Rebbi Immi: Why did we state, “Rabban Gamliel declares him liable”? It comes to inform you of the power of Rabban Gamliel, how far he declares liable. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Not only if he claimed wheat and he admitted barley to him, but if he claimed two kinds and he admitted one of them, the words of the Sages are that he is not liable. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it is only if he claimed two kinds and he admitted one of them, but if he sued for wheat and he admitted barley according to everybody he is liable. Following Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: A person went to court before Rav: When he claimed from another wheat, barley, and spelt. Rav told him, wait until he charged you with anything he has to charge, and in the end you will swear one oath about everything. Rebbi Abbahu said, so argued Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish against Rebbi Joḥanan: In your opinion, since you say that if he claimed two kinds and he admitted one of them, according to the Sages he is not liable, did we not state “if he claimed vessels and real estate; if he admitted the vessels and denied the real estate, the real estate and denied the vessels”? For vessels about vessels he is liable, not so much more for vessels and real estate? He answered him, to transfer an oath to him by the following Mishnah, “since guaranteed property obligates non-guaranteed property to be sworn about.” This does not even disagree with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. But did we not state: “Somebody who sued for amphoras of oil and he admitted to vessels”? How do we hold? If he sued him for vessels and oil, and he admitted one of them, everybody agrees that this refers to the claim. But if he sued him for vessels and he did (not) admit oil, everybody agrees that what he admitted did not refer to the claim. Rebbi Ze`ira and Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Samuel: If he sued for vessels full of oil, one said vessels but not oil, the other said oil but not vessels. (Thrown) vessels but not oil. Oil but not vessels? Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Abin formulates it as oil buckets. Can one not ask him? If he was paralyzed.

HALAKHAH: “You are holding for me a kor of grain;” etc. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Our Mishnah if he sued him for wheat and he admitted barley; but if he sued him for two kinds and he admitted one of them, everybody agrees that he is not liable. Rebbi Abbahu said about that of Rebbi Immi: Why did we state, “Rabban Gamliel declares him liable”? It comes to inform you of the power of Rabban Gamliel, how far he declares liable. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Not only if he claimed wheat and he admitted barley to him, but if he claimed two kinds and he admitted one of them, the words of the Sages are that he is not liable. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it is only if he claimed two kinds and he admitted one of them, but if he sued for wheat and he admitted barley according to everybody he is liable. Following Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: A person went to court before Rav: When he claimed from another wheat, barley, and spelt. Rav told him, wait until he charged you with anything he has to charge, and in the end you will swear one oath about everything. Rebbi Abbahu said, so argued Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish against Rebbi Joḥanan: In your opinion, since you say that if he claimed two kinds and he admitted one of them, according to the Sages he is not liable, did we not state “if he claimed vessels and real estate; if he admitted the vessels and denied the real estate, the real estate and denied the vessels”? For vessels about vessels he is liable, not so much more for vessels and real estate? He answered him, to transfer an oath to him by the following Mishnah, “since guaranteed property obligates non-guaranteed property to be sworn about.” This does not even disagree with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. But did we not state: “Somebody who sued for amphoras of oil and he admitted to vessels”? How do we hold? If he sued him for vessels and oil, and he admitted one of them, everybody agrees that this refers to the claim. But if he sued him for vessels and he did (not) admit oil, everybody agrees that what he admitted did not refer to the claim. Rebbi Ze`ira and Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Samuel: If he sued for vessels full of oil, one said vessels but not oil, the other said oil but not vessels. (Thrown) vessels but not oil. Oil but not vessels? Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Abin formulates it as oil buckets. Can one not ask him? If he was paralyzed.

HALAKHAH: “You are holding for me a kor of grain;” etc. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Our Mishnah if he sued him for wheat and he admitted barley; but if he sued him for two kinds and he admitted one of them, everybody agrees that he is not liable. Rebbi Abbahu said about that of Rebbi Immi: Why did we state, “Rabban Gamliel declares him liable”? It comes to inform you of the power of Rabban Gamliel, how far he declares liable. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Not only if he claimed wheat and he admitted barley to him, but if he claimed two kinds and he admitted one of them, the words of the Sages are that he is not liable. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it is only if he claimed two kinds and he admitted one of them, but if he sued for wheat and he admitted barley according to everybody he is liable. Following Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: A person went to court before Rav: When he claimed from another wheat, barley, and spelt. Rav told him, wait until he charged you with anything he has to charge, and in the end you will swear one oath about everything. Rebbi Abbahu said, so argued Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish against Rebbi Joḥanan: In your opinion, since you say that if he claimed two kinds and he admitted one of them, according to the Sages he is not liable, did we not state “if he claimed vessels and real estate; if he admitted the vessels and denied the real estate, the real estate and denied the vessels”? For vessels about vessels he is liable, not so much more for vessels and real estate? He answered him, to transfer an oath to him by the following Mishnah, “since guaranteed property obligates non-guaranteed property to be sworn about.” This does not even disagree with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. But did we not state: “Somebody who sued for amphoras of oil and he admitted to vessels”? How do we hold? If he sued him for vessels and oil, and he admitted one of them, everybody agrees that this refers to the claim. But if he sued him for vessels and he did (not) admit oil, everybody agrees that what he admitted did not refer to the claim. Rebbi Ze`ira and Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Samuel: If he sued for vessels full of oil, one said vessels but not oil, the other said oil but not vessels. (Thrown) vessels but not oil. Oil but not vessels? Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Abin formulates it as oil buckets. Can one not ask him? If he was paralyzed.

HALAKHAH: “You are holding for me a kor of grain;” etc. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Our Mishnah if he sued him for wheat and he admitted barley; but if he sued him for two kinds and he admitted one of them, everybody agrees that he is not liable. Rebbi Abbahu said about that of Rebbi Immi: Why did we state, “Rabban Gamliel declares him liable”? It comes to inform you of the power of Rabban Gamliel, how far he declares liable. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Not only if he claimed wheat and he admitted barley to him, but if he claimed two kinds and he admitted one of them, the words of the Sages are that he is not liable. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it is only if he claimed two kinds and he admitted one of them, but if he sued for wheat and he admitted barley according to everybody he is liable. Following Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: A person went to court before Rav: When he claimed from another wheat, barley, and spelt. Rav told him, wait until he charged you with anything he has to charge, and in the end you will swear one oath about everything. Rebbi Abbahu said, so argued Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish against Rebbi Joḥanan: In your opinion, since you say that if he claimed two kinds and he admitted one of them, according to the Sages he is not liable, did we not state “if he claimed vessels and real estate; if he admitted the vessels and denied the real estate, the real estate and denied the vessels”? For vessels about vessels he is liable, not so much more for vessels and real estate? He answered him, to transfer an oath to him by the following Mishnah, “since guaranteed property obligates non-guaranteed property to be sworn about.” This does not even disagree with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. But did we not state: “Somebody who sued for amphoras of oil and he admitted to vessels”? How do we hold? If he sued him for vessels and oil, and he admitted one of them, everybody agrees that this refers to the claim. But if he sued him for vessels and he did (not) admit oil, everybody agrees that what he admitted did not refer to the claim. Rebbi Ze`ira and Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Samuel: If he sued for vessels full of oil, one said vessels but not oil, the other said oil but not vessels. (Thrown) vessels but not oil. Oil but not vessels? Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Abin formulates it as oil buckets. Can one not ask him? If he was paralyzed.

Samuel says, the oath does not move away from between them. If the lender swears, he swears and takes. But if the borrower swears, the other will present the pledge. “Who has to swear? The one who holds the pledge.” Rav and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish say, about the first part: “ ‘You loaned me a tetradrachma on it but it was worth two,’ and the other says ‘no, but I loaned you a tetradrachma and it was worth a tetradrachma;’ he is not liable. ‘You loaned me a tetradrachma on it,’ ” etc. “And the other says, ‘I do not know’.” Rebbi Abba, Rav Huna in the name of Rav: You do not know, the other knows. Rebbi Joshua [the Southerner] asked before Rebbi Jonah: There you say, you do not know, the other knows; but here you say so? There is desecration of an oath, here there is no desecration of an oath.

Rebbi Abin said, since the householder has many occupations they instituted that the journeyman should swear and collect. [Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, there they instituted that the journeyman should swear and collect;] similarly they instituted for the householder that if its deadline had elapsed, he cannot swear and collect. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, if there are witnesses that he claimed it in time, he swears and collects even after a year. Rebbi Yose said, he has only that single day. Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagreed. One said, if he claimed from him during daytime, he has only that day; if in the night he has only that night. But the other said, if he claimed from him and he said, I gave. But if he said, I shall give, the presumption is that he gave. We do not know who said what. Since Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: if he claimed from him during daytime, he has only that day; if in the night he has only that night, therefore Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina is the one who said, if he claimed from him and he said, I gave. But if he said, I shall give, the presumption is that he gave. Rebbi Mana said, sometimes he claims after its time and it is considered as in time. How is this? He claimed from him and he said to him, did I not say to you that I gave at that date? That date becomes as if it were yesterday; one gives him one measure.

Rebbi Abin said, since the householder has many occupations they instituted that the journeyman should swear and collect. [Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, there they instituted that the journeyman should swear and collect;] similarly they instituted for the householder that if its deadline had elapsed, he cannot swear and collect. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, if there are witnesses that he claimed it in time, he swears and collects even after a year. Rebbi Yose said, he has only that single day. Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagreed. One said, if he claimed from him during daytime, he has only that day; if in the night he has only that night. But the other said, if he claimed from him and he said, I gave. But if he said, I shall give, the presumption is that he gave. We do not know who said what. Since Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: if he claimed from him during daytime, he has only that day; if in the night he has only that night, therefore Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina is the one who said, if he claimed from him and he said, I gave. But if he said, I shall give, the presumption is that he gave. Rebbi Mana said, sometimes he claims after its time and it is considered as in time. How is this? He claimed from him and he said to him, did I not say to you that I gave at that date? That date becomes as if it were yesterday; one gives him one measure.

Rebbi Abin said, since the householder has many occupations they instituted that the journeyman should swear and collect. [Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, there they instituted that the journeyman should swear and collect;] similarly they instituted for the householder that if its deadline had elapsed, he cannot swear and collect. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, if there are witnesses that he claimed it in time, he swears and collects even after a year. Rebbi Yose said, he has only that single day. Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagreed. One said, if he claimed from him during daytime, he has only that day; if in the night he has only that night. But the other said, if he claimed from him and he said, I gave. But if he said, I shall give, the presumption is that he gave. We do not know who said what. Since Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: if he claimed from him during daytime, he has only that day; if in the night he has only that night, therefore Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina is the one who said, if he claimed from him and he said, I gave. But if he said, I shall give, the presumption is that he gave. Rebbi Mana said, sometimes he claims after its time and it is considered as in time. How is this? He claimed from him and he said to him, did I not say to you that I gave at that date? That date becomes as if it were yesterday; one gives him one measure.

Rebbi Abin said, since the householder has many occupations they instituted that the journeyman should swear and collect. [Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, there they instituted that the journeyman should swear and collect;] similarly they instituted for the householder that if its deadline had elapsed, he cannot swear and collect. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, if there are witnesses that he claimed it in time, he swears and collects even after a year. Rebbi Yose said, he has only that single day. Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagreed. One said, if he claimed from him during daytime, he has only that day; if in the night he has only that night. But the other said, if he claimed from him and he said, I gave. But if he said, I shall give, the presumption is that he gave. We do not know who said what. Since Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: if he claimed from him during daytime, he has only that day; if in the night he has only that night, therefore Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina is the one who said, if he claimed from him and he said, I gave. But if he said, I shall give, the presumption is that he gave. Rebbi Mana said, sometimes he claims after its time and it is considered as in time. How is this? He claimed from him and he said to him, did I not say to you that I gave at that date? That date becomes as if it were yesterday; one gives him one measure.

Rebbi Abin said, since the householder has many occupations they instituted that the journeyman should swear and collect. [Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, there they instituted that the journeyman should swear and collect;] similarly they instituted for the householder that if its deadline had elapsed, he cannot swear and collect. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, if there are witnesses that he claimed it in time, he swears and collects even after a year. Rebbi Yose said, he has only that single day. Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagreed. One said, if he claimed from him during daytime, he has only that day; if in the night he has only that night. But the other said, if he claimed from him and he said, I gave. But if he said, I shall give, the presumption is that he gave. We do not know who said what. Since Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: if he claimed from him during daytime, he has only that day; if in the night he has only that night, therefore Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina is the one who said, if he claimed from him and he said, I gave. But if he said, I shall give, the presumption is that he gave. Rebbi Mana said, sometimes he claims after its time and it is considered as in time. How is this? He claimed from him and he said to him, did I not say to you that I gave at that date? That date becomes as if it were yesterday; one gives him one measure.

May one claim extraordinary things? One may, following what Rebbi Joḥanan said, a person may be rich on the market place and poor in his house; rich in his house and poor in the market place. There is one who poses as richand has nothing, poses as poor and has great wealth. Rebbi Abba told: Bar Ziza’s sharecropper deposited a pound of gold with somebody. Bar Ziza and Bar Ziza’s sharecropper died; the case came before Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose. Would one not say that all that Bar Ziza’s sharecropper had was Bar Ziza’s property? It should be given to Bar Ziza’s sons. Bar Ziza’s sons came. He said, the adult ones should take half and when the underage grow up they should take half. Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose died; the case came before the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya who said, that argument means nothing since there are people who do not advertise themselves. It should be given to the sharecropper’s sons. The trustee told him, I already disbursed half of it. He told him, what you gave, you gave by court order and what you will give, you will give by court order. May the sharecropper’s sons say to Bar Ziza’s sons, give us what you took? They can tell them, what was done was done by court order. May the underage ones say to the adult, let us share with you? May they tell them, we found a find? Rebbi Isaac said, the case between the adult and underage ones is only comparable to a gift given to them.

May one claim extraordinary things? One may, following what Rebbi Joḥanan said, a person may be rich on the market place and poor in his house; rich in his house and poor in the market place. There is one who poses as richand has nothing, poses as poor and has great wealth. Rebbi Abba told: Bar Ziza’s sharecropper deposited a pound of gold with somebody. Bar Ziza and Bar Ziza’s sharecropper died; the case came before Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose. Would one not say that all that Bar Ziza’s sharecropper had was Bar Ziza’s property? It should be given to Bar Ziza’s sons. Bar Ziza’s sons came. He said, the adult ones should take half and when the underage grow up they should take half. Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose died; the case came before the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya who said, that argument means nothing since there are people who do not advertise themselves. It should be given to the sharecropper’s sons. The trustee told him, I already disbursed half of it. He told him, what you gave, you gave by court order and what you will give, you will give by court order. May the sharecropper’s sons say to Bar Ziza’s sons, give us what you took? They can tell them, what was done was done by court order. May the underage ones say to the adult, let us share with you? May they tell them, we found a find? Rebbi Isaac said, the case between the adult and underage ones is only comparable to a gift given to them.

MISHNAH: The grocer on his account book, how? Not that he says to him, it is written in my account book that you owe me 200 denars, but he said to him, give my son two se’ah of wheat, or my worker small change for a tetradrachma. He says, I gave, but they say, we did not take. He swears and collects, and they swear and collect. Ben Nannas said, how? Both are induced to swear falsely! But he takes without an oath and they take without an oath.

MISHNAH: If she had compromised her ketubah, she shall not be able to collect without an oath. If one witness testifies that [the ketubah] was paid, she shall not be able to collect without an oath. From encumbered property, or from orphans’ property, she shall not be able to collect without an oath. If she collects in his absence, she shall not be able to collect without an oath. Similarly, the orphans can collect only by an oath; “an oath that our father did not instruct us, our father did not tell us, and we found nothing in our father’s documents that this note of indebtedness was paid.” Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa testified that even if the son was born after the father’s death he swears and collects. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, if there are witnesses that the father said on his death bed that this note of indebtedness was not paid, he collects without oath.

MISHNAH: If she had compromised her ketubah, she shall not be able to collect without an oath. If one witness testifies that [the ketubah] was paid, she shall not be able to collect without an oath. From encumbered property, or from orphans’ property, she shall not be able to collect without an oath. If she collects in his absence, she shall not be able to collect without an oath. Similarly, the orphans can collect only by an oath; “an oath that our father did not instruct us, our father did not tell us, and we found nothing in our father’s documents that this note of indebtedness was paid.” Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa testified that even if the son was born after the father’s death he swears and collects. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, if there are witnesses that the father said on his death bed that this note of indebtedness was not paid, he collects without oath.

“Similarly, the orphans can collect only by an oath;” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: One pays from an orphan’s property only if interest is due; Rebbi Nathan says, also a woman’s ketubah. Rebbi Mana said, because of her sustenance. Rebbi Mattania said, who is worried about sustenance? Rebbi Simeon! Since Rebbi Simeon said, all depends on the female. What about it? For attraction, that everybody should jump to marry her. Rebbi Nathan said, also for robbery and torts. Rebbi Yose said, we stated both of these. Robbery from the following: “If it was mortgageable, he has to pay.” For torts from the following: “One pays from minor orphans’ property only from the least valuable.” So is the Mishnah: One pays for torts from minor orphans’ property only from the least valuable. But was it not stated, the son shall stand in the father’s place; one estimates torts from the most valuable land, creditors from average quality, and a woman’s ketubah from the least valuable? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, explain it as everybody’s opinion about testamentary dispositions.

Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Rav: A document produced by the creditor in the creditor’s handwriting is invalid, for I am saying that he has practiced writing documents. This implies that in the hand of another it would be valid. Rebbi Abinna in the name of Samuel: It is always invalid unless it be in the creditors’s possession but in the debtor’s handwriting. What about this? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun said, explain it according to everybody about a testamentary gift.

Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, watch it for it is otherwise. What do we say? Watch it, for it is not negligible. “Owner,” “owner.” Since the owner mentioned there is subject to annulment, so also here he is subject to annulment. The Sabbatical annuls things which are his hand’s loans and annuls the corresponding oaths; the Sabbatical does not annul things which are not his hand’s loans, nor does it annul the corresponding oaths. “For anything which the Sabbatical annuls it annuls the corresponding oath; anything which the Sabbatical does not annul it does not annul the corresponding oath.”

HALAKHAH: “There are four kinds of keepers,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, there are four kinds of keepers and they become liable only through acquisition. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Also in matters of robbery they become liable only through acquisition. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun said, a baraita said so: “one who contracts with another for a field,” etc. Rebbi Ḥananiah said, Rebbi Abun, also in theft cases they become liable only through acquisition. Rebbi Ḥananiah in the name of Rebbi Phineas, our Mishnah said so: “If he was pulling it to lead it out but it died on the owner’s property, he is not liable. If he lifted it or had it led outside the owner’s property when it died, he is liable.” If he lifted it inside the owner’s property it is as if he had taken it out of the entire property of the owner. If he was pulling it and it left, only after it left the entire property of the owner. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If it was standing at his feeding trough. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked: If it was standing at his feeding trough then even if he did not pull it! But we must deal with the case that it was standing in the public domain. Does Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya follow the House of Shammai, since the House of Shammai say, “he shall be hit by less or more”? How do we hold? If it was standing in the public domain and he intended to rustle it when it died, according to everybody he became liable by that intention. If he did not start to pull it, according to everybody he is not liable. But we most hold that it was standing at a feeding trough on his property. As Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, following the House of Shammai. Rebbi Abun said, there he acquired without the knowledge of its owner; but here when he acquires with the knowledge of its owner.

Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: “Grabbing” is mentioned for the unpaid keeper and “grabbing” is mentioned for the paid keeper, but “grabbing” mentioned for the unpaid keeper is not comparable to “grabbing” mentioned for the paid keeper. “Grabbing” mentioned for the unpaid keeper does not make him liable unless he move it. “Grabbing” mentioned for the paid keeper, he is liable from the moment he puts his staff and his bag on it. Rebbi Yose ben Nehorai heard this and said, I am not accepting this, but in any case he is not liable unless he move it. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: But did not Rebbi Hoshaia state it in this way? If “grabbing” had not been mentioned for the unpaid keeper as unnecessary, I would have inferred from the recipient of a fee. Since the recipient of a fee, with whom the Torah was strict, does not become liable unless he move it, it is only logical that an unpaid keeper, with whom the Torah was lenient, not be liable unless he move it. For which purpose was “grabbing” mentioned for the unpaid keeper since it was unnecessary? To be strict with the recipient of a fee; from the moment he puts his staff or his bag on it he is liable. Rebbi Yose said, if you say so, you infer about the premise to restrict it. For one could say to him, since the recipient of a fee, with whom the Torah was strict, does not become liable unless he move it, the unpaid keeper, with whom the Torah was lenient, should not be liable even if he move it. But it must be the following: “Grabbing” should not have been mentioned for the paid keeper as unnecessary, for I would have inferred from the unpaid keeper. Since the unpaid keeper, with whom the Torah was lenient, is not liable unless he move it, the recipient of a fee, with whom the Torah was strict, becomes liable when he moves it. For which purpose was “grabbing” mentioned for the recipient of a fee since it was unnecessary? To be strict; from the moment he puts his staff or his bag on it he is liable.

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, if he saw that witnesses to the theft were approaching and he said “I stole,” since his confession is inoperative he is not liable. If he saw that witnesses to the slaughter were approaching and he said “I slaughtered,” since his confession is (another opinion: not) operative he is not liable (another opinion: is liable). Rebbi Ze`ira asked: that witnesses to rape were approaching and he said “I raped”? Rebbi Ḥanina said, the Mishnah follows Rebbi Simeon who said the main claim is for the fine. Therefore his confession is inoperative and he is not liable. But the rabbis say, the main claim is not for the fine. Therefore his confession is operative and he is liable.

The haughtiness of Jeroboam damned him absolutely. Rebbi Yose ben Jacob said, Jeroboam became king at the end of a Sabbatical year. This refers to what is written, at the end of seven years, at the time of the Sabbatical year, on the festival of Tabernacles, when all of Israel comes to appear before the Eternal, your God, at the place which He shall choose, you shall read this Torah in the presence of all of Israel to their ears. He said, if I am asked to read, I have to stand. They will say, the local king has precedence. But if I am reading as second, it is a shame for me. If I do not read, it is a disgrace for me. And if I let them go, they will ascend and desert me. They will go to Rehabeam, Solomon’s son. This is what is written: If this people would go up to sacrifice in the Temple in Jerusalem will this people’s heart return to their master, to Rehabeam. What did he do? He made two golden calves and wrote on their hearts, “they will kill you.” He said, any king who will succeed me will look at them. Rebbi Ḥuna said, companions of ingenious conjurations. Anybody who joined with him he will make a coconspirator. Rebbi Ḥuna said, a slaughtering place deepened by seducers, for he deepened in crime. He said, anybody, I shall kill anybody who makes this public.

A ducenarius honored Rebbi Jehudah the Prince with a plate full of denarii. He took one of them and sent the remainder to him. He asked Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish who said, he shall bring the value to the Dead Sea. But was he not an acquaintance and it was in the past? Rebbi Abbahu said, did not Rabban Gamliel ben Rebbi asked me, may one go to a fair, and I forbade it to him, although it was stated: “one goes to fairs and buys there male and female slaves.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, not only Jewish slaves but even Gentiles, because he brings them under the wings of the Shekhina. What about this? Rabban Gamliel was a minor personality and Rebbi Abbahu desired to confine him. But Rebbi Judan the Prince was an important person and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish wanted to limit the matter.

A ducenarius honored Rebbi Jehudah the Prince with a plate full of denarii. He took one of them and sent the remainder to him. He asked Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish who said, he shall bring the value to the Dead Sea. But was he not an acquaintance and it was in the past? Rebbi Abbahu said, did not Rabban Gamliel ben Rebbi asked me, may one go to a fair, and I forbade it to him, although it was stated: “one goes to fairs and buys there male and female slaves.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, not only Jewish slaves but even Gentiles, because he brings them under the wings of the Shekhina. What about this? Rabban Gamliel was a minor personality and Rebbi Abbahu desired to confine him. But Rebbi Judan the Prince was an important person and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish wanted to limit the matter.

A ducenarius honored Rebbi Jehudah the Prince with a plate full of denarii. He took one of them and sent the remainder to him. He asked Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish who said, he shall bring the value to the Dead Sea. But was he not an acquaintance and it was in the past? Rebbi Abbahu said, did not Rabban Gamliel ben Rebbi asked me, may one go to a fair, and I forbade it to him, although it was stated: “one goes to fairs and buys there male and female slaves.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, not only Jewish slaves but even Gentiles, because he brings them under the wings of the Shekhina. What about this? Rabban Gamliel was a minor personality and Rebbi Abbahu desired to confine him. But Rebbi Judan the Prince was an important person and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish wanted to limit the matter.

A ducenarius honored Rebbi Jehudah the Prince with a plate full of denarii. He took one of them and sent the remainder to him. He asked Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish who said, he shall bring the value to the Dead Sea. But was he not an acquaintance and it was in the past? Rebbi Abbahu said, did not Rabban Gamliel ben Rebbi asked me, may one go to a fair, and I forbade it to him, although it was stated: “one goes to fairs and buys there male and female slaves.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, not only Jewish slaves but even Gentiles, because he brings them under the wings of the Shekhina. What about this? Rabban Gamliel was a minor personality and Rebbi Abbahu desired to confine him. But Rebbi Judan the Prince was an important person and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish wanted to limit the matter.

Jewish craftsmen working for a Gentile at that time, in his house it is forbidden, in their houses permitted. Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says, when has this been said? When it was cut from the ground, but as long as it is standing on the ground it is forbidden. In another town in any case it is permitted. What means “in any case it is permitted”? Whether cut or standing, whether hired or contracting. Rebbi La said, Whether cut or standing, but only in contracting. Rebbi Simeon ben Karsana in the name of Rebbi Aḥa, concerning Sabbath, mourning, and pagan worship practice follows Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar.

Jewish craftsmen working for a Gentile at that time, in his house it is forbidden, in their houses permitted. Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says, when has this been said? When it was cut from the ground, but as long as it is standing on the ground it is forbidden. In another town in any case it is permitted. What means “in any case it is permitted”? Whether cut or standing, whether hired or contracting. Rebbi La said, Whether cut or standing, but only in contracting. Rebbi Simeon ben Karsana in the name of Rebbi Aḥa, concerning Sabbath, mourning, and pagan worship practice follows Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar.

Jewish craftsmen working for a Gentile at that time, in his house it is forbidden, in their houses permitted. Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says, when has this been said? When it was cut from the ground, but as long as it is standing on the ground it is forbidden. In another town in any case it is permitted. What means “in any case it is permitted”? Whether cut or standing, whether hired or contracting. Rebbi La said, Whether cut or standing, but only in contracting. Rebbi Simeon ben Karsana in the name of Rebbi Aḥa, concerning Sabbath, mourning, and pagan worship practice follows Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar.

The colleagues say, the reason of Rebbi Ismael is because of the holiday’s son. Rebbi Abba said, because he knows that it is forbidden to you to trade with him, he reduces the enjoyment of his holiday. What is the difference between them? To sell them things which do not keep. In the opinion of the colleagues it is forbidden. In the opinion of Rebbi Abba it is allowed. Rebbi Yudan said, a verse supports what the colleagues said. On the twenty-fourth day of the seventh month the sons of Israel assembled in fasting, and crying, and in sackcloth, and dirt on them. Why does it not say, on the twenty-third? Because of the holiday’s son. If you want to say because that was on a Sabbath, you cannot do this, because then the Great Fast would have been on a Sunday. And what about this? Does not Rebbi Onias make light of him who would move it from its place? Rebbi Joḥanan ben Madia said, I computed it and it was not on a Sabbath.

Rav said, Adam, the first man, instituted Calendas. When he saw that the night was getting longer, he said, woe to me, maybe this is what is written for, he shall smite your head, you will sneak to his heel, maybe it will come to bite me. I said, but darkness will smite me. When he saw that days were getting longer, he said calendas, καλόνdies. This follows him who said that the world was created in Tishre. But following him who said that the world was created in Nisan, he would have known. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, who thinks that the world was created in Tishre? Rav! As we have stated in the composition for shofar blowing from the House of Rav: “This is the day of the beginning of Your works, a remembrance of the first day.” This implies that the world was created on New Year’s Day.

Rav said, Calendae are forbidden for everybody. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is forbidden only for those worshipping on them. Saturnalia are forbidden for everybody. Rebbi Joḥanan said, both Calendae and Saturnalia are forbidden only for those worshipping on them. The colleagues asked: are wives of worshippers like worshippers? Rebbi Abbahu asked: is the parade of Caesarea like worship, since it is full of Samaritans? The parade of Duqim is questionable. Rebbi Ze‘ira sent Rebbi Bevai that he should buy him a small web from the Saturnalia of Bet-Shean. He came to Rebbi Yose. He thought that he would instruct him following Rebbi Joshua ben Levi who permitted it. But he instructed him following Rebbi Joḥanan that it was forbidden. Rav said, Calends are eight days before the solstice, Saturnalia eight days after the solstice. Rebbi Joḥanan said, prwqṭw is the head of the turning point.

“Saturnalia,” “hidden hatred; hating, taking revenge, preserving [hatred].” This is what you say, Esau hated Jacob. Rebbi Isaac ben Rebbi Eleazar said, in Rome they call it “senate of Esau.”

“Cratesis.” The day when Rome took hold of the Empire. Was this not stated already? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, for the second time. Rebbi Levi said, on the day when Solomon married the daughter of Pharao Necho, the king of Egypt, Michael descended and put a stick into the Sea which attracted debris and formed a forest; that is the great fortification in Rome. On the day when Jeroboam put up two golden calves, Remus and Romulus built two sheds in Rome. On the day Eliahu disappeared a king was installed at Rome; a king, there is no king appointed in Edom.

HALAKHAH: “Outside a town with pagan worship,” etc. Therefore inside it is forbidden. Because in it there is one statue all of it should be forbidden? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish says, they taught this about a fair. What is the difference between inside and the surroundings? Inside where it profits from the toll it is forbidden. Outside it is permitted because it does not profit from the toll, but if outside it also profits from the toll it is forbidden. But was it not stated: “One goes to fairs and buys there slaves, slave girls, and animals.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, not only Jewish slaves but even Gentiles, because he brings them under the wings of the Shekhina. But was it not stated: If he bought there a garment, it should be burned, an animal should be castrated, coins should be brought to the Dead Sea? One understands that a garment should be burned, coins should be brought to the Dead Sea. An animal should be castrated? But was it not stated: One goes to fairs and buys there slaves, slave girls, and animals.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, not only Jewish slaves but even Gentiles, because he brings them under the wings of Heaven? Explain it, Israel, Israel. But was it not stated: If somebody sells his slave to Gentiles the proceeds are forbidden. Again explain it, Israel, Israel. One buys from an Israel who goes to a fair because he is like one salvaging from their hands. On his return it is forbidden since he profits from pagan worship. But from Gentiles it is permitted whether they are going or coming. Rebbi Abba the son of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If it was a hostelry it is permitted. Rebbi Ze‘ira asked: at a fair it is forbidden, in a hostelry it is permitted? Maybe Rebbi Joḥanan said this about merchandise. Rebbi Abba the son of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba came in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If it was a hostelry, merchandise is permitted, said Rebbi Joḥanan.

HALAKHAH: “Outside a town with pagan worship,” etc. Therefore inside it is forbidden. Because in it there is one statue all of it should be forbidden? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish says, they taught this about a fair. What is the difference between inside and the surroundings? Inside where it profits from the toll it is forbidden. Outside it is permitted because it does not profit from the toll, but if outside it also profits from the toll it is forbidden. But was it not stated: “One goes to fairs and buys there slaves, slave girls, and animals.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, not only Jewish slaves but even Gentiles, because he brings them under the wings of the Shekhina. But was it not stated: If he bought there a garment, it should be burned, an animal should be castrated, coins should be brought to the Dead Sea? One understands that a garment should be burned, coins should be brought to the Dead Sea. An animal should be castrated? But was it not stated: One goes to fairs and buys there slaves, slave girls, and animals.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, not only Jewish slaves but even Gentiles, because he brings them under the wings of Heaven? Explain it, Israel, Israel. But was it not stated: If somebody sells his slave to Gentiles the proceeds are forbidden. Again explain it, Israel, Israel. One buys from an Israel who goes to a fair because he is like one salvaging from their hands. On his return it is forbidden since he profits from pagan worship. But from Gentiles it is permitted whether they are going or coming. Rebbi Abba the son of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If it was a hostelry it is permitted. Rebbi Ze‘ira asked: at a fair it is forbidden, in a hostelry it is permitted? Maybe Rebbi Joḥanan said this about merchandise. Rebbi Abba the son of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba came in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If it was a hostelry, merchandise is permitted, said Rebbi Joḥanan.

HALAKHAH: “Outside a town with pagan worship,” etc. Therefore inside it is forbidden. Because in it there is one statue all of it should be forbidden? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish says, they taught this about a fair. What is the difference between inside and the surroundings? Inside where it profits from the toll it is forbidden. Outside it is permitted because it does not profit from the toll, but if outside it also profits from the toll it is forbidden. But was it not stated: “One goes to fairs and buys there slaves, slave girls, and animals.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, not only Jewish slaves but even Gentiles, because he brings them under the wings of the Shekhina. But was it not stated: If he bought there a garment, it should be burned, an animal should be castrated, coins should be brought to the Dead Sea? One understands that a garment should be burned, coins should be brought to the Dead Sea. An animal should be castrated? But was it not stated: One goes to fairs and buys there slaves, slave girls, and animals.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, not only Jewish slaves but even Gentiles, because he brings them under the wings of Heaven? Explain it, Israel, Israel. But was it not stated: If somebody sells his slave to Gentiles the proceeds are forbidden. Again explain it, Israel, Israel. One buys from an Israel who goes to a fair because he is like one salvaging from their hands. On his return it is forbidden since he profits from pagan worship. But from Gentiles it is permitted whether they are going or coming. Rebbi Abba the son of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If it was a hostelry it is permitted. Rebbi Ze‘ira asked: at a fair it is forbidden, in a hostelry it is permitted? Maybe Rebbi Joḥanan said this about merchandise. Rebbi Abba the son of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba came in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If it was a hostelry, merchandise is permitted, said Rebbi Joḥanan.

Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba sent to buy sandals for himself at the fair of Tyre. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said to him, are you a buyer at fairs? He answered him, did you never buy a loaf of bread? He said to him, there is a difference, since Rebbi Joḥanan said, they did not forbid the necessities of life. Rebbi Simeon ben Joḥanan sent to ask Rebbi Simeon ben Josadaq, did you not check out the nature of the fair at Tyre? He told him, yes. He gave two pounds of peppers to an איסקרנדה. He went and found an inscription there, “I, King Diocletian, settled this fair at Tyre to the genius of my brother Heraklius, eight days.” Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman asked Rebbi Ḥanina: What is the nature of the fair at Gaza? He said to him, did you ever go to Tyre and see a Jew and a Gentile sharing a pot, and he does not worry that the Gentile pour something into the pot? This is difficult. He asked him; what did he answer him? But since Rebbi Ḥanina never said something that he had not heard, for that reason when he asked him this he responded with that. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun came, Abba bar bar Ḥana in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They forbade only the fair at Botnah, as it was stated thus: There are three fairs, the fair at Gaza, the fair at Acco, the fair at Botnah. The clearest of them is the fair at Botnah.

Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba sent to buy sandals for himself at the fair of Tyre. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said to him, are you a buyer at fairs? He answered him, did you never buy a loaf of bread? He said to him, there is a difference, since Rebbi Joḥanan said, they did not forbid the necessities of life. Rebbi Simeon ben Joḥanan sent to ask Rebbi Simeon ben Josadaq, did you not check out the nature of the fair at Tyre? He told him, yes. He gave two pounds of peppers to an איסקרנדה. He went and found an inscription there, “I, King Diocletian, settled this fair at Tyre to the genius of my brother Heraklius, eight days.” Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman asked Rebbi Ḥanina: What is the nature of the fair at Gaza? He said to him, did you ever go to Tyre and see a Jew and a Gentile sharing a pot, and he does not worry that the Gentile pour something into the pot? This is difficult. He asked him; what did he answer him? But since Rebbi Ḥanina never said something that he had not heard, for that reason when he asked him this he responded with that. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun came, Abba bar bar Ḥana in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They forbade only the fair at Botnah, as it was stated thus: There are three fairs, the fair at Gaza, the fair at Acco, the fair at Botnah. The clearest of them is the fair at Botnah.

Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba sent to buy sandals for himself at the fair of Tyre. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said to him, are you a buyer at fairs? He answered him, did you never buy a loaf of bread? He said to him, there is a difference, since Rebbi Joḥanan said, they did not forbid the necessities of life. Rebbi Simeon ben Joḥanan sent to ask Rebbi Simeon ben Josadaq, did you not check out the nature of the fair at Tyre? He told him, yes. He gave two pounds of peppers to an איסקרנדה. He went and found an inscription there, “I, King Diocletian, settled this fair at Tyre to the genius of my brother Heraklius, eight days.” Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman asked Rebbi Ḥanina: What is the nature of the fair at Gaza? He said to him, did you ever go to Tyre and see a Jew and a Gentile sharing a pot, and he does not worry that the Gentile pour something into the pot? This is difficult. He asked him; what did he answer him? But since Rebbi Ḥanina never said something that he had not heard, for that reason when he asked him this he responded with that. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun came, Abba bar bar Ḥana in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They forbade only the fair at Botnah, as it was stated thus: There are three fairs, the fair at Gaza, the fair at Acco, the fair at Botnah. The clearest of them is the fair at Botnah.

How are they decorated? Rebbi Joḥanan said, with myrrh; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, with any kind. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan, all is forbidden; in the opinion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish only the addition is forbiddden. How is this done? If he usually takes five boxes outside and he took ten. If you say as a decoration, it is forbidden. If you say as sales practice, it is permitted.

How are they decorated? Rebbi Joḥanan said, with myrrh; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, with any kind. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan, all is forbidden; in the opinion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish only the addition is forbiddden. How is this done? If he usually takes five boxes outside and he took ten. If you say as a decoration, it is forbidden. If you say as sales practice, it is permitted.

“And incense.” It was stated, if it was a bundle it is permitted. How many are a bundle? “Rebbi Jehudah ben Bathyra said, there are no less than five kinds in a bundle of incense. If he was a pagan priest it is forbidden, a medical man is permitted, a trader is permitted. A suspect trader is forbidden.”

“Rebbi Meïr says, it is also forbidden to sell good dates, and curved dates, and Nicolaos dates to Gentiles.” Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba said, Caryotis. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose said, it is a kind known as ḥaṣda. If somebody transgressed and sold? It will come similar to what Rebbi Eleazar said, if he transgressed and built it is permitted, and here if he transgressed and sold it is permitted.

MISHNAH: At a place where they used to sell small cattle to Gentiles one sells; at a place where they used not to sell one does not sell; nobody should change this because of controversy. Nowhere does one sell to them large animals, calves, and donkey foals, whole or damaged. Rebbi Jehudah permits damaged ones; Ben Bathyra permits horses.

If he transgressed and sold one fines him. Just as one fines for practice so one fines for custom. From where that one fines for custom? A person sold his camel to an Aramean. The case came before Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish who fined him double to make him take back the camel. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, they fined the broker and called him son who brokers to Arameans. Does Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish follow Rebbi Jehudah? As it was stated in the name of Rebbi Jehuda: “If somebody buys an animal from a Gentile and it gave birth to a firstling, he buys it up to its worth and gives half of its worth to a Cohen. If it was given to him as contractor, he has to pay for up to ten times its worth and gives all of its worth to the Cohen. But the Sages say, since the finger of the Gentile in involved it is no longer liable as firstling.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is more than Rebbi Jehudah. What Rebbi Jehudah said because of the practice of firstlings; but what Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said because of practice regarding a large animal.

If he transgressed and sold one fines him. Just as one fines for practice so one fines for custom. From where that one fines for custom? A person sold his camel to an Aramean. The case came before Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish who fined him double to make him take back the camel. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, they fined the broker and called him son who brokers to Arameans. Does Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish follow Rebbi Jehudah? As it was stated in the name of Rebbi Jehuda: “If somebody buys an animal from a Gentile and it gave birth to a firstling, he buys it up to its worth and gives half of its worth to a Cohen. If it was given to him as contractor, he has to pay for up to ten times its worth and gives all of its worth to the Cohen. But the Sages say, since the finger of the Gentile in involved it is no longer liable as firstling.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is more than Rebbi Jehudah. What Rebbi Jehudah said because of the practice of firstlings; but what Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said because of practice regarding a large animal.

If he transgressed and sold one fines him. Just as one fines for practice so one fines for custom. From where that one fines for custom? A person sold his camel to an Aramean. The case came before Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish who fined him double to make him take back the camel. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, they fined the broker and called him son who brokers to Arameans. Does Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish follow Rebbi Jehudah? As it was stated in the name of Rebbi Jehuda: “If somebody buys an animal from a Gentile and it gave birth to a firstling, he buys it up to its worth and gives half of its worth to a Cohen. If it was given to him as contractor, he has to pay for up to ten times its worth and gives all of its worth to the Cohen. But the Sages say, since the finger of the Gentile in involved it is no longer liable as firstling.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is more than Rebbi Jehudah. What Rebbi Jehudah said because of the practice of firstlings; but what Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said because of practice regarding a large animal.

If he transgressed and sold one fines him. Just as one fines for practice so one fines for custom. From where that one fines for custom? A person sold his camel to an Aramean. The case came before Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish who fined him double to make him take back the camel. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, they fined the broker and called him son who brokers to Arameans. Does Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish follow Rebbi Jehudah? As it was stated in the name of Rebbi Jehuda: “If somebody buys an animal from a Gentile and it gave birth to a firstling, he buys it up to its worth and gives half of its worth to a Cohen. If it was given to him as contractor, he has to pay for up to ten times its worth and gives all of its worth to the Cohen. But the Sages say, since the finger of the Gentile in involved it is no longer liable as firstling.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is more than Rebbi Jehudah. What Rebbi Jehudah said because of the practice of firstlings; but what Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said because of practice regarding a large animal.

If he transgressed and sold one fines him. Just as one fines for practice so one fines for custom. From where that one fines for custom? A person sold his camel to an Aramean. The case came before Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish who fined him double to make him take back the camel. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, they fined the broker and called him son who brokers to Arameans. Does Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish follow Rebbi Jehudah? As it was stated in the name of Rebbi Jehuda: “If somebody buys an animal from a Gentile and it gave birth to a firstling, he buys it up to its worth and gives half of its worth to a Cohen. If it was given to him as contractor, he has to pay for up to ten times its worth and gives all of its worth to the Cohen. But the Sages say, since the finger of the Gentile in involved it is no longer liable as firstling.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is more than Rebbi Jehudah. What Rebbi Jehudah said because of the practice of firstlings; but what Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said because of practice regarding a large animal.

“Ben Bathyra permits horses.” Ben Bathyra said this only about a male horse because it kills its owner in war. Some say, because it runs after females, and some say, because it stands still to urinate. What is between them? A gelding. He who says because it runs after females, it does not run. He who says because it stands still to urinate, this one also stands still to urinate. [Rebbi Aḥa in the name of] Rebbi Tanḥum bar Ḥiyya: If it gets old he binds it to the grindstone. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Huna: Ben Bathyra and Rebbi Nathan both said the same, as it was stated: “If he carried out domestic animals, wild animals, or birds, whether alive or dead, he is liable. Rebbi Nathan says, dead he is liable, alive he is not liable.” The rabbis hold that he is liable for a purification sacrifice and they answer him so? They answer following his own argument. Following your argument, since you are saying because of rabbinic Sabbath prohibition, also we hold that if it gets old he binds it to the grindstone. Rebbi says, I am saying that it is forbidden for two reasons, as a weapon and as a large animal. It was stated so: A large wild animal is like a (small) [large] domestic animal. Who stated this? Rebbi. The words of the Sages: Rebbi Bisna, Rebbi Ḥanan bar Abba in the name of Rav: A wild animal is like a (large) [small] domestic animal.

“Ben Bathyra permits horses.” Ben Bathyra said this only about a male horse because it kills its owner in war. Some say, because it runs after females, and some say, because it stands still to urinate. What is between them? A gelding. He who says because it runs after females, it does not run. He who says because it stands still to urinate, this one also stands still to urinate. [Rebbi Aḥa in the name of] Rebbi Tanḥum bar Ḥiyya: If it gets old he binds it to the grindstone. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Huna: Ben Bathyra and Rebbi Nathan both said the same, as it was stated: “If he carried out domestic animals, wild animals, or birds, whether alive or dead, he is liable. Rebbi Nathan says, dead he is liable, alive he is not liable.” The rabbis hold that he is liable for a purification sacrifice and they answer him so? They answer following his own argument. Following your argument, since you are saying because of rabbinic Sabbath prohibition, also we hold that if it gets old he binds it to the grindstone. Rebbi says, I am saying that it is forbidden for two reasons, as a weapon and as a large animal. It was stated so: A large wild animal is like a (small) [large] domestic animal. Who stated this? Rebbi. The words of the Sages: Rebbi Bisna, Rebbi Ḥanan bar Abba in the name of Rav: A wild animal is like a (large) [small] domestic animal.

“Ben Bathyra permits horses.” Ben Bathyra said this only about a male horse because it kills its owner in war. Some say, because it runs after females, and some say, because it stands still to urinate. What is between them? A gelding. He who says because it runs after females, it does not run. He who says because it stands still to urinate, this one also stands still to urinate. [Rebbi Aḥa in the name of] Rebbi Tanḥum bar Ḥiyya: If it gets old he binds it to the grindstone. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Huna: Ben Bathyra and Rebbi Nathan both said the same, as it was stated: “If he carried out domestic animals, wild animals, or birds, whether alive or dead, he is liable. Rebbi Nathan says, dead he is liable, alive he is not liable.” The rabbis hold that he is liable for a purification sacrifice and they answer him so? They answer following his own argument. Following your argument, since you are saying because of rabbinic Sabbath prohibition, also we hold that if it gets old he binds it to the grindstone. Rebbi says, I am saying that it is forbidden for two reasons, as a weapon and as a large animal. It was stated so: A large wild animal is like a (small) [large] domestic animal. Who stated this? Rebbi. The words of the Sages: Rebbi Bisna, Rebbi Ḥanan bar Abba in the name of Rav: A wild animal is like a (large) [small] domestic animal.

“Ben Bathyra permits horses.” Ben Bathyra said this only about a male horse because it kills its owner in war. Some say, because it runs after females, and some say, because it stands still to urinate. What is between them? A gelding. He who says because it runs after females, it does not run. He who says because it stands still to urinate, this one also stands still to urinate. [Rebbi Aḥa in the name of] Rebbi Tanḥum bar Ḥiyya: If it gets old he binds it to the grindstone. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Huna: Ben Bathyra and Rebbi Nathan both said the same, as it was stated: “If he carried out domestic animals, wild animals, or birds, whether alive or dead, he is liable. Rebbi Nathan says, dead he is liable, alive he is not liable.” The rabbis hold that he is liable for a purification sacrifice and they answer him so? They answer following his own argument. Following your argument, since you are saying because of rabbinic Sabbath prohibition, also we hold that if it gets old he binds it to the grindstone. Rebbi says, I am saying that it is forbidden for two reasons, as a weapon and as a large animal. It was stated so: A large wild animal is like a (small) [large] domestic animal. Who stated this? Rebbi. The words of the Sages: Rebbi Bisna, Rebbi Ḥanan bar Abba in the name of Rav: A wild animal is like a (large) [small] domestic animal.

HALAKHAH: “One does not lease houses to them,” etc. Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina, Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: לֹא תְחָנֵּֽם do credit them with charm; לֹא תְחָנֵּֽם do not give them free gifts; לֹא תְחָנֵּֽם do not give them encampment in the Land. But did we not state, “Rebbi Yose says, also in the Land of Israel one leases houses to them”? A house is not a source of blessing; a field is a source of blessing. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun instructed that it is forbidden to let them lease a grave in the Land of Israel because of “do not give them encampment in the Land.”

HALAKHAH: “One does not lease houses to them,” etc. Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina, Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: לֹא תְחָנֵּֽם do credit them with charm; לֹא תְחָנֵּֽם do not give them free gifts; לֹא תְחָנֵּֽם do not give them encampment in the Land. But did we not state, “Rebbi Yose says, also in the Land of Israel one leases houses to them”? A house is not a source of blessing; a field is a source of blessing. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun instructed that it is forbidden to let them lease a grave in the Land of Israel because of “do not give them encampment in the Land.”