ben

They asked Ben Zoma, Quid de castratione canis? He said to them, "Neither shall ye do thus in your land" (Lev. xxii. 24), meaning, All the things that are done in your land ye shall not do.

They asked Ben Zoma, In re puellae gravidae what about the high priest? Shall we take into consideration that which was discussed by Samuel? For Samuel said,

Quoties velim, coire sine sanguine possum. Or perhaps it may be said, This case of Samuel is not a usual thing. He (Ben Zoma) said to them, This case of Samuel is not a usual thing. But we take into consideration the possibility eam in balneo gravidam factam esse. But against this view Samuel said, Omne semen coitus quod non velut sagitta emittitur, non generat. But this may only mean quod primo velut sagitta emissum est. Our Rabbis have taught thus, There is a story about R. Joshua ben Chănaniah, that he was standing upon a high ridge of the Temple mountain, and Ben Zoma saw him and did not stand up before him. He said to him, Whence and whither tend thy thoughts, Ben Zoma? He said to him, I was considering the interval between the upper and the lower waters, and there is only between the two a bare three fingers' breadth, as it is said, "And the spirit of God was brooding upon the face of the waters" (Gen. i. 2), like a dove which broods over her young without touching them. R. Joshua said to his disciples, Ben Zoma is certainly still out of his mind. "And the spirit of God was brooding upon the face of the waters." When was it doing so? On the first day? But the division between the upper and lower waters was on the second day, for this is what is written, "and let it divide the waters from the waters" (Gen. i. 6). And about what is the interval? R. Acha bar Jacob said, About the thickness of a hair. And our Rabbis say, The interstices between closely fitting planks of a bridge. Mar Zot'ra, or, if you like, I will say Rab Asi, said, Like two cloaks that are spread out together, and there are some who say with regard to it, Like two inverted cups that are pressed together.

Quoties velim, coire sine sanguine possum. Or perhaps it may be said, This case of Samuel is not a usual thing. He (Ben Zoma) said to them, This case of Samuel is not a usual thing. But we take into consideration the possibility eam in balneo gravidam factam esse. But against this view Samuel said, Omne semen coitus quod non velut sagitta emittitur, non generat. But this may only mean quod primo velut sagitta emissum est. Our Rabbis have taught thus, There is a story about R. Joshua ben Chănaniah, that he was standing upon a high ridge of the Temple mountain, and Ben Zoma saw him and did not stand up before him. He said to him, Whence and whither tend thy thoughts, Ben Zoma? He said to him, I was considering the interval between the upper and the lower waters, and there is only between the two a bare three fingers' breadth, as it is said, "And the spirit of God was brooding upon the face of the waters" (Gen. i. 2), like a dove which broods over her young without touching them. R. Joshua said to his disciples, Ben Zoma is certainly still out of his mind. "And the spirit of God was brooding upon the face of the waters." When was it doing so? On the first day? But the division between the upper and lower waters was on the second day, for this is what is written, "and let it divide the waters from the waters" (Gen. i. 6). And about what is the interval? R. Acha bar Jacob said, About the thickness of a hair. And our Rabbis say, The interstices between closely fitting planks of a bridge. Mar Zot'ra, or, if you like, I will say Rab Asi, said, Like two cloaks that are spread out together, and there are some who say with regard to it, Like two inverted cups that are pressed together.

Quoties velim, coire sine sanguine possum. Or perhaps it may be said, This case of Samuel is not a usual thing. He (Ben Zoma) said to them, This case of Samuel is not a usual thing. But we take into consideration the possibility eam in balneo gravidam factam esse. But against this view Samuel said, Omne semen coitus quod non velut sagitta emittitur, non generat. But this may only mean quod primo velut sagitta emissum est. Our Rabbis have taught thus, There is a story about R. Joshua ben Chănaniah, that he was standing upon a high ridge of the Temple mountain, and Ben Zoma saw him and did not stand up before him. He said to him, Whence and whither tend thy thoughts, Ben Zoma? He said to him, I was considering the interval between the upper and the lower waters, and there is only between the two a bare three fingers' breadth, as it is said, "And the spirit of God was brooding upon the face of the waters" (Gen. i. 2), like a dove which broods over her young without touching them. R. Joshua said to his disciples, Ben Zoma is certainly still out of his mind. "And the spirit of God was brooding upon the face of the waters." When was it doing so? On the first day? But the division between the upper and lower waters was on the second day, for this is what is written, "and let it divide the waters from the waters" (Gen. i. 6). And about what is the interval? R. Acha bar Jacob said, About the thickness of a hair. And our Rabbis say, The interstices between closely fitting planks of a bridge. Mar Zot'ra, or, if you like, I will say Rab Asi, said, Like two cloaks that are spread out together, and there are some who say with regard to it, Like two inverted cups that are pressed together.

Quoties velim, coire sine sanguine possum. Or perhaps it may be said, This case of Samuel is not a usual thing. He (Ben Zoma) said to them, This case of Samuel is not a usual thing. But we take into consideration the possibility eam in balneo gravidam factam esse. But against this view Samuel said, Omne semen coitus quod non velut sagitta emittitur, non generat. But this may only mean quod primo velut sagitta emissum est. Our Rabbis have taught thus, There is a story about R. Joshua ben Chănaniah, that he was standing upon a high ridge of the Temple mountain, and Ben Zoma saw him and did not stand up before him. He said to him, Whence and whither tend thy thoughts, Ben Zoma? He said to him, I was considering the interval between the upper and the lower waters, and there is only between the two a bare three fingers' breadth, as it is said, "And the spirit of God was brooding upon the face of the waters" (Gen. i. 2), like a dove which broods over her young without touching them. R. Joshua said to his disciples, Ben Zoma is certainly still out of his mind. "And the spirit of God was brooding upon the face of the waters." When was it doing so? On the first day? But the division between the upper and lower waters was on the second day, for this is what is written, "and let it divide the waters from the waters" (Gen. i. 6). And about what is the interval? R. Acha bar Jacob said, About the thickness of a hair. And our Rabbis say, The interstices between closely fitting planks of a bridge. Mar Zot'ra, or, if you like, I will say Rab Asi, said, Like two cloaks that are spread out together, and there are some who say with regard to it, Like two inverted cups that are pressed together.

Quoties velim, coire sine sanguine possum. Or perhaps it may be said, This case of Samuel is not a usual thing. He (Ben Zoma) said to them, This case of Samuel is not a usual thing. But we take into consideration the possibility eam in balneo gravidam factam esse. But against this view Samuel said, Omne semen coitus quod non velut sagitta emittitur, non generat. But this may only mean quod primo velut sagitta emissum est. Our Rabbis have taught thus, There is a story about R. Joshua ben Chănaniah, that he was standing upon a high ridge of the Temple mountain, and Ben Zoma saw him and did not stand up before him. He said to him, Whence and whither tend thy thoughts, Ben Zoma? He said to him, I was considering the interval between the upper and the lower waters, and there is only between the two a bare three fingers' breadth, as it is said, "And the spirit of God was brooding upon the face of the waters" (Gen. i. 2), like a dove which broods over her young without touching them. R. Joshua said to his disciples, Ben Zoma is certainly still out of his mind. "And the spirit of God was brooding upon the face of the waters." When was it doing so? On the first day? But the division between the upper and lower waters was on the second day, for this is what is written, "and let it divide the waters from the waters" (Gen. i. 6). And about what is the interval? R. Acha bar Jacob said, About the thickness of a hair. And our Rabbis say, The interstices between closely fitting planks of a bridge. Mar Zot'ra, or, if you like, I will say Rab Asi, said, Like two cloaks that are spread out together, and there are some who say with regard to it, Like two inverted cups that are pressed together.

Acher cut the plants. It is of him that the Scripture says, "Suffer not thy mouth to cause thy flesh to sin" (Eccles. v. 6). What was the matter referred to? He saw the Metatron, to whom is given the permission to sit to record the merits of Israel. He said, We are taught that in heaven there is no sitting down nor anger nor back nor weariness. Are there—God forbid!—two First Principles? They brought out the Metatron and gave him sixty strokes with a lash of fire. They said to him, What is the reason that, when thou sawest him, thou didst not rise up before him? He was given permission to strike out the merits of Acher. There came out a Bath-Kol and said, "'Return, O backsliding children' (Jer. iii. 14), except Acher." He said, Inasmuch as that man is excluded from yonder world, let him go and enjoy himself in this world. Acher went forth into evil courses. He went forth and met a loose woman. He solicited her. She said to him, Art not thou Elisha ben Abuyah? He pulled up a radish from the garden on the Sabbath and gave it to her. She said, He is another.

II. (2) Jose ben Joezer says that a man is not to lay on his hand, but Joseph ben Jochanan says that a man is to lay it; Joshua ben P'rachyah says that a man is not to lay it, but Mattai the Arbelite says that a man is to lay it. Jehudah ben Tabbai says that a man is not to lay it, but Simeon ben Shetach says that a man is to lay it. Shemaiah says that a man is to lay it, but Abtalion says that a man is not to lay it. Hillel and Menahem did not differ. Menahem went out. Shammai entered in. Shammai says that a man is not to lay it. Hillel says that a man is to lay it.

II. (2) Jose ben Joezer says that a man is not to lay on his hand, but Joseph ben Jochanan says that a man is to lay it; Joshua ben P'rachyah says that a man is not to lay it, but Mattai the Arbelite says that a man is to lay it. Jehudah ben Tabbai says that a man is not to lay it, but Simeon ben Shetach says that a man is to lay it. Shemaiah says that a man is to lay it, but Abtalion says that a man is not to lay it. Hillel and Menahem did not differ. Menahem went out. Shammai entered in. Shammai says that a man is not to lay it. Hillel says that a man is to lay it.

II. (2) Jose ben Joezer says that a man is not to lay on his hand, but Joseph ben Jochanan says that a man is to lay it; Joshua ben P'rachyah says that a man is not to lay it, but Mattai the Arbelite says that a man is to lay it. Jehudah ben Tabbai says that a man is not to lay it, but Simeon ben Shetach says that a man is to lay it. Shemaiah says that a man is to lay it, but Abtalion says that a man is not to lay it. Hillel and Menahem did not differ. Menahem went out. Shammai entered in. Shammai says that a man is not to lay it. Hillel says that a man is to lay it.

II. (2) Jose ben Joezer says that a man is not to lay on his hand, but Joseph ben Jochanan says that a man is to lay it; Joshua ben P'rachyah says that a man is not to lay it, but Mattai the Arbelite says that a man is to lay it. Jehudah ben Tabbai says that a man is not to lay it, but Simeon ben Shetach says that a man is to lay it. Shemaiah says that a man is to lay it, but Abtalion says that a man is not to lay it. Hillel and Menahem did not differ. Menahem went out. Shammai entered in. Shammai says that a man is not to lay it. Hillel says that a man is to lay it.

II. (2) Jose ben Joezer says that a man is not to lay on his hand, but Joseph ben Jochanan says that a man is to lay it; Joshua ben P'rachyah says that a man is not to lay it, but Mattai the Arbelite says that a man is to lay it. Jehudah ben Tabbai says that a man is not to lay it, but Simeon ben Shetach says that a man is to lay it. Shemaiah says that a man is to lay it, but Abtalion says that a man is not to lay it. Hillel and Menahem did not differ. Menahem went out. Shammai entered in. Shammai says that a man is not to lay it. Hillel says that a man is to lay it.

Our Rabbis have taught, In the three former pairs, which say that a man is not to lay, and in the two latter pairs which say that a man is to lay, the first were prince-presidents and the second vice-presidents. These are the words of R. Meir. But wise men say, Jehudah ben Tabbai was vice-president, and Simeon ben Shetach was prince-president. Who is the author of that teaching? For the converse would appear to be the case, because our Rabbis have taught thus, viz., that R. Jehudah ben Tabbai said, May I see the consolation of Israel, if I have not slain a false witness so as to oppose the Sadducees, when they say, False witnesses are not put to death, until the condemned person shall have been put to death. Simeon ben Shetach said to him, May I see the consolation of Israel, if thou hast not shed innocent blood; for behold, wise men have said, False witnesses are not to be put to death, until they are both proved to be false, and they are not beaten, until they are both proved to be false, and they do not have to refund money, until they are both proved to be false. Forthwith Jehudah ben Tabbai undertook that he would not teach doctrine (Halachah) except in the presence of Simeon ben Shetach. All the days of Jehudah ben Tabbai he used to stretch himself upon the grave of the slain man, and his voice was heard, so that the people wondered, saying that it was the voice of the slain man. He said to them, It is my voice; know ye that tomorrow he will be dead, and his voice will not be heard. R. Acha bar Rabba said to R. Ashi, But perhaps he prayed him earnestly to forgive him, or perhaps he called him before the judgment seat. Who is the authority for this view? If thou sayest, It is all right according to R. Meir, who said, Simeon ben Shetach was vice-president, and R. Jehudah ben Tabbai was prince-president, this accords with his teaching doctrine in the presence of Simeon ben Shetach, but if thou sayest, Our Rabbis are right, who say, Jehudah ben Tabbai was vice-president, Simeon ben Shetach was prince-president, how should the vice-president teach doctrine in the presence of the prince-president? No, what is the meaning of "he undertook?" He spoke in reference not to teaching but to combination, Even if men combine, yet will I not combine.

Our Rabbis have taught, In the three former pairs, which say that a man is not to lay, and in the two latter pairs which say that a man is to lay, the first were prince-presidents and the second vice-presidents. These are the words of R. Meir. But wise men say, Jehudah ben Tabbai was vice-president, and Simeon ben Shetach was prince-president. Who is the author of that teaching? For the converse would appear to be the case, because our Rabbis have taught thus, viz., that R. Jehudah ben Tabbai said, May I see the consolation of Israel, if I have not slain a false witness so as to oppose the Sadducees, when they say, False witnesses are not put to death, until the condemned person shall have been put to death. Simeon ben Shetach said to him, May I see the consolation of Israel, if thou hast not shed innocent blood; for behold, wise men have said, False witnesses are not to be put to death, until they are both proved to be false, and they are not beaten, until they are both proved to be false, and they do not have to refund money, until they are both proved to be false. Forthwith Jehudah ben Tabbai undertook that he would not teach doctrine (Halachah) except in the presence of Simeon ben Shetach. All the days of Jehudah ben Tabbai he used to stretch himself upon the grave of the slain man, and his voice was heard, so that the people wondered, saying that it was the voice of the slain man. He said to them, It is my voice; know ye that tomorrow he will be dead, and his voice will not be heard. R. Acha bar Rabba said to R. Ashi, But perhaps he prayed him earnestly to forgive him, or perhaps he called him before the judgment seat. Who is the authority for this view? If thou sayest, It is all right according to R. Meir, who said, Simeon ben Shetach was vice-president, and R. Jehudah ben Tabbai was prince-president, this accords with his teaching doctrine in the presence of Simeon ben Shetach, but if thou sayest, Our Rabbis are right, who say, Jehudah ben Tabbai was vice-president, Simeon ben Shetach was prince-president, how should the vice-president teach doctrine in the presence of the prince-president? No, what is the meaning of "he undertook?" He spoke in reference not to teaching but to combination, Even if men combine, yet will I not combine.

Our Rabbis have taught, In the three former pairs, which say that a man is not to lay, and in the two latter pairs which say that a man is to lay, the first were prince-presidents and the second vice-presidents. These are the words of R. Meir. But wise men say, Jehudah ben Tabbai was vice-president, and Simeon ben Shetach was prince-president. Who is the author of that teaching? For the converse would appear to be the case, because our Rabbis have taught thus, viz., that R. Jehudah ben Tabbai said, May I see the consolation of Israel, if I have not slain a false witness so as to oppose the Sadducees, when they say, False witnesses are not put to death, until the condemned person shall have been put to death. Simeon ben Shetach said to him, May I see the consolation of Israel, if thou hast not shed innocent blood; for behold, wise men have said, False witnesses are not to be put to death, until they are both proved to be false, and they are not beaten, until they are both proved to be false, and they do not have to refund money, until they are both proved to be false. Forthwith Jehudah ben Tabbai undertook that he would not teach doctrine (Halachah) except in the presence of Simeon ben Shetach. All the days of Jehudah ben Tabbai he used to stretch himself upon the grave of the slain man, and his voice was heard, so that the people wondered, saying that it was the voice of the slain man. He said to them, It is my voice; know ye that tomorrow he will be dead, and his voice will not be heard. R. Acha bar Rabba said to R. Ashi, But perhaps he prayed him earnestly to forgive him, or perhaps he called him before the judgment seat. Who is the authority for this view? If thou sayest, It is all right according to R. Meir, who said, Simeon ben Shetach was vice-president, and R. Jehudah ben Tabbai was prince-president, this accords with his teaching doctrine in the presence of Simeon ben Shetach, but if thou sayest, Our Rabbis are right, who say, Jehudah ben Tabbai was vice-president, Simeon ben Shetach was prince-president, how should the vice-president teach doctrine in the presence of the prince-president? No, what is the meaning of "he undertook?" He spoke in reference not to teaching but to combination, Even if men combine, yet will I not combine.

Our Rabbis have taught, In the three former pairs, which say that a man is not to lay, and in the two latter pairs which say that a man is to lay, the first were prince-presidents and the second vice-presidents. These are the words of R. Meir. But wise men say, Jehudah ben Tabbai was vice-president, and Simeon ben Shetach was prince-president. Who is the author of that teaching? For the converse would appear to be the case, because our Rabbis have taught thus, viz., that R. Jehudah ben Tabbai said, May I see the consolation of Israel, if I have not slain a false witness so as to oppose the Sadducees, when they say, False witnesses are not put to death, until the condemned person shall have been put to death. Simeon ben Shetach said to him, May I see the consolation of Israel, if thou hast not shed innocent blood; for behold, wise men have said, False witnesses are not to be put to death, until they are both proved to be false, and they are not beaten, until they are both proved to be false, and they do not have to refund money, until they are both proved to be false. Forthwith Jehudah ben Tabbai undertook that he would not teach doctrine (Halachah) except in the presence of Simeon ben Shetach. All the days of Jehudah ben Tabbai he used to stretch himself upon the grave of the slain man, and his voice was heard, so that the people wondered, saying that it was the voice of the slain man. He said to them, It is my voice; know ye that tomorrow he will be dead, and his voice will not be heard. R. Acha bar Rabba said to R. Ashi, But perhaps he prayed him earnestly to forgive him, or perhaps he called him before the judgment seat. Who is the authority for this view? If thou sayest, It is all right according to R. Meir, who said, Simeon ben Shetach was vice-president, and R. Jehudah ben Tabbai was prince-president, this accords with his teaching doctrine in the presence of Simeon ben Shetach, but if thou sayest, Our Rabbis are right, who say, Jehudah ben Tabbai was vice-president, Simeon ben Shetach was prince-president, how should the vice-president teach doctrine in the presence of the prince-president? No, what is the meaning of "he undertook?" He spoke in reference not to teaching but to combination, Even if men combine, yet will I not combine.

Our Rabbis have taught, In the three former pairs, which say that a man is not to lay, and in the two latter pairs which say that a man is to lay, the first were prince-presidents and the second vice-presidents. These are the words of R. Meir. But wise men say, Jehudah ben Tabbai was vice-president, and Simeon ben Shetach was prince-president. Who is the author of that teaching? For the converse would appear to be the case, because our Rabbis have taught thus, viz., that R. Jehudah ben Tabbai said, May I see the consolation of Israel, if I have not slain a false witness so as to oppose the Sadducees, when they say, False witnesses are not put to death, until the condemned person shall have been put to death. Simeon ben Shetach said to him, May I see the consolation of Israel, if thou hast not shed innocent blood; for behold, wise men have said, False witnesses are not to be put to death, until they are both proved to be false, and they are not beaten, until they are both proved to be false, and they do not have to refund money, until they are both proved to be false. Forthwith Jehudah ben Tabbai undertook that he would not teach doctrine (Halachah) except in the presence of Simeon ben Shetach. All the days of Jehudah ben Tabbai he used to stretch himself upon the grave of the slain man, and his voice was heard, so that the people wondered, saying that it was the voice of the slain man. He said to them, It is my voice; know ye that tomorrow he will be dead, and his voice will not be heard. R. Acha bar Rabba said to R. Ashi, But perhaps he prayed him earnestly to forgive him, or perhaps he called him before the judgment seat. Who is the authority for this view? If thou sayest, It is all right according to R. Meir, who said, Simeon ben Shetach was vice-president, and R. Jehudah ben Tabbai was prince-president, this accords with his teaching doctrine in the presence of Simeon ben Shetach, but if thou sayest, Our Rabbis are right, who say, Jehudah ben Tabbai was vice-president, Simeon ben Shetach was prince-president, how should the vice-president teach doctrine in the presence of the prince-president? No, what is the meaning of "he undertook?" He spoke in reference not to teaching but to combination, Even if men combine, yet will I not combine.

Our Rabbis have taught, In the three former pairs, which say that a man is not to lay, and in the two latter pairs which say that a man is to lay, the first were prince-presidents and the second vice-presidents. These are the words of R. Meir. But wise men say, Jehudah ben Tabbai was vice-president, and Simeon ben Shetach was prince-president. Who is the author of that teaching? For the converse would appear to be the case, because our Rabbis have taught thus, viz., that R. Jehudah ben Tabbai said, May I see the consolation of Israel, if I have not slain a false witness so as to oppose the Sadducees, when they say, False witnesses are not put to death, until the condemned person shall have been put to death. Simeon ben Shetach said to him, May I see the consolation of Israel, if thou hast not shed innocent blood; for behold, wise men have said, False witnesses are not to be put to death, until they are both proved to be false, and they are not beaten, until they are both proved to be false, and they do not have to refund money, until they are both proved to be false. Forthwith Jehudah ben Tabbai undertook that he would not teach doctrine (Halachah) except in the presence of Simeon ben Shetach. All the days of Jehudah ben Tabbai he used to stretch himself upon the grave of the slain man, and his voice was heard, so that the people wondered, saying that it was the voice of the slain man. He said to them, It is my voice; know ye that tomorrow he will be dead, and his voice will not be heard. R. Acha bar Rabba said to R. Ashi, But perhaps he prayed him earnestly to forgive him, or perhaps he called him before the judgment seat. Who is the authority for this view? If thou sayest, It is all right according to R. Meir, who said, Simeon ben Shetach was vice-president, and R. Jehudah ben Tabbai was prince-president, this accords with his teaching doctrine in the presence of Simeon ben Shetach, but if thou sayest, Our Rabbis are right, who say, Jehudah ben Tabbai was vice-president, Simeon ben Shetach was prince-president, how should the vice-president teach doctrine in the presence of the prince-president? No, what is the meaning of "he undertook?" He spoke in reference not to teaching but to combination, Even if men combine, yet will I not combine.

Our Rabbis have taught, In the three former pairs, which say that a man is not to lay, and in the two latter pairs which say that a man is to lay, the first were prince-presidents and the second vice-presidents. These are the words of R. Meir. But wise men say, Jehudah ben Tabbai was vice-president, and Simeon ben Shetach was prince-president. Who is the author of that teaching? For the converse would appear to be the case, because our Rabbis have taught thus, viz., that R. Jehudah ben Tabbai said, May I see the consolation of Israel, if I have not slain a false witness so as to oppose the Sadducees, when they say, False witnesses are not put to death, until the condemned person shall have been put to death. Simeon ben Shetach said to him, May I see the consolation of Israel, if thou hast not shed innocent blood; for behold, wise men have said, False witnesses are not to be put to death, until they are both proved to be false, and they are not beaten, until they are both proved to be false, and they do not have to refund money, until they are both proved to be false. Forthwith Jehudah ben Tabbai undertook that he would not teach doctrine (Halachah) except in the presence of Simeon ben Shetach. All the days of Jehudah ben Tabbai he used to stretch himself upon the grave of the slain man, and his voice was heard, so that the people wondered, saying that it was the voice of the slain man. He said to them, It is my voice; know ye that tomorrow he will be dead, and his voice will not be heard. R. Acha bar Rabba said to R. Ashi, But perhaps he prayed him earnestly to forgive him, or perhaps he called him before the judgment seat. Who is the authority for this view? If thou sayest, It is all right according to R. Meir, who said, Simeon ben Shetach was vice-president, and R. Jehudah ben Tabbai was prince-president, this accords with his teaching doctrine in the presence of Simeon ben Shetach, but if thou sayest, Our Rabbis are right, who say, Jehudah ben Tabbai was vice-president, Simeon ben Shetach was prince-president, how should the vice-president teach doctrine in the presence of the prince-president? No, what is the meaning of "he undertook?" He spoke in reference not to teaching but to combination, Even if men combine, yet will I not combine.

Our Rabbis have taught, In the three former pairs, which say that a man is not to lay, and in the two latter pairs which say that a man is to lay, the first were prince-presidents and the second vice-presidents. These are the words of R. Meir. But wise men say, Jehudah ben Tabbai was vice-president, and Simeon ben Shetach was prince-president. Who is the author of that teaching? For the converse would appear to be the case, because our Rabbis have taught thus, viz., that R. Jehudah ben Tabbai said, May I see the consolation of Israel, if I have not slain a false witness so as to oppose the Sadducees, when they say, False witnesses are not put to death, until the condemned person shall have been put to death. Simeon ben Shetach said to him, May I see the consolation of Israel, if thou hast not shed innocent blood; for behold, wise men have said, False witnesses are not to be put to death, until they are both proved to be false, and they are not beaten, until they are both proved to be false, and they do not have to refund money, until they are both proved to be false. Forthwith Jehudah ben Tabbai undertook that he would not teach doctrine (Halachah) except in the presence of Simeon ben Shetach. All the days of Jehudah ben Tabbai he used to stretch himself upon the grave of the slain man, and his voice was heard, so that the people wondered, saying that it was the voice of the slain man. He said to them, It is my voice; know ye that tomorrow he will be dead, and his voice will not be heard. R. Acha bar Rabba said to R. Ashi, But perhaps he prayed him earnestly to forgive him, or perhaps he called him before the judgment seat. Who is the authority for this view? If thou sayest, It is all right according to R. Meir, who said, Simeon ben Shetach was vice-president, and R. Jehudah ben Tabbai was prince-president, this accords with his teaching doctrine in the presence of Simeon ben Shetach, but if thou sayest, Our Rabbis are right, who say, Jehudah ben Tabbai was vice-president, Simeon ben Shetach was prince-president, how should the vice-president teach doctrine in the presence of the prince-president? No, what is the meaning of "he undertook?" He spoke in reference not to teaching but to combination, Even if men combine, yet will I not combine.

Our Rabbis have taught, In the three former pairs, which say that a man is not to lay, and in the two latter pairs which say that a man is to lay, the first were prince-presidents and the second vice-presidents. These are the words of R. Meir. But wise men say, Jehudah ben Tabbai was vice-president, and Simeon ben Shetach was prince-president. Who is the author of that teaching? For the converse would appear to be the case, because our Rabbis have taught thus, viz., that R. Jehudah ben Tabbai said, May I see the consolation of Israel, if I have not slain a false witness so as to oppose the Sadducees, when they say, False witnesses are not put to death, until the condemned person shall have been put to death. Simeon ben Shetach said to him, May I see the consolation of Israel, if thou hast not shed innocent blood; for behold, wise men have said, False witnesses are not to be put to death, until they are both proved to be false, and they are not beaten, until they are both proved to be false, and they do not have to refund money, until they are both proved to be false. Forthwith Jehudah ben Tabbai undertook that he would not teach doctrine (Halachah) except in the presence of Simeon ben Shetach. All the days of Jehudah ben Tabbai he used to stretch himself upon the grave of the slain man, and his voice was heard, so that the people wondered, saying that it was the voice of the slain man. He said to them, It is my voice; know ye that tomorrow he will be dead, and his voice will not be heard. R. Acha bar Rabba said to R. Ashi, But perhaps he prayed him earnestly to forgive him, or perhaps he called him before the judgment seat. Who is the authority for this view? If thou sayest, It is all right according to R. Meir, who said, Simeon ben Shetach was vice-president, and R. Jehudah ben Tabbai was prince-president, this accords with his teaching doctrine in the presence of Simeon ben Shetach, but if thou sayest, Our Rabbis are right, who say, Jehudah ben Tabbai was vice-president, Simeon ben Shetach was prince-president, how should the vice-president teach doctrine in the presence of the prince-president? No, what is the meaning of "he undertook?" He spoke in reference not to teaching but to combination, Even if men combine, yet will I not combine.

Our Rabbis have taught, In the three former pairs, which say that a man is not to lay, and in the two latter pairs which say that a man is to lay, the first were prince-presidents and the second vice-presidents. These are the words of R. Meir. But wise men say, Jehudah ben Tabbai was vice-president, and Simeon ben Shetach was prince-president. Who is the author of that teaching? For the converse would appear to be the case, because our Rabbis have taught thus, viz., that R. Jehudah ben Tabbai said, May I see the consolation of Israel, if I have not slain a false witness so as to oppose the Sadducees, when they say, False witnesses are not put to death, until the condemned person shall have been put to death. Simeon ben Shetach said to him, May I see the consolation of Israel, if thou hast not shed innocent blood; for behold, wise men have said, False witnesses are not to be put to death, until they are both proved to be false, and they are not beaten, until they are both proved to be false, and they do not have to refund money, until they are both proved to be false. Forthwith Jehudah ben Tabbai undertook that he would not teach doctrine (Halachah) except in the presence of Simeon ben Shetach. All the days of Jehudah ben Tabbai he used to stretch himself upon the grave of the slain man, and his voice was heard, so that the people wondered, saying that it was the voice of the slain man. He said to them, It is my voice; know ye that tomorrow he will be dead, and his voice will not be heard. R. Acha bar Rabba said to R. Ashi, But perhaps he prayed him earnestly to forgive him, or perhaps he called him before the judgment seat. Who is the authority for this view? If thou sayest, It is all right according to R. Meir, who said, Simeon ben Shetach was vice-president, and R. Jehudah ben Tabbai was prince-president, this accords with his teaching doctrine in the presence of Simeon ben Shetach, but if thou sayest, Our Rabbis are right, who say, Jehudah ben Tabbai was vice-president, Simeon ben Shetach was prince-president, how should the vice-president teach doctrine in the presence of the prince-president? No, what is the meaning of "he undertook?" He spoke in reference not to teaching but to combination, Even if men combine, yet will I not combine.

Our Rabbis have taught, In the three former pairs, which say that a man is not to lay, and in the two latter pairs which say that a man is to lay, the first were prince-presidents and the second vice-presidents. These are the words of R. Meir. But wise men say, Jehudah ben Tabbai was vice-president, and Simeon ben Shetach was prince-president. Who is the author of that teaching? For the converse would appear to be the case, because our Rabbis have taught thus, viz., that R. Jehudah ben Tabbai said, May I see the consolation of Israel, if I have not slain a false witness so as to oppose the Sadducees, when they say, False witnesses are not put to death, until the condemned person shall have been put to death. Simeon ben Shetach said to him, May I see the consolation of Israel, if thou hast not shed innocent blood; for behold, wise men have said, False witnesses are not to be put to death, until they are both proved to be false, and they are not beaten, until they are both proved to be false, and they do not have to refund money, until they are both proved to be false. Forthwith Jehudah ben Tabbai undertook that he would not teach doctrine (Halachah) except in the presence of Simeon ben Shetach. All the days of Jehudah ben Tabbai he used to stretch himself upon the grave of the slain man, and his voice was heard, so that the people wondered, saying that it was the voice of the slain man. He said to them, It is my voice; know ye that tomorrow he will be dead, and his voice will not be heard. R. Acha bar Rabba said to R. Ashi, But perhaps he prayed him earnestly to forgive him, or perhaps he called him before the judgment seat. Who is the authority for this view? If thou sayest, It is all right according to R. Meir, who said, Simeon ben Shetach was vice-president, and R. Jehudah ben Tabbai was prince-president, this accords with his teaching doctrine in the presence of Simeon ben Shetach, but if thou sayest, Our Rabbis are right, who say, Jehudah ben Tabbai was vice-president, Simeon ben Shetach was prince-president, how should the vice-president teach doctrine in the presence of the prince-president? No, what is the meaning of "he undertook?" He spoke in reference not to teaching but to combination, Even if men combine, yet will I not combine.

Our Rabbis have taught, In the three former pairs, which say that a man is not to lay, and in the two latter pairs which say that a man is to lay, the first were prince-presidents and the second vice-presidents. These are the words of R. Meir. But wise men say, Jehudah ben Tabbai was vice-president, and Simeon ben Shetach was prince-president. Who is the author of that teaching? For the converse would appear to be the case, because our Rabbis have taught thus, viz., that R. Jehudah ben Tabbai said, May I see the consolation of Israel, if I have not slain a false witness so as to oppose the Sadducees, when they say, False witnesses are not put to death, until the condemned person shall have been put to death. Simeon ben Shetach said to him, May I see the consolation of Israel, if thou hast not shed innocent blood; for behold, wise men have said, False witnesses are not to be put to death, until they are both proved to be false, and they are not beaten, until they are both proved to be false, and they do not have to refund money, until they are both proved to be false. Forthwith Jehudah ben Tabbai undertook that he would not teach doctrine (Halachah) except in the presence of Simeon ben Shetach. All the days of Jehudah ben Tabbai he used to stretch himself upon the grave of the slain man, and his voice was heard, so that the people wondered, saying that it was the voice of the slain man. He said to them, It is my voice; know ye that tomorrow he will be dead, and his voice will not be heard. R. Acha bar Rabba said to R. Ashi, But perhaps he prayed him earnestly to forgive him, or perhaps he called him before the judgment seat. Who is the authority for this view? If thou sayest, It is all right according to R. Meir, who said, Simeon ben Shetach was vice-president, and R. Jehudah ben Tabbai was prince-president, this accords with his teaching doctrine in the presence of Simeon ben Shetach, but if thou sayest, Our Rabbis are right, who say, Jehudah ben Tabbai was vice-president, Simeon ben Shetach was prince-president, how should the vice-president teach doctrine in the presence of the prince-president? No, what is the meaning of "he undertook?" He spoke in reference not to teaching but to combination, Even if men combine, yet will I not combine.

A member of the house of R. Eliezer ben Jacob taught thus, Holy Writ says, "And ye shall make proclamation," "and when ye reap" (Lev. xxiii. 21, 22). What is this Feast in which thou makest proclamation and reapest? Thou must reply, This is the Feast of Pentecost. When is it? If I am to say, On the high holiday, how is reaping lawful on a high holiday? But dost thou not think that it means as well on the subsequent days? And although this has been said already by R. El'azar quoting R. Oshaia, nevertheless what R. Eliezer ben Jacob said was necessary. If I had only the words of R. El'azar quoting R. Oshaia, I should say, As on the subsequent days of the Feast of Unleavened Bread the doing of work is prohibited, so on the subsequent days of the Feast of Pentecost also the doing of work is prohibited.

A member of the house of R. Eliezer ben Jacob taught thus, Holy Writ says, "And ye shall make proclamation," "and when ye reap" (Lev. xxiii. 21, 22). What is this Feast in which thou makest proclamation and reapest? Thou must reply, This is the Feast of Pentecost. When is it? If I am to say, On the high holiday, how is reaping lawful on a high holiday? But dost thou not think that it means as well on the subsequent days? And although this has been said already by R. El'azar quoting R. Oshaia, nevertheless what R. Eliezer ben Jacob said was necessary. If I had only the words of R. El'azar quoting R. Oshaia, I should say, As on the subsequent days of the Feast of Unleavened Bread the doing of work is prohibited, so on the subsequent days of the Feast of Pentecost also the doing of work is prohibited.

We learn the truth about this from R. Eliezer ben Jacob. And if I had only the words of R. Eliezer ben Jacob,

We learn the truth about this from R. Eliezer ben Jacob. And if I had only the words of R. Eliezer ben Jacob,

(7) The garments of a common person are defiled by pressure for Pharisees; the garments of Pharisees are defiled by pressure for those that eat heave-offering; the garments of those that eat heave-offering are defiled by pressure for those that partake of hallowed things; the garments of those that partake of hallowed things are defiled by pressure for those that partake of sin offering. Jose ben Joezer was pious and in the priesthood, and yet his apron was defiled by pressure for those that partake of hallowed things. Jochanan ben Gudgodah was one who ate his ordinary food all his days with observance of the laws of purification which belong to hallowed things, and yet his apron was defiled by pressure for those that partake of sin offering.

(7) The garments of a common person are defiled by pressure for Pharisees; the garments of Pharisees are defiled by pressure for those that eat heave-offering; the garments of those that eat heave-offering are defiled by pressure for those that partake of hallowed things; the garments of those that partake of hallowed things are defiled by pressure for those that partake of sin offering. Jose ben Joezer was pious and in the priesthood, and yet his apron was defiled by pressure for those that partake of hallowed things. Jochanan ben Gudgodah was one who ate his ordinary food all his days with observance of the laws of purification which belong to hallowed things, and yet his apron was defiled by pressure for those that partake of sin offering.

But observe what we learn from the latter part of the Mishnah. Jose ben Joezer was pious and in the priesthood, and yet his apron was defiled by pressure for those that partake of hallowed things. Jochanan ben Gudgodah was one who ate his ordinary food all his days with observance of the laws of purification which belong to hallowed things, and yet his apron was defiled by pressure for those that partake of sin offering. Of sin-offering, yes; of hallowed things, no. Wherefore he considered, Common food which is treated with observance of the laws of purification belonging to hallowed things is like hallowed things. R. Jonathan ben El'azar said, A man's neckcloth has fallen from him. He says to his neighbour, Give it to me, and uncleanness is communicated to him.

But observe what we learn from the latter part of the Mishnah. Jose ben Joezer was pious and in the priesthood, and yet his apron was defiled by pressure for those that partake of hallowed things. Jochanan ben Gudgodah was one who ate his ordinary food all his days with observance of the laws of purification which belong to hallowed things, and yet his apron was defiled by pressure for those that partake of sin offering. Of sin-offering, yes; of hallowed things, no. Wherefore he considered, Common food which is treated with observance of the laws of purification belonging to hallowed things is like hallowed things. R. Jonathan ben El'azar said, A man's neckcloth has fallen from him. He says to his neighbour, Give it to me, and uncleanness is communicated to him.

But observe what we learn from the latter part of the Mishnah. Jose ben Joezer was pious and in the priesthood, and yet his apron was defiled by pressure for those that partake of hallowed things. Jochanan ben Gudgodah was one who ate his ordinary food all his days with observance of the laws of purification which belong to hallowed things, and yet his apron was defiled by pressure for those that partake of sin offering. Of sin-offering, yes; of hallowed things, no. Wherefore he considered, Common food which is treated with observance of the laws of purification belonging to hallowed things is like hallowed things. R. Jonathan ben El'azar said, A man's neckcloth has fallen from him. He says to his neighbour, Give it to me, and uncleanness is communicated to him.

R. Jonathan ben Amram said, A man's Sabbath clothes have been exchanged for his common clothes, and he has put them on; they are unclean. R. El'azar bar Zadok said, There was the case of two women, companions, whose clothes were exchanged at the baths, and the matter came before R. Eliezer and he pronounced them unclean. R. Oshaia objects to him, But regard it thus. It follows that if a man stretch out his hand to a basket to take a piece of wheaten bread, and there come into his hand a piece of barley bread, in this case also he is made unclean. And if thou sayest, Yes, in this case also; but yet there is a Baraitha, viz., He that guards the cask, presuming that it is wine, and it is found to be a cask of oil—it is clean so far as not to cause uncleanness. But granting that, let me point out the last words. But it is forbidden to be eaten. Wherefore R. Jeremiah said, This is the case of one who says, I have guarded it as regards uncleanness, but not as regards separation. And what is the meaning of this securing in a half and half way? There is such a thing, and yet there is a Baraitha, If a man stretches out his hand into a basket, and the basket is upon his shoulder, and the scraper is inside the basket, and it is in his mind as regards the basket, but is not in his mind as regards the scraper, the basket is clean but the scraper is unclean. The basket is clean, you say. Does not the scraper make the basket unclean? No; for one vessel does not make another vessel unclean, but it may make unclean what is in the basket. Rabena said, This is the case of one who says, I have guarded it as regards its uncleanness, but not as regards its separation.

It is all right as regards R. El'azar son of R. Zadok. For we may observe that each woman says, My neighbour is wife of a common person, and she turns her attention from her. It is all right as regards R. Jonathan ben Amram also. For we may observe that inasmuch as a man pays great attention to his Sabbath clothes, he has taken his thoughts from the others. But as to R. Jonathan ben El'azar, we may observe that a man will pay attention to the hands of his neighbour. R. Jochanan said, It may be presumed that no man attends to what is in the hand of his neighbour? Does he not?

It is all right as regards R. El'azar son of R. Zadok. For we may observe that each woman says, My neighbour is wife of a common person, and she turns her attention from her. It is all right as regards R. Jonathan ben Amram also. For we may observe that inasmuch as a man pays great attention to his Sabbath clothes, he has taken his thoughts from the others. But as to R. Jonathan ben El'azar, we may observe that a man will pay attention to the hands of his neighbour. R. Jochanan said, It may be presumed that no man attends to what is in the hand of his neighbour? Does he not?

Nay, but shall I tell you on what authority this depends? This is the teaching of R. Chănaniah ben Akbia; for he said, They have only made this restriction as regards Jordan or a ship, and in accordance with the matter that occurred. What was that? There is a Baraitha, viz., A man shall not take up the waters of sin and the ashes of sin, and carry them away over Jordan or in a ship, and he shall not stand on this side and throw them to the other side, and he shall not make them to swim upon the face of the waters, and he shall not ride upon the back of a beast nor upon the back of his comrade, but if he do, his feet must touch the ground; but he may bear them over a bridge, and he need not regard whether it be Jordan or any other river. R. Chănaniah ben Akbia says, They have only made this restriction as regards Jordan and the case when the man is in a ship, and in accordance with the matter that occurred. What was the matter that occurred? R. Jehudah said that Rab said, A matter occurred with a certain man, who was carrying the waters of sin and the ashes of sin over Jordan and in a ship, and a piece of a dead body as large as an olive was found fixed in the bottom of the ship. In the same hour they said, A man shall not bear waters of sin and ashes of sin and carry them over Jordan in a ship. This question was put by them. In the case of an unclean sandal the law is clear, but what if the case be one of a clean sandal? In the case of an open cask the law is clear, but what if the case be one of a closed cask? What also if it be the case of a man who has passed over and borne it? R. Ela said, If he has passed over and borne it, he is unclean. R. Zera said, If he has passed over and borne it, he is clean.

Nay, but shall I tell you on what authority this depends? This is the teaching of R. Chănaniah ben Akbia; for he said, They have only made this restriction as regards Jordan or a ship, and in accordance with the matter that occurred. What was that? There is a Baraitha, viz., A man shall not take up the waters of sin and the ashes of sin, and carry them away over Jordan or in a ship, and he shall not stand on this side and throw them to the other side, and he shall not make them to swim upon the face of the waters, and he shall not ride upon the back of a beast nor upon the back of his comrade, but if he do, his feet must touch the ground; but he may bear them over a bridge, and he need not regard whether it be Jordan or any other river. R. Chănaniah ben Akbia says, They have only made this restriction as regards Jordan and the case when the man is in a ship, and in accordance with the matter that occurred. What was the matter that occurred? R. Jehudah said that Rab said, A matter occurred with a certain man, who was carrying the waters of sin and the ashes of sin over Jordan and in a ship, and a piece of a dead body as large as an olive was found fixed in the bottom of the ship. In the same hour they said, A man shall not bear waters of sin and ashes of sin and carry them over Jordan in a ship. This question was put by them. In the case of an unclean sandal the law is clear, but what if the case be one of a clean sandal? In the case of an open cask the law is clear, but what if the case be one of a closed cask? What also if it be the case of a man who has passed over and borne it? R. Ela said, If he has passed over and borne it, he is unclean. R. Zera said, If he has passed over and borne it, he is clean.

The vessel includes what is within it for hallowed things, but not for heave-offering. Whence have you this utterance? R. Chanin said, Because the Scripture saith, "One golden spoon of ten shekels, full of incense" (Numb. vii. 14 etc.). Holy Writ makes every thing which is in the spoon one. R. Kahăna replies that R. Akiba added to the teaching, which immediately follows, the flour and the incense and the frankincense and the coals; for if the person in course of purification touch the extremity of it, he disqualifies the whole. And lo, this is the teaching of our Rabbis. Whence do we learn this. From the first teaching; for R. Simeon ben Betheyra bore testimony with reference to the ashes of the purification for sin, that, if an unclean person touch the extremity of them, he makes all of them unclean; and there is a teaching to the effect that R. Akiba added this. R. Lakish said in the name of Bar Kaphra,

Men may eat dry food with ceremonially unclean hands etc. There is a Baraitha, viz., R. Chănina ben Antigonus said, Does such a question as whether a thing be dry or wet exist as regards hallowed things? Nay, does not love for the hallowed things make men careful where they are concerned? Yea, every one will admit that it was not necessary to say this. But this is the case supposed, viz., that a man's companion put a piece of the hallowed things into his mouth, or he put it into his own mouth with a spindle or with a skewer, or attempted to eat along with these an onion or garlic taken from unconsecrated things. Our Rabbis decided that this should be the case for hallowed things; for the heave-offering our Rabbis decided that it should not be the case.

And at the time of a Feast as regards heave-offering also. Whence these words? R. Joshua ben Levi said, Because the Scripture says, "So all the men of Israel were gathered against the city, knit together as one man" (Jud. xx. 11). The Scripture makes them all learned and observant men.

There is a Baraitha, Be ye clean, lest ye touch the table or the lamp. And yet we have a Baraitha to this effect, viz., What is the reason that we are not taught this with reference to the lamp? It is because the table is called in Holy Writ perpetual, the lamp is not called in Holy Writ perpetual. And another says, Since Holy Writ says, "and the lamp over against the table" (Ex. xxvi. 35), it is as though it were called in Holy Writ perpetual. But another says, It was only to fix its place that it comes. But you may get it out for me in this way. For it is a vessel of wood which is made to rest; and every vessel of wood which is made to rest, is not liable to uncleanness. What is the reason then that it is liable to uncleanness? Because it is like a sack in this respect, and therefore can contract uncleanness. As a sack is moveable, whether empty or full, so also everything which is moveable whether empty or full is liable to cleansing. This also is moveable, whether empty or full. As is the teaching of Resh Lakish; for Resh Lakish said, What is the meaning of the passage, "upon the clean table?" (Lev. xxiv. 6) Undoubtedly it implies that it might be unclean. And why? It is a vessel of wood made to rest, and as such it does not receive uncleanness; but it informs us that they raise it up, and exhibit the shewbread on it to those who come up to the festival, and one says to them, Look at the love of God in giving you food. Its end was like its placing. For R. Joshua ben Levi said, A great miracle was wrought in the shewbread. As its placing was miraculous, so was its end; for it is said, "to put hot bread in the day that it was taken away" (1 Sam. xxi. 6). But you may get it out for me in this way. It is because it is overlaid. For lo, there is a canonical Mishnah, The table or the tripod table, which have had a piece broken off, or have been covered with marble, and there has been left on them a place to rest cups, may become unclean. R. Jehudah says, A place to rest cakes (Kelim, xxii. 1). And if thou sayest, It is a different matter with shittim wood, which is esteemed highly, and is not valueless, this is all right according to what Resh Lakish says. For he said, Their teaching only refers to tables made of woods that come from the province of the sea. But in the case of a vessel of Mismim it is not valueless. This is very good. But according to R. Jochanan who says, Even in the case of a vessel of Mismim also it is valueless, what is there to say? And if thou sayest, The one is the case of an overlaid article which stands, and the other, of an overlaid article which does not stand. Lo, Resh Lakish asks from R. Jochanan, Does the Mishnah treat of an overlaid article which stands, or of an overlaid article which does not stand? of one which has its extremities covered, or of one which has not its extremities covered? And he said to him, There is no difference in this respect between an overlaid article which stands and an overlaid article which does not stand. There is no difference in this respect between one which has its extremities covered, and one which has not its extremities covered. But it is the table itself which makes the difference.

What is the source? R' Yehoshua ben Levi said (in the name of R' Raish Lakish) And you shall do to him as HE plotted, [meaning] to him, and not to his offspring. [So] then revoke just his priesthood and not his offspring's, [but] the laws of false witnesses requires the same punishment, and it is missing here.

Which Tanna holds that it is atonement? R' Hisda said, R' Yishmael, the son of R' Yohanan ben Broka, as it is taught, 'he gave a ransom from his life', that is the money of the victim. [However] R' Yishmael, the son of R' Yohanan son of Broka says, it means the money of the owner. Is it not that the difference here is that one [the Rabbis] explains it is monetary compensation, and the other [R' Yishmael] explains it is an atonement

Didn't R' Hiyah teach, it reduces the efficacy of the mikvah? Rava said, there is no issue one is R' Yochanan ben Nuri and one is the Rabbis, that taught, three logs of water

R' Yochanan ben Nuri says, everything depends on how it looks.

We learned in a beraisa: Rebbi Yehudah ben Tavai said I will not seek comfort until I execute a zommeim witness, to go against the Tzudukim, who say zommemim witnesses aren't executed unless they succeeded in having their victim executed.

Shimon ben Shatach said to him, I will not seek comfort if you continue to spill innocent blood. That the sages say, zommemim witnesses aren't executed until they both become zommemim, and they also don't receive lashes until they both become zomemim.

Immediately Rebbi Yehudah ben Tavi accepted upon himself to only issue halachic rulings in front of Shimon ben Shatach, and for all the remaining days of Rebbi Yehudah ben Tavi, he would prostrate himself on the grave of that witness, and his voice would ring out. And the passerby thought to themselves, saying that it was the voice of the killed. He told them, it's my voice. I'll bring you a proof, that tomorrow when I die the voice will no longer be heard.

Immediately Rebbi Yehudah ben Tavi accepted upon himself to only issue halachic rulings in front of Shimon ben Shatach, and for all the remaining days of Rebbi Yehudah ben Tavi, he would prostrate himself on the grave of that witness, and his voice would ring out. And the passerby thought to themselves, saying that it was the voice of the killed. He told them, it's my voice. I'll bring you a proof, that tomorrow when I die the voice will no longer be heard.

Immediately Rebbi Yehudah ben Tavi accepted upon himself to only issue halachic rulings in front of Shimon ben Shatach, and for all the remaining days of Rebbi Yehudah ben Tavi, he would prostrate himself on the grave of that witness, and his voice would ring out. And the passerby thought to themselves, saying that it was the voice of the killed. He told them, it's my voice. I'll bring you a proof, that tomorrow when I die the voice will no longer be heard.

We establish courts both in Israel and in Diaspora. A court that executes once in seven years is called a "killing [court]" Rebbi Eliezer ben Azarya says, Once in seventy years. Rebbi Tarfon and Rebbi Akiva say, If we were in court no one would ever get executed. Raban Shimon ben Gamlial responded, Then you would be increasing murder in Israel.

We establish courts both in Israel and in Diaspora. A court that executes once in seven years is called a "killing [court]" Rebbi Eliezer ben Azarya says, Once in seventy years. Rebbi Tarfon and Rebbi Akiva say, If we were in court no one would ever get executed. Raban Shimon ben Gamlial responded, Then you would be increasing murder in Israel.

Like we learned in a beraisa, Rebbi Yehuda ben Dostai says in the name of Rebbi Shimon ben Shetach, If he ran from Israel to Diaspora, we do not retry his case; if he ran from Diaspora to Israel, we do retry his case due the merit of Israel.

Like we learned in a beraisa, Rebbi Yehuda ben Dostai says in the name of Rebbi Shimon ben Shetach, If he ran from Israel to Diaspora, we do not retry his case; if he ran from Diaspora to Israel, we do retry his case due the merit of Israel.

But it was stated: Rav Yitzhak bar Yoseph said [in the name of] Rabbi Yohanan: Rebi, and Rabbi Yehudah ben Roetz, and the School of Shammai, and Rabbi Shimon, and Rabbi Akiva, all of them hold that the pronunciation [how we actually read the word] is what matters! This is why Rebi said "and furthermore!" [He needed to give another reason because in general he does hold that pronunciation is what matters.]

Mishnah: The one who throws a stone into the public domain and killed [someone], behold, he is exiled. Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says: If, from when the stone left his hand, another person stuck out their head and received [the stone and was killed], behold, he is exempt [from exile].

Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says, etc. Our Rabbis taught [in a baraita]: And “and found [his neighbor]” (Deuteronomy 19:5) excludes the one who places himself [in danger]. From here [it follows that] Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov said: If, from when the stone left his hand, another person stuck out their head and received [the stone and was killed], he is exempt [from exile].

Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says, etc. Our Rabbis taught [in a baraita]: And “and found [his neighbor]” (Deuteronomy 19:5) excludes the one who places himself [in danger]. From here [it follows that] Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov said: If, from when the stone left his hand, another person stuck out their head and received [the stone and was killed], he is exempt [from exile].

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: "What is that which is written, 'Our legs were standing in your gates, Jerusalem' (Psalms 122:2)? Who causes our legs that they should stand in war at the gates of Jerusalem? Those who are occupied with Torah."

And Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: "What is that which is written, 'A song of ascents. Of David. I am happy for they tell me: "We will go to the house of the Eternal"' (Psalms 122:1). David said before the Holy Blessed One: 'Master of the Universe, I heard people saying: "When will this elder [i.e. me] die, and Solomon his son will come and build the Temple, and then we can go up [there] on food and I will be happy?"' The Holy Blessed One replied: '"One day in your courtyards is better for me than a thousand [days]" (Psalms 84:11). One day when you are occupied with Torah before me is better for Me than a thousand burnt offerings that in the future your son Solomon will bring to the altar!'"

"And they prepared for them [the cities] roads..." etc. It was taught [in a baraita]: "Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov says:

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish began a sermon on this section from here: "'If he didn't lie in wait, and God guided his hand' [and he ends up killing accidentally] (Exodus 21:13). 'As the ancient proverb says, "from the wicked comes wickedness"' (1 Samuel 24:14). What is this verse referring to? With two people that killed someone—one killed accidentally, and one killed intentionally—but for neither of them were there any witnesses,

And a city that has no elders [is subject to a dispute between] Rebbi Ami and Rebbi Assi. One says, It can make a ben sorer omorer [a rebellious son]. And one says, It can not make a ben sorer omorer. According to the opinion that it can not make a ben sorer omorer, we need "elders of the city" and they are lacking. According to the opinion that it can make a ben sorer omorer, it is just a mitzvah [to use elders].

And a city that has no elders [is subject to a dispute between] Rebbi Ami and Rebbi Assi. One says, It can make a ben sorer omorer [a rebellious son]. And one says, It can not make a ben sorer omorer. According to the opinion that it can not make a ben sorer omorer, we need "elders of the city" and they are lacking. According to the opinion that it can make a ben sorer omorer, it is just a mitzvah [to use elders].

And a city that has no elders [is subject to a dispute between] Rebbi Ami and Rebbi Assi. One says, It can make a ben sorer omorer [a rebellious son]. And one says, It can not make a ben sorer omorer. According to the opinion that it can not make a ben sorer omorer, we need "elders of the city" and they are lacking. According to the opinion that it can make a ben sorer omorer, it is just a mitzvah [to use elders].

And a city that has no elders [is subject to a dispute between] Rebbi Ami and Rebbi Assi. One says, It can make a ben sorer omorer [a rebellious son]. And one says, It can not make a ben sorer omorer. According to the opinion that it can not make a ben sorer omorer, we need "elders of the city" and they are lacking. According to the opinion that it can make a ben sorer omorer, it is just a mitzvah [to use elders].

And [a killer] can not go out [of the city of refuge], not to testify fro a mitzvah, not to testify for monetary cases, not to testify for capital cases. And even if Isreal needs him, and even if he is a great general of Isreal like Yoav ben Tzruyah, he can not ever go out, as the Torah says (Numbers 35, 25), "that he fled there". "There" shall be his dwelling. "There" shall be his death. "There" shall be his grave.

And the Rabbis need that verse to teach Rebbi Yochanon's ruling, that Rabbi Yochanon said in the name of Rebbi Shimoen ben Yochai, from where do we know that a woman is not made impure until the flux exits through the ervah? That the Torah says (Leviticus 20, 18) "And if a man shall lie with a woman sick and he uncovers her ervah". This teaches us that a woman is not made impure until the flux exits through the ervah.

[Rebbi Yochanon] asked him, What are you saying? Either fulfilling will exempt it him and not fulfilling it will implicate him, or nullifying it will imp[licte him and not nullifying it will exempt him. Rather teach, Bitlo v'lo Bitlo [he nullified it and he did not nullify it]. And Rebbi Shimon ben Lakash said [to Teach] Kimu v'lo Kimu [he fulfilled it and he did not fulfill it].

How much must one eat from tevel to be liable? etc.: Rav Bibi said in the name of Rebbi Shimon ben Lakash, The dispute only concerns wheat kernels, but with regard to flour everyone agrees that the minimum is a k'zias [an olive's volume]. But Rebbi Yirmiya said in the name of Rebbi Shimon ben Lakash, just as there is a dispute by this [wheat], so is there a dispute by this [flour].

How much must one eat from tevel to be liable? etc.: Rav Bibi said in the name of Rebbi Shimon ben Lakash, The dispute only concerns wheat kernels, but with regard to flour everyone agrees that the minimum is a k'zias [an olive's volume]. But Rebbi Yirmiya said in the name of Rebbi Shimon ben Lakash, just as there is a dispute by this [wheat], so is there a dispute by this [flour].

And who is the Tanna that argues with Rebbi Yehuda? It is Rebbi Eliezer ben Yaakov. As it was taught in a baraisa (Deuteronomy 26,4) "And the Kohen will take the basket from his hand" this teaches ud that Bikorim require waving. These are the words of Rebbi Elezier ben Yaakov. What is the reason of Rebbi Eliezer ben Yaakov?

And who is the Tanna that argues with Rebbi Yehuda? It is Rebbi Eliezer ben Yaakov. As it was taught in a baraisa (Deuteronomy 26,4) "And the Kohen will take the basket from his hand" this teaches ud that Bikorim require waving. These are the words of Rebbi Elezier ben Yaakov. What is the reason of Rebbi Eliezer ben Yaakov?

And who is the Tanna that argues with Rebbi Yehuda? It is Rebbi Eliezer ben Yaakov. As it was taught in a baraisa (Deuteronomy 26,4) "And the Kohen will take the basket from his hand" this teaches ud that Bikorim require waving. These are the words of Rebbi Elezier ben Yaakov. What is the reason of Rebbi Eliezer ben Yaakov?

A certain elder taught in the academy of Rebbi Shimon ben Yochai, (Duetermony 14,24) "For the place is far from him" which means from his load.

But does Rebbi Yossi hold that gifts that weren't yet given are considered as if they were given? But, it was taught in a baraisa that Rebbi Shimon ben Yehudah says in the name of Rebbi Yossi, Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel did not argue about produce where the processing was unfinished when it passed through Jerusalem, that the maaser sheni from them can [still] be redeemed and eaten anywhere.

MISHNA: One who writes a tattoo, If he inks it without needling or he needles it without inking, he isn't liable unless he both inks and needles [the tattoo] with black ink, blue ink, or anything else that leaves a mark. Rebbi Shimon ben Yehudah says in the name of Rebbi Shimon, One is not liable unless he writes the name of HaShem that it is said (Leviticus 19, 28) "And a tattoo you shall imprint in yourselves, I am the Lord".

Chananya ben Chachinai said also one who is wearing shatnez. They responded that is not from [the same action]. He said back also a Nazir is not from [the same action].

Rav Sheises says in the name of Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah, From where do we know that the strap should be of calfskin? That the Torah says (Deuteronomy 25,3) "Forty you should hit him" and next to it, (Deuteronomy 25,4) "Do not muzzle an ox while it's threshing.".

And Rav Sheises also said in the name of Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah, From where do we know that a yevama who falls to one with blisters, that we do not "muzzle" her? That the Torah says (Deuteronomy 25,4) "Do not muzzle an ox while it's threshing." and next to it, (Deuteronomy 25,5) "When two brothers dwell together. etc."

And Rav Sheises also said in the name of Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah, Anyone who disgraces the holidays is like one worships idolatry, as the Torah says, (Exodus 34,17) "You shall make so no molten gods" and next to it (Exodus 34,18) "The holiday of the matzos you should observe".

And Rav Sheises also said in the name of Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah, Anyone who tells over Lashon Hara and anyone who accepts Lashon Hara, and anyone who gives false testimony is fit to be thrown to the dogs as the Torah says, (Exodus 22, 30) "To the dogs you should throw it" and next to it (Exodus 23,1) "Do not bear a false report etc." Read it also "Do not cause to be accepted.

MISHNA: Anyone liable to kares who is flogged is exempt from their kares as the Torah says (Deuteronomy 25, 3)"And your brother should be flogged in your eyes" [this implies] when he gets flogged he is considered your brother. These are the words of Rebbi Channaia ben Gamliel.

And Rebbi Chanania ben Gamliel also said, If one who transgresses a single sin looses his soul over it, one who performs a single mitzvah how much so does his soul be given to him. Rebbi Shimon says, It can be learned from its own place. That the Torah says (Leviticus 18, 29) "And the soul which performs will be cut off etc" and it says elsewhere

Rebbi Chanania ben Akashia says, Hashem wanted to give merit to Isreal. Therefore he gave them many mitzvas as the Torah says (Isaiah 42,21) "Hashem was pleased, for His righteousness’ sake, To make the teaching great and glorious."

GEMARA: Rabbi Yochanon says, Rabbi Chananya ben Gamliel's colleagues disputed what he had said. Rav Adda bar Ahava said in the name of the school of Rav, "We learned in a Mishna, there is no difference between Shabbos and Yom Kippur besides for that one is punishable by man and one is punishable with kares" Now if this is true [that malkus works in place of kares] then both are punishable by man?

Rav Adda bar Ahava says in the name of Rav, The halacha is like Rabbi Chanania ben Gmaliel. Rav Yosef asked, Who went up to heaven, returned and said this? Abaye responded, rather it's like that which Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi said, Three things that Beis Din shel mattah [court] did that Beis din shel malleh [the heavenly court] agreed to. Who ascended returned and told us? Rather we expounded verses, so too here we expound verses.

Rav Adda bar Ahava says in the name of Rav, The halacha is like Rabbi Chanania ben Gmaliel. Rav Yosef asked, Who went up to heaven, returned and said this? Abaye responded, rather it's like that which Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi said, Three things that Beis Din shel mattah [court] did that Beis din shel malleh [the heavenly court] agreed to. Who ascended returned and told us? Rather we expounded verses, so too here we expound verses.

The text said, Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi says, Three things that Beis Din shel mattah [court] did that Beis din shel malleh [the heavenly court] agreed to. These are they, Reading Miggilah [on purim], greeting with the name of G-d, and bringing maiser.

"Nor does he take a bribe against the innocent" like Rebbi Yishmael Ben Yosi

"He who despises unlawful gain", like Rebbi Yishmael ben Elisha.

And once Rabban Gamaliel, Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah, Rabbi Joshua, and Rabbi Akiva, were traveling together, when they heard the sound of the crowds of Rome from the plaza one hundred and twenty mil away. They started to cry, but Rebbi Akiva was laughing. They said to him Because of why are you laughing? He said to them And you, why do you weep? They told him, these Goyim that bow down to wood and burn frankincense to the worship of the stars are living in peace and tranquility. While us, our house - the footstool of our God is burnt