checked

New-born babes were deserted by the mothers or nurses who waited upon them—some here, some there, in houses, or in fields; these now, with an ardor which could not be checked, swarmed into the Most High temple.

In the same way, again, those erred who believed the waters to be gods. For the waters were created for the use of man, and are put under his rule in many ways. For they suffer change and admit impurity, and are destroyed and lose their nature while they are boiled into many substances. And they take colors which do not belong to them; they are also congealed by frost and are mingled and permeated with the filth of men and beasts, and with the blood of the slain. And being checked by skilled workmen through the restraint of aqueducts, they flow and are diverted against their inclination, and come into gardens and other places in order that they may be collected and issue forth as a means of fertility for man, and that they may cleanse away every impurity and fulfil the service man requires from them. Wherefore it is impossible that the waters should be a god, but they are a work of God and a part of the world.

But Andronicus, grieved with a secret grief, mourned in his soul, and wept openly, so that John checked him often and said to him: Upon a better hope hath Drusiana removed out of this unrighteous life. And Andronicus answered him: Yea, I am persuaded of it, O John, and I doubt not at all in regard of trust in my God: but this very thing do I hold fast, that she departed out of life pure.

For the propensions of our appetites are checked and inhibited by the temperate mind, and all the movements of the body obey the bridle of Reason.

This, certainly, is why we praise the virtuous Joseph, because by his Reason, with a mental effort, he checked the carnal impulse. For he, a young man at the age when physical desire is strong, by his Reason quenched the impulse of his passions.

But if we were to reproach those who have been converted with their former lives, then we would have occasion to accuse Phædo also, even after he became a philosopher; since, as the history relates, he was drawn away by Socrates from a house of bad fame to the pursuits of philosophy. Nay, even the licentious life of Polemo, the successor of Xenocrates, will be a subject of reproach to philosophy; whereas even in these instances we ought to regard it as a ground of praise, that reasoning was enabled, by the persuasive power of these men, to convert from the practice of such vices those who had been formerly entangled by them. Now among the Greeks there was only one Phædo, I know not if there were a second, and one Polemo, who betook themselves to philosophy, after a licentious and most wicked life; while with Jesus there were not only at the time we speak of, the twelve disciples, but many more at all times, who, becoming a band of temperate men, speak in the following terms of their former lives: “For we ourselves also were sometimes foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful, and hating one another. But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour towards man appeared, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost, which He shed upon us richly,” we became such as we are. For “God sent forth His Word and healed them, and delivered them from their destructions,” as the prophet taught in the book of Psalms. And in addition to what has been already said, I would add the following: that Chrysippus, in his treatise on the Cure of the Passions, in his endeavours to restrain the passions of the human soul, not pretending to determine what opinions are the true ones, says that according to the principles of the different sects are those to be cured who have been brought under the dominion of the passions, and continues: “And if pleasure be an end, then by it must the passions be healed; and if there be three kinds of chief blessings, still, according to this doctrine, it is in the same way that those are to be freed from their passions who are under their dominion;” whereas the assailants of Christianity do not see in how many persons the passions have been brought under restraint, and the flood of wickedness checked, and savage manners softened by means of the gospel. So that it well became those who are ever boasting of their zeal for the public good, to make a public acknowledgment of their thanks to that doctrine which by a new method led men to abandon many vices, and to bear their testimony at least to it, that even though not the truth, it has at all events been productive of benefit to the human race.

These are they: a hushling (shtuki): he who knows who his mother is but not his father; A foundling (asufi): he who was gathered in from the marketplace and knows neither his father nor his mother. Abba Saul used to call the hushling (shtuki), “checked one” (b’duki).

The more a judge examines the evidence the more he is deserving of praise. Ben Zakkai once checked with regards to the stalks of figs. What is the difference between inquiries and examinations? With regards to inquiries, if one [of the two witnesses] says “I do not know”, their evidence becomes invalid. But if to one of the examinations one answered, “I do not know”, or even if they both answered, “We do not know”, their evidence remains valid. Yet if they contradict each other, whether during the inquiries or examinations, their evidence becomes invalid.

Rebbi Yasa, Rebbi Ḥelbo. Rebbi Berekhiah, Rebbi Ḥelbo comes to it in the name of Rebbi Eudaimon from Ḥaifa: A person has to turn his face to the wall in order to pray. What is the reason? (Is. 38:2) “Hezekiah turned his face to the wall.” Which wall did he lift his eyes to? Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, he lifted his eyes to Raḥab’s wall, (Jos. 2:15) “For her house was on the wall of the fortification.” He said before Him: Master of the world, Raḥab the inn-keeper saved two souls for You, and see how many souls You saved for her. [That is what is written (Jos.6:23): “The youths came, etc.” Rebbi Simeon bar Yoḥai said, even if her family was 200 persons strong and they furthermore were related to another 200 families, all of these were saved by her merit.] My forefathers who brought to You all these proselytes, so much more. Rebbi Ḥananiah bar Pappus said, he lifted his eyes to the wall of the Temple. (Ez. 43:8) “When they put their lintel next to My lintel, their doorposts next to My doorpost, with the wall between Me and them.” They were important people, they could not go and pray in the Temple every time, so they prayed in their house and the Holy One, praise to Him, considers it as if they had prayed in the Temple. My fathers who built for You all this glory, so much more. Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman said, he lifted his eyes to the wall of the woman from Sunem, as it was said (2Kings 4:10): “Let us make a small upper storey on the wall”. He said before Him: Master of the world, the woman from Sunem made one wall for Elisha and You revived her son. My forefathers who built for You all this glory, so much more that You should give me my life. The rabbis say, he lifted his eyes to the walls of his heart. (Jer. 4:19) “My innards, my innards I make tremble, the walls of my heart are in uproar.” He said before Him: Master of the world, I checked all my 248 limbs that You gave me and I did not find one of them I offended You with; so much more that You should give me my life.

Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah deals with an olive tree that can be shaken. Rebbi Yose said, not only one that can be shaken; since olive trees usually are first checked by shaking, none can be under the law of forgotten sheaves.

Does this not contradict Rebbi Joḥanan, since Rebbi Joḥanan said, if he passed it over and forgot it, it is forgotten. There is a difference, for a trellis is usually checked. And it does not even contradict Rebbi Hoshaia, for Rebbi Hoshaia said, when I was mashing olives with the great Rebbi Ḥiyya, he told me that any olive you can reach when stretching out your hand is not forgotten. There is a difference, since any single free-standing vine is a separate planting.

Rebbi Jacob bar Idi and Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman were providers and gave a denar to Rebbi Ḥama the father of Rabbi Oshaia, but he gave it away to others. All were saying evil things about Rebbi Zachariah, the son-in-law of Rebbi Levi; they said that he was taking while he did not need it. When he died, they checked and found that he was splitting it up for others.

MISHNAH: Birsīm, Burdesīm, and Dalmatian garb as well as pinon shoes one should not wear unless one checks them. Rebbi Yose says, those coming from the sea shore in maritime countries do not have to be checked because usually they are made from hemp. Padded shoes have no problem with kilaim.

“They do not have to be checked.” That means in earlier times when flax was not found everywhere. But today, when flax is found everywhere, they need to be checked.

“They do not have to be checked.” That means in earlier times when flax was not found everywhere. But today, when flax is found everywhere, they need to be checked.

It was stated in the name of Rebbi Yose: “Green melon can be bitter only inside. What can he do? He adds to the outer part and gives heave.” Rebbi Benjamin ben Levi asked: Do the Sages disagree with him about a subject that can be checked? They disagree about the possibility of checking.

A forgotten flask deposited in a litter, a chest, or a chassis that later was found is forbidden. If he checked and afterwards put it in it is permitted. A case came before Rebbi, where it was seen uncovering and covering. He said, because of that evil one should we invalidate all covers? Rebbi Mana said, it is reasonable that in that case itself was forbidden.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, if somebody redeemed dedications for more than their worth, [the Temple] grabs everything. If somebody redeemed Second Tithe for more than its worth, it does not grab everything. What is the difference between dedications and Second Tithe? Rebbi Immi said, because a person usually adds to his dedications. Rebbi Zeïra asked before Rebbi Immi: If the person was checked and he said, that was not what I intended? He said to him, when he will be checked.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, if somebody redeemed dedications for more than their worth, [the Temple] grabs everything. If somebody redeemed Second Tithe for more than its worth, it does not grab everything. What is the difference between dedications and Second Tithe? Rebbi Immi said, because a person usually adds to his dedications. Rebbi Zeïra asked before Rebbi Immi: If the person was checked and he said, that was not what I intended? He said to him, when he will be checked.

HALAKHAH: Zenon asked Rebbi: How should we state, fourth-year vineyard or fourth-year orchard? He said to them, go out and ask Rebbi Isaac the Elder with whom I checked the entire Mishnah. He said to them, the first ones fourth-year vineyard, the second ones fourth-year orchard. Rebbi Zeïra complained about the old people from the time of Rebbi Isaac the Elder, that they did not check all Mishnaiot with him.

It supports him because he says it is all praise, as Rebbi Joḥanan said, Joḥanan the High Priest sent and checked in all localities of Israel and found that they separated only Great Heave. But First and Second Tithes some were separating and some did not. He said, since [omitting] First Tithe is a deadly sin and [omitting] Second Tithe [implies] the sin of ṭevel, a person should give a name to heave and heave of the tithe and give them to the Cohen; Second Tithe he exchanges for coins. About the remaining tithe of the poor, he who has a claim on another person must bring proof.

Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Rebbi Ismael. Rebbi Mana said, I went to Caesarea and heard Rebbi Aḥava ben Rebbi Zeïra, but my father said it in the name of Rebbi Ismael: “Bread” is mentioned for Passover and “bread” is mentioned for ḥallah. Since bread mentioned in a discussion of Passover is something that can be either maẓẓah or leavened, bread mentioned for ḥallah must be something that can be either maẓẓah or leavened. They checked and found that only the five kinds can be either maẓẓah or leavened; all others cannot be maẓẓah or leavened but would spoil.

It was stated: “Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, qeramit is obligated for ḥallah.” Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, it can be either maẓẓah or leavened, but the rabbis say, it cannot be either maẓẓah or leavened. Let them check! They disagree about the outcome of the checking. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, they checked and found it can be either maẓẓah or leavened, but the rabbis say, they checked and did not find that it can be either maẓẓah or leavened.

It was stated: “Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, qeramit is obligated for ḥallah.” Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, it can be either maẓẓah or leavened, but the rabbis say, it cannot be either maẓẓah or leavened. Let them check! They disagree about the outcome of the checking. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, they checked and found it can be either maẓẓah or leavened, but the rabbis say, they checked and did not find that it can be either maẓẓah or leavened.

And who permitted it? Rebbi and his court permitted it. At three places is Rebbi Jehudah the Prince called “our teachers,” in divorce documents, oil, and a sole. They should have called him “a permissive court”, for any court which permits three [previously forbidden] things is called “permissive court.” Rebbi Yudan ben Rebbi Ismael said, his court disagreed with him about bills of divorce.Rebbi Joḥanan asked: Did we not state, “for no court may invalidate the words of another court unless it be greater in wisdom and numbers”? And Rebbi and his court permit what Daniel and his companions forbade? Rebbi Joḥanan follows his own opinion, for Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Ṣadoq, I have a tradition that any restrictive edict passed by a court which is not accepted by the majority of the public is not an edict. They checked and found in the matter of the edict about oil and did not find that a majority of the public followed it.

HALAKHAH: “The categories of work are 39.” From where that the categories of work are from the Torah? Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: Corresponding to the thirty-nine occurrences of מלאכה in the Torah. They asked before Rebbi Aḥa, everywhere where מלאכות is written it should count for two! Rebbi Ashian said, Rebbi Aḥa checked by eye the entire Torah and did not find this word written. The following is necessary: He came into the house to do his work is with them. God completed on the Seventh Day His work which He did, is with them. Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai stated: Six days you shall eat unleavened bread and on the seventh day you should not do work comes to complete the 39 “works” written in the Torah.

“When has this been said? For used ones, but for new ones he is free.” Why? Old ones are checked, new ones are not checked. It was stated: One has to check tefillin once every twelve months, the words of Rebbi. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, they do not need checking. Hillel the Elder said, these are from my maternal grandfather. If he found two or three heaps, he checks the first pair of the first bundle; the same with the second or the third. Isaac ben Eleazar asked: Does one create a presumption for all of them or is each one of them for itself? If you are saying that one creates a presumption for all of them, he checks the first pair of the first heap. If you are saying that each one creates a presumption for itself, he checks three pairs from each heap.

“When has this been said? For used ones, but for new ones he is free.” Why? Old ones are checked, new ones are not checked. It was stated: One has to check tefillin once every twelve months, the words of Rebbi. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, they do not need checking. Hillel the Elder said, these are from my maternal grandfather. If he found two or three heaps, he checks the first pair of the first bundle; the same with the second or the third. Isaac ben Eleazar asked: Does one create a presumption for all of them or is each one of them for itself? If you are saying that one creates a presumption for all of them, he checks the first pair of the first heap. If you are saying that each one creates a presumption for itself, he checks three pairs from each heap.

Rebbi Yose asked: The courtyards in Jerusalem where one eats the bread of thanksgiving offerings and the wafers of a nazir, do they need checking? Are they not checked anyhow for leftovers? It should be parallel to what Rebbi Zachariah the son-in-law of Rebbi Levi stated: A menstruating woman washes her hair and combs. A priestly woman does not wash her hair and comb. A menstruating priestly woman washes her hair and combs, not to differentiate between one menstruating woman and another. So also here, not to differentiate between elimination and elimination. Rabbi Gamliel bar Inyany stated before Rebbi Mana: A menstruating woman who interrupts for seven days washes her hair and combs. A priestly woman who immerses herself every day does not wash her hair and comb. He told him, it is necessary for one who watches one day for a day.

“And what he leaves he should deposit at a guarded place so that he would not be obligated to repeat checking.” What does he do? He covers it with a vessel. If he covered it with a vessel but did not find it. I am saying that a hand took it. If he did not cover it with a vessel and did not find it, this house needs checking. Or the other houses would not need checking? Let us hear from the following: “If the volume of an olive from a cadaver was lost in a house; it was searched but not found. The house is pure; if it will be found, the house is retroactively impure.” This can teach about that and that can teach about this. This can teach about that, there is no difference between “was lost” and “what he leaves”. And that can teach about this, only this house needs to be checked. Following Rebbi Jehudah even this house should not need to be checked, as we may hear from the following: “Rebbi Jehudah said, it happened that the slave girl of a discharged veteran at Rimmon threw a still birth into a cistern. A Cohen came and looked to know what she had thrown down. The case came before the Sages and they declared him pure for moles and martens usually drag it away.” It runs after flesh, it does not run after bread. And even if you are saying that it runs after flesh and bread, it drags away flesh and eats it; it drags away bread and stores it. The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: One does not suspect that a mole dragged it, but following Rebbi Jehudah one suspects it.

“And what he leaves he should deposit at a guarded place so that he would not be obligated to repeat checking.” What does he do? He covers it with a vessel. If he covered it with a vessel but did not find it. I am saying that a hand took it. If he did not cover it with a vessel and did not find it, this house needs checking. Or the other houses would not need checking? Let us hear from the following: “If the volume of an olive from a cadaver was lost in a house; it was searched but not found. The house is pure; if it will be found, the house is retroactively impure.” This can teach about that and that can teach about this. This can teach about that, there is no difference between “was lost” and “what he leaves”. And that can teach about this, only this house needs to be checked. Following Rebbi Jehudah even this house should not need to be checked, as we may hear from the following: “Rebbi Jehudah said, it happened that the slave girl of a discharged veteran at Rimmon threw a still birth into a cistern. A Cohen came and looked to know what she had thrown down. The case came before the Sages and they declared him pure for moles and martens usually drag it away.” It runs after flesh, it does not run after bread. And even if you are saying that it runs after flesh and bread, it drags away flesh and eats it; it drags away bread and stores it. The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: One does not suspect that a mole dragged it, but following Rebbi Jehudah one suspects it.

Rebbi Mana said, I went to Caesarea and heard Rebbi Aḥava ben Rebbi Zeˋira (who said, I) [my father] said in the name of Rebbi Ismael: “Bread” is mentioned for Passover and “bread” is mentioned for ḥallah. Since bread mentioned in a discussion of Passover is something that can be either mazzah or leavened, bread mentioned for ḥallah must be something that can be either mazzah or leavened. They checked and found that only the five kinds can be either mazzah or leavened; all others cannot be mazzah or leavened but would spoil.

It was stated: “Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, qeramit is obligated for ḥallah.” Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, it can be either mazzah or leavened., but the rabbis say, it cannot be either mazzah or leavened. Let them check! They disagree about the outcome of the checking. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, they checked and found that it can be either mazzah or leavened., but the rabbis say, they checked and did not find that it can be either mazzah or leavened.

It was stated: “Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, qeramit is obligated for ḥallah.” Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, it can be either mazzah or leavened., but the rabbis say, it cannot be either mazzah or leavened. Let them check! They disagree about the outcome of the checking. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, they checked and found that it can be either mazzah or leavened., but the rabbis say, they checked and did not find that it can be either mazzah or leavened.

Does this not contradict Rebbi Joḥanan, since Rebbi Joḥanan said, if he passed over it and forgot it, it is forgotten. There is a difference, for a trellis is usually checked. And it does not even contradict Rebbi Hoshaia, for Rebbi Hoshaia said, when I was mashing olives with the great Rebbi Ḥiyya, he told me that any olive you can reach when stretching out your hand is not forgotten. There is a difference, since every single freestanding vine is a separate planting.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Jacob bar Idi and Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman were providers and gave a denar to Rebbi Ḥama the father of Rabbi Oshaia, but he gave it away to others. All were saying evil things about Rebbi Zachariah, the son-in-law of Rebbi Levi; they said that he was taking while he did not need it. When he died, they checked and found that he was splitting it up for others.

HALAKHAH: “The following are disqualified.” The dice player is the one who plays with small stones. “Not only the player with stones, even one who plays with shells of nuts or pomegranates. When is he accepted? After he breaks his stones, and is checked out, and repents in complete repentance.”

“The lender on interest.” This is one who lends on interest. “When is he accepted? After he tears up his IOU’s, and is checked out, and repents in complete repentance.”

“Participants in pigeon contests.” This is one who bets on pigeons. Whether one bets on pigeons or bets on any other domesticated animal, wild animal, or bird. “When is he accepted? After he tears up his tools of the catch, and is checked out, and repents in complete repentance.”

“Dealers in sabbatical produce.” “Who is a dealer in sabbatical produce? One who sits idle all the years of a sabbatical cycle. As soon as the sabbatical year starts, be becomes active and trades in forbidden produce. One does not accept them before another sabbatical year starts and he can be checked out that he repented in complete repentance.” It was stated: Rebbi Yose says, two sabbatical periods. “Rebbi Nehemiah says, repentance in money, not repentance in words; that he say to them, here are denars, distribute them to the poor, for I earned them from forbidden produce.” They added shepherds, extortioners, and any who are suspect in money matters, that their testimony be invalid. Rebbi Abbahu said, only shepherds of small animals.

“It happened that Hillel the Elder brought his elevation offering to the Temple courtyard and leaned on it. The students of Shammai ganged up on him. He started to wag its tail, said to them, look, it is a female and I brought it as well-being sacrifice, and kept them talking about other matters until they left. After some time the House of Shammai became strong and they wanted to fix practice following their words. There was there Bava ben Bitay from the students of the House of Shammai who realized that practice followed the House of Hillel. Once he entered the Temple courtyard and found it desolate. He said, the house of those who make our God’s House desolate shall be desolate. What did he do? He sent and brought 3’000 sheep from Qedar sheep, checked them for defects, and displayed them on the Temple Mount. He said to them, listen to me my brothers, the House of Israel. Anybody who wants to bring an elevation sacrifice may bring it and lean on it, to bring a well-being sacrifice may bring it and lean on it. At that moment, practice was fixed following the House of Hillel; and nobody said anything.” Rebbi Isaac ben Rebbi Eleazar said, (this implies) <this cup> for breakfast has to be full; the (poison) <worm> in the wood comes from itself; any coal which does not cause a burn at the start will not cause one. “Again it happened that a student of Hillel brought his elevation offering to the Temple courtyard and leaned on it. A student of Shammai saw him and said to him, what is this leaning-on? He said to him, what about being silent? He silenced him by a reprimand and he left.”

HALAKHAH: “One does not heat tiles to fry on them.” There are Tannaim who state, one may heat. [And there are Tannaim who state, one may not heat.] Rav Ḥisda said, he who said one may heat, by those already checked out. And he who said one may not heat, by those not checked out.

HALAKHAH: “One does not heat tiles to fry on them.” There are Tannaim who state, one may heat. [And there are Tannaim who state, one may not heat.] Rav Ḥisda said, he who said one may heat, by those already checked out. And he who said one may not heat, by those not checked out.

Rav Shesha the son of Rav Ḥananel said, one has to write ה below the knee joint of the ל, so you want to repay to the Eternal? In this way you want to repay to the Eternal? The Mezuzah. There are Tannaim who state, open; there are Tannaim who state, closed. Samuel bar Shilat in the name of Rav: Practice follows him who said open, since that is not its place. Open at the start is closed. Open at the bottom is open. Open on both sides is closed. If in error he omitted one verse, if it is two or three lines one repairs and reads from it; four one does not read from it. Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Rav Ḥananel, the same holds for a tear. It was stated, a scroll in which there are [two or three errors on every page one fixes and reads from it. Four one does not read from it. But was it not stated, a scroll in which there are] 85 errors, as the paragraph it was when the Ark travelled, one repairs and reads from it? Rebbi Shammai said, here in a large scroll, there in a small scroll. Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Rav Ḥananel, if he found in it one page which is whole, it saves everything. How? Whole in that there are (no) [not three] errors? Or whole that there are no four? Ḥagra the brother of Rebbi Abba bar Bina gave a Torah scroll to Rav Ḥananel who checked it. He said to him, this your Torah scroll needs prayer. At the end he found in it a page which was whole, which saved everything. How? Whole in that there are no errors? Or whole that there are no four?

HALAKHAH: “One does not close with the Chariot, but Rebbi Jehudah permits. And Rebbi Eliezer says, one does not close with tell Jerusalem its abominations. It happened that somebody closed with tell Jerusalem its abominations. Rebbi Eliezer said to him, may this man go and be informed of the abominations of his mother. They checked him out and he was found to be a bastard.”

“It happened that Hillel the Elder brought his elevation offering to the Temple courtyard and leaned on it. The students of the House of Shammai ganged up on him. He started to wag its tail, said to them, look, it is a female and I brought it as well-being sacrifice, and kept them talking about other matters until they left. After some time the House of Shammai became strong and they wanted to fix practice following their words. There was there Bava ben Buta from the students of the House of Shammai who realized that practice followed the House of Hillel. Once he entered the Temple courtyard and found it desolate. He said, the house of those who make our God’s House desolate shall be desolate. What did he do? He sent and brought 3’000 young lambs from Qedar sheep, checked them for defects, and displayed them on the Temple Mount. He said to them, listen to me my brothers, the House of Israel. Anybody who wants to bring an elevation sacrifice may bring it and lean on it, to bring a well-being sacrifice may bring it and lean on it. At that moment, practice was fixed following the House of Hillel; and nobody said anything.” Rebbi Isaac ben Rebbi Eleazar said, this cup for breakfast has to be full; the worm in the wood comes from itself; any coal which does not cause a burn at the start will not cause one. “Again it happened that a student of Hillel brought his elevation offering to the Temple courtyard and leaned on it. A student of Shammai saw him and said to him, what is this leaning-on? He said to him, what about being silent? He silenced him by a reprimand and he left.”

Rebbi Mana said, I heard in the name of Samuel that there is no difference between recognizing a pregnancy and giving birth, but I do not remember from whom I heard this. Rebbi Abba bar Cohen said before Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Jeremiah said this. Rebbi Ḥizqyah said to him, Rebbi Jeremiah did not say this; Rebbi Yose was offended by him. He said to him: Even Joshua who was bound to Moses would not have said so, but you said so! He checked himself and said, it is true that he said that but as a person who quotes something and questions it; does Abba bar Abba disagree with his son Samuel? Rebbi Berekhiah in the name of Samuel: A woman gives birth only either after 271, 272, 273, or 274, days. Rebbi Mana said to him, from whom did the rabbi hear this? He said to him, from Rebbi Abba. The position of Rebbi Abba seems inverted. There, he says, there is a difference between recognizing a pregnancy and giving birth, and here, he says so? Rebbi Abba bar Zuṭra in the name of Samuel: {If with ה Rabba, with א Rava.} Everything which is “many” is 208.

Rav Jehudah in the name of Rav: Practice does not follow Rebbi Jehudah ben Baba in the case of an Israel. The words of the Rabbis say the same since Rebbi Samuel, Rebbi Abbahu, Rebbi (Aqiba) [Jacob] bar Aḥa said in the name of Rebbi Yasa, one does not subject witnesses to a death to cross-examination. It happened that somebody came before Rebbi Tarphon about a woman who wanted to remarry. He said to him, my son, how can you testify for the woman that she can remarry? He said to him, Rabbi, he was with us in a caravan when we were attacked by an armed gang. He hung himself at a branch of an olive tree, tore it off, ran after the armed gang and returned. I said to him, my son, I am praising you as a lion. He said to me, you got my name well; in my city I am called Joḥanan ben Jonathan the lion from Kefar Shiḥla. I said to him, my son, you said very well Joḥanan ben Jonathan the lion from Kefar Shiḥla. He said to me, no, what I said was Joḥanan ben Jonathan the lion from Kefar Shiḥla. I said to him, did you not say Jonathan ben Joḥanan the lion from Kefar Shiḥla? He said to me, no, what I said was Joḥanan ben Jonathan the lion from Kefar Shiḥla. After some time he became sick and died; Rebbi Tarphon checked out his testimony and let his widow remarry. It was found stated: “One does not subject witnesses to a death to cross-examination, against Rebbi Tarphon, since Rebbi Tarphon said, one subjects witnesses to a death to cross-examination.

HALAKHAH: “Joseph had the merit to bury his father and none of his brothers was greater than he,” etc. Rebbi Isaac said: The glory of the Lifegiver of the Worlds was with them. It is written: “They came to the threshing place of the brambles.” Since when does the bramble-bush have a threshing place? Rebbi Samuel ben Naḥman said, we checked in all of Scripture and did not find a place called “brambles”. What are “brambles”? These are the Canaanites who should have been threshed like brambles. By which merit were they saved? By the merit of: “The inhabitants of the land, the Canaanites, saw the mourning at the threshing place of the brambles.” What act of kindness did they do for him? Rebbi Eleazar said, they unbelted. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, they undid the knots on their shoulders. The rabbis said, they stood up. Rebbi Yudan bar Shalom said, they pointed with their fingers and said, “a heavy mourning is that for Egypt”. Now these who did no act of kindness with their hands or feet; look what the Holy One, praise to Him, did reward them with; Israel who are used to do acts of kindness with their hands or feet for their great and their little ones, [they deserve] so much more!

“If she said ‘I shall not drink’ after the scroll was erased, one makes her gargle and forces her to drink against her will.” How many letters have to be erased? Rebbi Ḥanin stated: The House of Shammai say, one; the House of Hillel say, two. Rebbi Hilai said, the reason of the House of Hillel: That he could have written Yah. Rebbi Aqiba said to him: But why does one make her drink? If it is to check her out, she already is completely checked out! But Rebbi Aqiba must hold that the one who says “I shall not drink” is as the one who says “I am impure for you”. But does Rebbi Aqiba not agree that “one makes her gargle until her face turned yellow and forces her to drink against her will”? He does, if she started to drink.

A lady asked Rebbi Eliezer, why did one sin of the golden calf lead to three different kinds of death? He said to her, the wisdom of a woman is only in her spinning rod, as is written: “All wise women span with their hands.” His son Hyrkanos said to him, in order not to give her an answer you made me lose 300 kor of tithes every year. He answered him: May the words of the Torah be burned and not be delivered to women! After she had left, his students said to him, rabbi, this one you pushed away with a stick, what do you explain to us? Rebbi Berekhiah, Rebbi Abba bar Cahana in the name of Rebbi Eliezer: Anybody against whom there were witnesses and warning was executed in court. Anybody against whom there were witnesses but no warning was checked similar to a suspected wife. Anybody against whom there were neither witnesses nor warning died from a plague. Rav and Levi bar Sissi both say: One who sacrificed, burned, and poured out a libation was executed in court. He who clapped his hands, danced, laughed, was checked similar to a suspected wife. If he enjoyed himself silently, he died from a plague.

A lady asked Rebbi Eliezer, why did one sin of the golden calf lead to three different kinds of death? He said to her, the wisdom of a woman is only in her spinning rod, as is written: “All wise women span with their hands.” His son Hyrkanos said to him, in order not to give her an answer you made me lose 300 kor of tithes every year. He answered him: May the words of the Torah be burned and not be delivered to women! After she had left, his students said to him, rabbi, this one you pushed away with a stick, what do you explain to us? Rebbi Berekhiah, Rebbi Abba bar Cahana in the name of Rebbi Eliezer: Anybody against whom there were witnesses and warning was executed in court. Anybody against whom there were witnesses but no warning was checked similar to a suspected wife. Anybody against whom there were neither witnesses nor warning died from a plague. Rav and Levi bar Sissi both say: One who sacrificed, burned, and poured out a libation was executed in court. He who clapped his hands, danced, laughed, was checked similar to a suspected wife. If he enjoyed himself silently, he died from a plague.

Did we not state: “Just as the water checks her out so it checks him out”? Just as she is forbidden to her husband, so she is forbidden to her paramour. Just as she is forbidden to her husband’s brother, so she is forbidden to her paramour’s brother. Just as the water checks her out for every single intercourse for which she receives her husband after [intercourse with] her paramour, so it checks him out. Since she in general becomes forbidden, whether by him or by another [man], she is checked out. But when he makes [her] drink, he is checked out. If it checked him out but not her, I would say that merit suspends for her. That is according to him who says that merit suspends and it is not recognizable. But following him who says that merit suspends and it is recognizable? Look, she was not recognized! But I could say that she drank uncovered water and it swelled. They should not have her checked out in this way but correctly! But I could say that he was in secret with other women. Did we not think to say, when he makes [her] drink, he is checked out? Explain it that he had criminal intent but she acted in error; then the water checked him out but not her. [ If the water checked her out but not him,] I would say that merit suspends for (her) [him]. That is according to him who says that merit suspends and it is not recognizable. But following him who says that merit suspends and it is recognizable? Look, she was not recognized! But I could say that she drank uncovered water and her belly swelled. They should not have her checked out in this way but correctly! But I could say that she was in secret with other men. Then if he divorced her, she would be permitted to him. Explain it that he acted in error but she had criminal intent; then the water checked her out but not him. If he had criminal intent but she acted in error, then it is obvious that she is permitted to her house. If he divorced her, would she be permitted to him? Is it possible to say that he had criminal intent and you say so? If he acted in error but she had criminal intent, it is obvious that she is forbidden to her house. If he divorced her, would she be permitted to him? Is it possible to say that she left because of him and you say so? From where do we know that all depends on her? Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Is is written: “Do not ejaculate semen into your neighbor’s wife to be impure through her.” It depends on her; if she had criminal intent, she is forbidden, acted in error she is permitted.

Did we not state: “Just as the water checks her out so it checks him out”? Just as she is forbidden to her husband, so she is forbidden to her paramour. Just as she is forbidden to her husband’s brother, so she is forbidden to her paramour’s brother. Just as the water checks her out for every single intercourse for which she receives her husband after [intercourse with] her paramour, so it checks him out. Since she in general becomes forbidden, whether by him or by another [man], she is checked out. But when he makes [her] drink, he is checked out. If it checked him out but not her, I would say that merit suspends for her. That is according to him who says that merit suspends and it is not recognizable. But following him who says that merit suspends and it is recognizable? Look, she was not recognized! But I could say that she drank uncovered water and it swelled. They should not have her checked out in this way but correctly! But I could say that he was in secret with other women. Did we not think to say, when he makes [her] drink, he is checked out? Explain it that he had criminal intent but she acted in error; then the water checked him out but not her. [ If the water checked her out but not him,] I would say that merit suspends for (her) [him]. That is according to him who says that merit suspends and it is not recognizable. But following him who says that merit suspends and it is recognizable? Look, she was not recognized! But I could say that she drank uncovered water and her belly swelled. They should not have her checked out in this way but correctly! But I could say that she was in secret with other men. Then if he divorced her, she would be permitted to him. Explain it that he acted in error but she had criminal intent; then the water checked her out but not him. If he had criminal intent but she acted in error, then it is obvious that she is permitted to her house. If he divorced her, would she be permitted to him? Is it possible to say that he had criminal intent and you say so? If he acted in error but she had criminal intent, it is obvious that she is forbidden to her house. If he divorced her, would she be permitted to him? Is it possible to say that she left because of him and you say so? From where do we know that all depends on her? Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Is is written: “Do not ejaculate semen into your neighbor’s wife to be impure through her.” It depends on her; if she had criminal intent, she is forbidden, acted in error she is permitted.

Did we not state: “Just as the water checks her out so it checks him out”? Just as she is forbidden to her husband, so she is forbidden to her paramour. Just as she is forbidden to her husband’s brother, so she is forbidden to her paramour’s brother. Just as the water checks her out for every single intercourse for which she receives her husband after [intercourse with] her paramour, so it checks him out. Since she in general becomes forbidden, whether by him or by another [man], she is checked out. But when he makes [her] drink, he is checked out. If it checked him out but not her, I would say that merit suspends for her. That is according to him who says that merit suspends and it is not recognizable. But following him who says that merit suspends and it is recognizable? Look, she was not recognized! But I could say that she drank uncovered water and it swelled. They should not have her checked out in this way but correctly! But I could say that he was in secret with other women. Did we not think to say, when he makes [her] drink, he is checked out? Explain it that he had criminal intent but she acted in error; then the water checked him out but not her. [ If the water checked her out but not him,] I would say that merit suspends for (her) [him]. That is according to him who says that merit suspends and it is not recognizable. But following him who says that merit suspends and it is recognizable? Look, she was not recognized! But I could say that she drank uncovered water and her belly swelled. They should not have her checked out in this way but correctly! But I could say that she was in secret with other men. Then if he divorced her, she would be permitted to him. Explain it that he acted in error but she had criminal intent; then the water checked her out but not him. If he had criminal intent but she acted in error, then it is obvious that she is permitted to her house. If he divorced her, would she be permitted to him? Is it possible to say that he had criminal intent and you say so? If he acted in error but she had criminal intent, it is obvious that she is forbidden to her house. If he divorced her, would she be permitted to him? Is it possible to say that she left because of him and you say so? From where do we know that all depends on her? Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Is is written: “Do not ejaculate semen into your neighbor’s wife to be impure through her.” It depends on her; if she had criminal intent, she is forbidden, acted in error she is permitted.

Did we not state: “Just as the water checks her out so it checks him out”? Just as she is forbidden to her husband, so she is forbidden to her paramour. Just as she is forbidden to her husband’s brother, so she is forbidden to her paramour’s brother. Just as the water checks her out for every single intercourse for which she receives her husband after [intercourse with] her paramour, so it checks him out. Since she in general becomes forbidden, whether by him or by another [man], she is checked out. But when he makes [her] drink, he is checked out. If it checked him out but not her, I would say that merit suspends for her. That is according to him who says that merit suspends and it is not recognizable. But following him who says that merit suspends and it is recognizable? Look, she was not recognized! But I could say that she drank uncovered water and it swelled. They should not have her checked out in this way but correctly! But I could say that he was in secret with other women. Did we not think to say, when he makes [her] drink, he is checked out? Explain it that he had criminal intent but she acted in error; then the water checked him out but not her. [ If the water checked her out but not him,] I would say that merit suspends for (her) [him]. That is according to him who says that merit suspends and it is not recognizable. But following him who says that merit suspends and it is recognizable? Look, she was not recognized! But I could say that she drank uncovered water and her belly swelled. They should not have her checked out in this way but correctly! But I could say that she was in secret with other men. Then if he divorced her, she would be permitted to him. Explain it that he acted in error but she had criminal intent; then the water checked her out but not him. If he had criminal intent but she acted in error, then it is obvious that she is permitted to her house. If he divorced her, would she be permitted to him? Is it possible to say that he had criminal intent and you say so? If he acted in error but she had criminal intent, it is obvious that she is forbidden to her house. If he divorced her, would she be permitted to him? Is it possible to say that she left because of him and you say so? From where do we know that all depends on her? Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Is is written: “Do not ejaculate semen into your neighbor’s wife to be impure through her.” It depends on her; if she had criminal intent, she is forbidden, acted in error she is permitted.

Did we not state: “Just as the water checks her out so it checks him out”? Just as she is forbidden to her husband, so she is forbidden to her paramour. Just as she is forbidden to her husband’s brother, so she is forbidden to her paramour’s brother. Just as the water checks her out for every single intercourse for which she receives her husband after [intercourse with] her paramour, so it checks him out. Since she in general becomes forbidden, whether by him or by another [man], she is checked out. But when he makes [her] drink, he is checked out. If it checked him out but not her, I would say that merit suspends for her. That is according to him who says that merit suspends and it is not recognizable. But following him who says that merit suspends and it is recognizable? Look, she was not recognized! But I could say that she drank uncovered water and it swelled. They should not have her checked out in this way but correctly! But I could say that he was in secret with other women. Did we not think to say, when he makes [her] drink, he is checked out? Explain it that he had criminal intent but she acted in error; then the water checked him out but not her. [ If the water checked her out but not him,] I would say that merit suspends for (her) [him]. That is according to him who says that merit suspends and it is not recognizable. But following him who says that merit suspends and it is recognizable? Look, she was not recognized! But I could say that she drank uncovered water and her belly swelled. They should not have her checked out in this way but correctly! But I could say that she was in secret with other men. Then if he divorced her, she would be permitted to him. Explain it that he acted in error but she had criminal intent; then the water checked her out but not him. If he had criminal intent but she acted in error, then it is obvious that she is permitted to her house. If he divorced her, would she be permitted to him? Is it possible to say that he had criminal intent and you say so? If he acted in error but she had criminal intent, it is obvious that she is forbidden to her house. If he divorced her, would she be permitted to him? Is it possible to say that she left because of him and you say so? From where do we know that all depends on her? Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Is is written: “Do not ejaculate semen into your neighbor’s wife to be impure through her.” It depends on her; if she had criminal intent, she is forbidden, acted in error she is permitted.

Did we not state: “Just as the water checks her out so it checks him out”? Just as she is forbidden to her husband, so she is forbidden to her paramour. Just as she is forbidden to her husband’s brother, so she is forbidden to her paramour’s brother. Just as the water checks her out for every single intercourse for which she receives her husband after [intercourse with] her paramour, so it checks him out. Since she in general becomes forbidden, whether by him or by another [man], she is checked out. But when he makes [her] drink, he is checked out. If it checked him out but not her, I would say that merit suspends for her. That is according to him who says that merit suspends and it is not recognizable. But following him who says that merit suspends and it is recognizable? Look, she was not recognized! But I could say that she drank uncovered water and it swelled. They should not have her checked out in this way but correctly! But I could say that he was in secret with other women. Did we not think to say, when he makes [her] drink, he is checked out? Explain it that he had criminal intent but she acted in error; then the water checked him out but not her. [ If the water checked her out but not him,] I would say that merit suspends for (her) [him]. That is according to him who says that merit suspends and it is not recognizable. But following him who says that merit suspends and it is recognizable? Look, she was not recognized! But I could say that she drank uncovered water and her belly swelled. They should not have her checked out in this way but correctly! But I could say that she was in secret with other men. Then if he divorced her, she would be permitted to him. Explain it that he acted in error but she had criminal intent; then the water checked her out but not him. If he had criminal intent but she acted in error, then it is obvious that she is permitted to her house. If he divorced her, would she be permitted to him? Is it possible to say that he had criminal intent and you say so? If he acted in error but she had criminal intent, it is obvious that she is forbidden to her house. If he divorced her, would she be permitted to him? Is it possible to say that she left because of him and you say so? From where do we know that all depends on her? Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Is is written: “Do not ejaculate semen into your neighbor’s wife to be impure through her.” It depends on her; if she had criminal intent, she is forbidden, acted in error she is permitted.

Did we not state: “Just as the water checks her out so it checks him out”? Just as she is forbidden to her husband, so she is forbidden to her paramour. Just as she is forbidden to her husband’s brother, so she is forbidden to her paramour’s brother. Just as the water checks her out for every single intercourse for which she receives her husband after [intercourse with] her paramour, so it checks him out. Since she in general becomes forbidden, whether by him or by another [man], she is checked out. But when he makes [her] drink, he is checked out. If it checked him out but not her, I would say that merit suspends for her. That is according to him who says that merit suspends and it is not recognizable. But following him who says that merit suspends and it is recognizable? Look, she was not recognized! But I could say that she drank uncovered water and it swelled. They should not have her checked out in this way but correctly! But I could say that he was in secret with other women. Did we not think to say, when he makes [her] drink, he is checked out? Explain it that he had criminal intent but she acted in error; then the water checked him out but not her. [ If the water checked her out but not him,] I would say that merit suspends for (her) [him]. That is according to him who says that merit suspends and it is not recognizable. But following him who says that merit suspends and it is recognizable? Look, she was not recognized! But I could say that she drank uncovered water and her belly swelled. They should not have her checked out in this way but correctly! But I could say that she was in secret with other men. Then if he divorced her, she would be permitted to him. Explain it that he acted in error but she had criminal intent; then the water checked her out but not him. If he had criminal intent but she acted in error, then it is obvious that she is permitted to her house. If he divorced her, would she be permitted to him? Is it possible to say that he had criminal intent and you say so? If he acted in error but she had criminal intent, it is obvious that she is forbidden to her house. If he divorced her, would she be permitted to him? Is it possible to say that she left because of him and you say so? From where do we know that all depends on her? Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Is is written: “Do not ejaculate semen into your neighbor’s wife to be impure through her.” It depends on her; if she had criminal intent, she is forbidden, acted in error she is permitted.

Did we not state: “Just as the water checks her out so it checks him out”? Just as she is forbidden to her husband, so she is forbidden to her paramour. Just as she is forbidden to her husband’s brother, so she is forbidden to her paramour’s brother. Just as the water checks her out for every single intercourse for which she receives her husband after [intercourse with] her paramour, so it checks him out. Since she in general becomes forbidden, whether by him or by another [man], she is checked out. But when he makes [her] drink, he is checked out. If it checked him out but not her, I would say that merit suspends for her. That is according to him who says that merit suspends and it is not recognizable. But following him who says that merit suspends and it is recognizable? Look, she was not recognized! But I could say that she drank uncovered water and it swelled. They should not have her checked out in this way but correctly! But I could say that he was in secret with other women. Did we not think to say, when he makes [her] drink, he is checked out? Explain it that he had criminal intent but she acted in error; then the water checked him out but not her. [ If the water checked her out but not him,] I would say that merit suspends for (her) [him]. That is according to him who says that merit suspends and it is not recognizable. But following him who says that merit suspends and it is recognizable? Look, she was not recognized! But I could say that she drank uncovered water and her belly swelled. They should not have her checked out in this way but correctly! But I could say that she was in secret with other men. Then if he divorced her, she would be permitted to him. Explain it that he acted in error but she had criminal intent; then the water checked her out but not him. If he had criminal intent but she acted in error, then it is obvious that she is permitted to her house. If he divorced her, would she be permitted to him? Is it possible to say that he had criminal intent and you say so? If he acted in error but she had criminal intent, it is obvious that she is forbidden to her house. If he divorced her, would she be permitted to him? Is it possible to say that she left because of him and you say so? From where do we know that all depends on her? Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Is is written: “Do not ejaculate semen into your neighbor’s wife to be impure through her.” It depends on her; if she had criminal intent, she is forbidden, acted in error she is permitted.

Did we not state: “Just as the water checks her out so it checks him out”? Just as she is forbidden to her husband, so she is forbidden to her paramour. Just as she is forbidden to her husband’s brother, so she is forbidden to her paramour’s brother. Just as the water checks her out for every single intercourse for which she receives her husband after [intercourse with] her paramour, so it checks him out. Since she in general becomes forbidden, whether by him or by another [man], she is checked out. But when he makes [her] drink, he is checked out. If it checked him out but not her, I would say that merit suspends for her. That is according to him who says that merit suspends and it is not recognizable. But following him who says that merit suspends and it is recognizable? Look, she was not recognized! But I could say that she drank uncovered water and it swelled. They should not have her checked out in this way but correctly! But I could say that he was in secret with other women. Did we not think to say, when he makes [her] drink, he is checked out? Explain it that he had criminal intent but she acted in error; then the water checked him out but not her. [ If the water checked her out but not him,] I would say that merit suspends for (her) [him]. That is according to him who says that merit suspends and it is not recognizable. But following him who says that merit suspends and it is recognizable? Look, she was not recognized! But I could say that she drank uncovered water and her belly swelled. They should not have her checked out in this way but correctly! But I could say that she was in secret with other men. Then if he divorced her, she would be permitted to him. Explain it that he acted in error but she had criminal intent; then the water checked her out but not him. If he had criminal intent but she acted in error, then it is obvious that she is permitted to her house. If he divorced her, would she be permitted to him? Is it possible to say that he had criminal intent and you say so? If he acted in error but she had criminal intent, it is obvious that she is forbidden to her house. If he divorced her, would she be permitted to him? Is it possible to say that she left because of him and you say so? From where do we know that all depends on her? Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Is is written: “Do not ejaculate semen into your neighbor’s wife to be impure through her.” It depends on her; if she had criminal intent, she is forbidden, acted in error she is permitted.

It was stated: It is possible to raise questions about all couples from the time that Moses died until Yose ben Yoezer from Ṣereda and Joseph ben Joḥanan from Jerusalem. It is possible to raise questions about all couples from the time that Yose ben Yoezer from Ṣereda and Joseph ben Joḥanan from Jerusalem died until Rebbi Jehudah ben Baba arose. They said about Rebbi Jehudah ben Baba that all he did was in the name of Heaven except that he raised an animal of the flock. This happened the following way. Once he fell sick and the medical men went to visit him. They told him: there is no healing for you except freshly warm milk, because he had angina pectoris. What did he do? He bought a goat and bound it to the legs of his bed and when he had an attack of angina he sucked from it freshly warm milk. But when the Sages wanted to visit him, they said how could we enter when the robber dwells with him in the house? When he died, he said: I did never sin except that in this case I disregarded the words of my colleagues. After his death they checked all he had done and did not find any sin except that goat alone.

It supports him because he says it is all praise, as Rebbi Joḥanan said, Joḥanan the High Priest sent and checked in all localities of Israel and found that they separated only Great Heave. But First and Second Tithes some were separating and some did not. He said, since [omitting] First Tithe is a deadly sin and [omitting] Second Tithe [implies] the sin of ṭevel, a person should give a name to heave and heave of the tithe and give them to the Cohen; Second Tithe he exchanges for coins. About the remaining tithe of the poor, he who has a claim on another person must bring proof.

HALAKHAH: “The following leave without ketubah,” etc. “What is the big-voiced,” etc. And all with witnesses. “X tithed, X saw the stains, X cut her ḥallah, X permitted her vow.” They checked and found it was not so.

May his own vow of nazir and that of his father fall on him together? It happened that Rebbi Ḥanina ben Ḥanina’s father made him a nazir and Rebbi Simeon ben Gamliel checked him whether he had grown two pubic hairs. He said to him, why are you checking me? If my father’s nezirut is on me, I am a nazir; otherwise, I declare being a nazir. Rabban Gamliel stood up and kissed him on his head and said, I am sure that you will not die from old age before you taught instruction in Israel. Rebbi Eleazar bar Ṣadoq said, I saw him sitting and explaining in Jabneh.

How far does one importune him? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Miasha bar Jeremiah: Up to 40 cubits. If he checked twenty and found, he checks another ten. If he checked twenty and found, he checks another ten. Some Tannaïm state: If he checked ten and found, he checks another ten. If he checked ten and found, he checks another ten.

How far does one importune him? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Miasha bar Jeremiah: Up to 40 cubits. If he checked twenty and found, he checks another ten. If he checked twenty and found, he checks another ten. Some Tannaïm state: If he checked ten and found, he checks another ten. If he checked ten and found, he checks another ten.

How far does one importune him? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Miasha bar Jeremiah: Up to 40 cubits. If he checked twenty and found, he checks another ten. If he checked twenty and found, he checks another ten. Some Tannaïm state: If he checked ten and found, he checks another ten. If he checked ten and found, he checks another ten.

How far does one importune him? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Miasha bar Jeremiah: Up to 40 cubits. If he checked twenty and found, he checks another ten. If he checked twenty and found, he checks another ten. Some Tannaïm state: If he checked ten and found, he checks another ten. If he checked ten and found, he checks another ten.

Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav, Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of Abba bar Ḥana: Two who brought a bill of divorce do not have to declare: It was written before us and signed before us. Rebbi Yose ben Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They have to. He himself who brought the bill of divorce does not have to deliver the bill in the presence of two [witnesses] in order to declare her a divorcee in the presence of two. “If he gave her the bill, took it from her, and threw it into the sea or into a river. If later he says to her that it was an empty papyrus or a paid bond, he cannot be believed to disqualify her.” Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Ze‘ira: If he cannot disqualify her, who can? He said to him, since she was declared a divorcee in the presence of two [witnesses], he cannot be believed to disqualify her. If he gave her a bill of divorce which was found to be invalid, they forced him to give her a replacement. This case came before the rabbis and they declared it valid. Did we not say, he cannot be believed to disqualify her? There, the flaw was not proved; here the flaw was proved. As the following: Ḥinena, the son of Rebbi Asi, was a medical doctor and threw a bill of divorce to his wife. She cried. Her neighbor came, grabbed it from her, and gave her an empty papyrus. The case came before the rabbis and they took it into account. But did not Rebbi Yasa say in Rebbi Joḥanan’s name: If the designation was checked and found to be based on [the testimony of] women or children, the designation is invalid? There, the designation was not mentioned. But here the name “bill of divorce” was mentioned. And some want to say, if he asserted that it was a valid bill of divorce, but she cried, her neighbor came, grabbed it from her, and gave her an empty papyrus.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody transports a bill of divorce and loses it,” etc. What means “on the spot”? Rebbi Joḥanan said, as long as nobody passed by there. Rebbi Jacob bar Idi, Rebbi Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: as long as three people did not pass by there. If a Gentile passed by there? Let us hear from the following: Abba bar bar Ḥana transported a bill of divorce; he lost it and a Saracen found it. The case came before Rebbi Joḥanan; they declared [the bill] valid. This means that if a Gentile passed by it is valid. Could we say that he had a mark to identify it? But was it not stated: There are no marks for bills of divorce. That is, if he said, two or three lines. But here, the ה in it had a spot. Rebbi Ezra asked before Rebbi Mana: Why is it invalid here? I say, it was another [husband] whose name was like his name. Think of it, if they checked out that entire place and did not find another man whose name was like his name! But it is because of the severity of adultery. But did we not state: “They went and found nobody but let his wife remarry; they went there, did not recognize him, and let his wife remarry”? Rebbi Mana told him: This man had two bills of divorce in his hand, one valid, the other invalid. He lost the valid one and threw away the invalid. When he found it, I say that what he found was the invalid bill.

For freshly pressed wine one can allow for up to forty days presuming that it is wine; Rebbi Jehudah says, up to a break point. You find that there is a leniency and a restriction following Rebbi Jehudah, and a leniency and a restriction following the rabbis. A leniency following Rebbi Jehudah, if a break point arrived before forty days had passed, and a restriction if forty days passed without break point that he cannot give heave. A leniency following the rabbis, if forty days passed without break point that he cannot give heave, and a restriction, if a break point arrived before forty days had passed that he cannot give heave. Rebbi Simon asked: If the fortieth day arrived and he did not check. He was lazy for two or three days, then he came and found it to be vinegar. Is it retroactively considered to be vinegar or only from there on to the future? What is the difference? If he had transgressed and given heave. If you say that retroactively it is considered to be vinegar, his heave is heave. From there on to the future it is not heave. If he had checked an amphora to continuously give heave from it. When he returned, he found it to be vinegar. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: The first three days it certainly is wine, the last vinegar, and the middle ones are in doubt. Rebbi Abbahu said, I heard that from Rebbi Joshua ben Levi; Rebbi Joḥanan did not say so but the first three days it certainly is wine, after that it is in doubt. Do they differ in the treatment of doubt? What Rebbi Joḥanan said refers to the case that he came and found it to be stale vinegar. What Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said refers to the case that he came and found it to be strong vinegar. Or their difference equals another difference, for what we have stated there: “A rusty or broken needle is pure.” It was stated: He put it down smooth, then he came and found it rusty. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: The first three days it certainly is impure, the last pure, and the middle ones are in doubt. Rebbi Abbahu said, that is what Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said; Rebbi Joḥanan did not say so but the first three days it certainly is impure, after that it is in doubt. Rebbi Ila, Rebbi Abba and Rebbi Eleazar in the name of all rabbis who are frequenting the House of Study: Concerning wine and needle practice follows Rebbi Joshua ben Levi.

A guardian appointed by the orphans’ father shall be made to swear, for usually he is not checked out. If he was appointed by the court he shall not be made to swear for usually he was checked out. Abba Shaul says, it is the other way around; a guardian appointed by the orphans’ father shall be made to swear, for he is like one who is paid; if he was appointed by the court he shall not be made to swear for for he can say to him, I am doing this as a favor to you. It turns out that Rebbi Joḥanan follows the rabbis and Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina Abba Shaul. Does Rebbi Joḥanan follow the rabbis? Even if he holds with Abba Shaul, a person acts as a trustee in order to be declared trustworthy. Does Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina [follow] Abba Shaul? Even if he holds with the rabbis, a person is apt to slip away from an oath but not from payments.

A guardian appointed by the orphans’ father shall be made to swear, for usually he is not checked out. If he was appointed by the court he shall not be made to swear for usually he was checked out. Abba Shaul says, it is the other way around; a guardian appointed by the orphans’ father shall be made to swear, for he is like one who is paid; if he was appointed by the court he shall not be made to swear for for he can say to him, I am doing this as a favor to you. It turns out that Rebbi Joḥanan follows the rabbis and Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina Abba Shaul. Does Rebbi Joḥanan follow the rabbis? Even if he holds with Abba Shaul, a person acts as a trustee in order to be declared trustworthy. Does Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina [follow] Abba Shaul? Even if he holds with the rabbis, a person is apt to slip away from an oath but not from payments.

HALAKHAH: “If it became public knowledge in town that she was preliminarily married, she is preliminarily married”. Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If lights are burning and people talk. Rebbi Ze‘ira objected before Rebbi Yasa: But did we not state: “If it became public knowledge in town that she was preliminarily married, she is preliminarily married; divorced, she is divorced”? Can you say that lights are burning? No, people talk. So here also, people talk. Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If the title was checked and found to be from the mouth of women or minors, the title is abolished. Rav said, they permitted only in case of a hearsay witness.

[“The dedicated ones”]. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, because of: “At that moment Joshua dedicated them as hewers of wood and drawers of water for the congregation.” One understands “for the congregation.” But “for the Eternal’s altar”? But Joshua kept them in limbo. He said, I shall not include nor exclude them. But he who sometime in the future will build the Temple, if he wants to include them he may include, exclude them he may exclude. David came and excluded them as it is said: “But the Gibeonites are not part of the Children of Israel.” Why did he exclude them? Because “ there was a famine in David’s time, three years year after year.” David said, for four sins the rains are locked away. For the sins of foreign worship, incest and adultery, murder, and the sins of those who publicly promise money for welfare but do not pay. From where for the sin of foreign worship? “ Beware, lest you be seduced” etc. What is written afterwards? “The Eternal’s rage will be inflamed against you and he locks the sky, etc.” From where for the sins of the incestuous and adulterers? “ You distorted the Land by your immorality and your evil deeds.” What is the punishment? “Rainshowers were withheld, there was no late rain,” etc. From where because of the murderers? “ Because blood will distort the Land.” From where for the sins of those who publicly promise money for welfare but do not pay? “ Clouds and wind but no rain means the man who prides himself by lying gifts.” David checked his entire generation and did not find one of these. He turned to ask the urim and tummim. That is what is written: “ David asked before the Eternal” by urim and tummim. Rebbi Eleazar said, “Ask the Eternal, all the meek of the Land, who execute His Law.” What means “Whose Law is Work”? He enforces His Law and this is His Action. “ The Eternal said, because of Saul and the House of blood guilt.” “Because of Saul,” whom you did not grant the last favor, “and because of the House of blood guilt, for he had killed the Gibeonites.” David sent and called them, what is between you and the house of Saul? They told him, because he killed seven of our men, two hewers of wood, two drawers of water, a religious leader, a scribe, and a beadle. He asked them, what do you want now? They said to him: “ May there be given to us seven men of his sons and we shall hang them before the Eternal on the hill of Saul, the elected of the Eternal.” He said to them, what use is it for you that they be killed? Take silver and gold for yourselves! But they answered, “there is no money for us from Saul and his house.” He said, maybe they are afraid; he separated them and spoke to each one separately, trying to mollify him by himself, and asked him: What use is it for you that they be killed? Take gold and silver! But he said, “there is no money for us from Saul and his house.” It is written “for me”. At this moment, David said that the Holy One gave three good gifts to Israel: They are merciful, decent, and charitable. From where that they are merciful? “He gave you mercy.” From where that they are decent? “That His fear should be on your faces.” This is a sign, for a decent person does not sin. About anybody indecent it is clear that his ancestors did not stand on Mount Sinai. From where that they are charitable? “The Eternal, your God, kept for you covenant and charity.” But these, nothing of this in found in them. Immediately he went to exclude them as it is said: “But the Gibeonites are not of the Children of Israel.” And Ezra also excluded them, as it is said: “And the dedicated ones dwelt in the Ophel.” Also in the future the Holy One, praise to Him, will exclude them as it is written: “One crossing the city they cause to be lost.”

Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Ḥisda: Three are trustworthy immediately: a midwife, a caravan, and the one who purifies her colleagues. A midwife: “The midwife took and wound a red string [around his hand] to indicate that this one was born first.” A caravan, as Rebbi Abba, the brother of Rebbi Jehudah bar Zavdi said in the name of Rav: As long as a baby lies in the public domain, either its father or its mother can testify about him. Once it was collected from the public domain, one needs two witnesses; its father and mother are like two witnesses. The one who purifies her colleagues, as we have stated there: “Three women sleep on one bed. If blood was found under one of them, all three are impure. If one of them checked herself out and found herself impure, she is impure and the other two are pure.” Rebbi Abba said, only within 24 hours.

HALAKHAH: “One who comes to marry a woman from a priestly family,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, this is Rebbi Meïr’s, as we have stated: “What is qualified dough? Anyone about whom there is [no suspicion of descent from] a desecrated one, a bastard, or a Gibeonite. Rebbi Meïr says, the daughter of any woman not tainted with any of these is qualified for the priesthood. But about a family in which a disability had disappeared, Rebbi Meïr says he checks up to four mothers and marries, but the Sages say, he checks forever.” Rav said, these are the words of Rebbi Meïr, but the Sages say, he checks from which family one marries into the priesthood and marries. Through whom does he check? Rebbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rebbi Josia: He checks through his female relatives. To Rebbi Ḥama came an old man; he asked him: Does one marry into the priesthood from this family? He answered: yes, and he was making a match based on this information. Rav said to his son Ḥiyya: Descend a degree to marry a wife. Rebbi Idi said, the following is a frequent saying of the rabbis: “If the woman was not impure but she is pure.” If she was not impure, she is pure. Not like Pappos ben Jehudah who locks the door before his wife. One said to him, did your forefathers act like this? A Cohen came to Rebbi Joḥanan and said to him: I acted on the Mishnah when I married a woman from a priestly family and checked after her four mothers which are eight. He said to him, if the origin was defective, who would inform you?

HALAKHAH: “Which one is tame and which one is notorious,” etc. What is Rebbi Jehudah’s reason? “From yesterday and the day before.” How does Rebbi Meїr confirm “from yesterday and the day before”? He explains it by separate gorings, that if it was let out the first day and gored, the second day and it did not gore, the third day it gored, it is not declared a notorious bull unless it gored on three consecutive days. If it was let out the first day and gored bulls, the second it gored dogs, the third it gored pigs: would it be declared a notorious bull for three different kinds on three days? If it was let out the first day and gored, the second day it was not let out, the third day it was let out and gored, we come to the disagreement between Rav Ada bar Aḥawa and Rav Huna, who disagreed: A menstruating woman checked herself the first day and found herself impure. The second day she did not check. On the third day she checked and found herself impure. Rav Ada bar Aḥawa said in the name of Rav: she certainly is niddah. Rav Huna said in the name of Rav: it is doubtful whether she is niddah. Rav Huna said, I was there at the beginning, I was there at the end, and I was there in the middle when Rav was asked, and he said, it is doubtful. Rav was asked and he said, it is certain; then he reversed himself and said, it is doubtful. Rav Ada bar Aḥawa was only there when he said, it is certain.

HALAKHAH: “Which one is tame and which one is notorious,” etc. What is Rebbi Jehudah’s reason? “From yesterday and the day before.” How does Rebbi Meїr confirm “from yesterday and the day before”? He explains it by separate gorings, that if it was let out the first day and gored, the second day and it did not gore, the third day it gored, it is not declared a notorious bull unless it gored on three consecutive days. If it was let out the first day and gored bulls, the second it gored dogs, the third it gored pigs: would it be declared a notorious bull for three different kinds on three days? If it was let out the first day and gored, the second day it was not let out, the third day it was let out and gored, we come to the disagreement between Rav Ada bar Aḥawa and Rav Huna, who disagreed: A menstruating woman checked herself the first day and found herself impure. The second day she did not check. On the third day she checked and found herself impure. Rav Ada bar Aḥawa said in the name of Rav: she certainly is niddah. Rav Huna said in the name of Rav: it is doubtful whether she is niddah. Rav Huna said, I was there at the beginning, I was there at the end, and I was there in the middle when Rav was asked, and he said, it is doubtful. Rav was asked and he said, it is certain; then he reversed himself and said, it is doubtful. Rav Ada bar Aḥawa was only there when he said, it is certain.

If it was let out the first day and gored bulls, the second it gored dogs, the third it gored pigs: would it be declared a notorious bull for three different kinds on three days? If it was let out the first day and gored, the second day it was not let out, the third day it was let out and gored, we come to the disagreement between Rav Ada bar Aḥawa and Rav Huna, who disagreed: A menstruating woman checked herself the first day and found herself impure. The second day she did not check. On the third day she checked and found herself impure. Rav Ada bar Aḥawa said in the name of Rav: she certainly is niddah. Rav Huna said in the name of Rav: it is doubtful whether she is niddah. Rav Huna said, I was there at the beginning, I was there at the end, and I was there in the middle when Rav was asked, and he said, it is doubtful. Rav was asked and he said, it is certain; then he reversed himself and said, it is doubtful. Rav Ada bar Aḥawa was only there when he said, it is certain.

If it was let out the first day and gored bulls, the second it gored dogs, the third it gored pigs: would it be declared a notorious bull for three different kinds on three days? If it was let out the first day and gored, the second day it was not let out, the third day it was let out and gored, we come to the disagreement between Rav Ada bar Aḥawa and Rav Huna, who disagreed: A menstruating woman checked herself the first day and found herself impure. The second day she did not check. On the third day she checked and found herself impure. Rav Ada bar Aḥawa said in the name of Rav: she certainly is niddah. Rav Huna said in the name of Rav: it is doubtful whether she is niddah. Rav Huna said, I was there at the beginning, I was there at the end, and I was there in the middle when Rav was asked, and he said, it is doubtful. Rav was asked and he said, it is certain; then he reversed himself and said, it is doubtful. Rav Ada bar Aḥawa was only there when he said, it is certain.

HALAKHAH: “If one contracts with another for a field,” etc. It was stated: “One contracts with another for a field; he sowed it a first year and it did not grow; one forces him to sow a second year. If the second time it did not grow, one cannot force him to sow a third year.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, that is, a field which had not been checked out. But if it had been checked out, one can force him to sow a third year.

HALAKHAH: “If one contracts with another for a field,” etc. It was stated: “One contracts with another for a field; he sowed it a first year and it did not grow; one forces him to sow a second year. If the second time it did not grow, one cannot force him to sow a third year.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, that is, a field which had not been checked out. But if it had been checked out, one can force him to sow a third year.

Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Ḥisda: Three are trustworthy immediately: a midwife, a caravan, and the one who purifies her colleagues. A midwife as long as [the woman] sits on the birthing chair, from the verse: “The midwife took and wound, etc.” A caravan, as Rebbi Simon, the brother of Rebbi Jehudah bar Zavdi, said in the name of Rav: As long as [a baby] lies in the public domain, either its father or its mother can testify about him. Once he has been collected from the public domain, one needs two witnesses; its father and mother may become its two witnesses. The one who purifies her colleagues, as we have stated there: “Three women sleep on one bed. If blood was found under one of them, all three are impure. If one of them checked herself out and found herself impure, she is impure and the other two are pure.” Rebbi Abba said, only within 24 hours.

If one checked an amphora to continuously give heave from it. Up to three days it is certain, after that in doubt Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: The first three days it certainly is wine, the last vinegar, the middle ones are in doubt. Rebbi Abbahu said, I heard this from him. What does and says Rebbi Joḥanan? For three days it is certain, after that in doubt. Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, Rebbi Yasa in the name of the rabbis, who come and hear from the House of Study of Bar Iṭyan, similar to the statement of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi about an amphora. If he lost a smooth needle and then found it rusty. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: The first three days it certainly is impure, the last pure, the middle ones are in doubt. Rebbi Abbahu said, I also heard that from him. What does and says Rebbi Joḥanan? The first three days it is certain, after that in doubt. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba asked: If he came at the end of (a week) [40 days] and found it clearly to be vinegar, [did it clearly become vinegar immediately] or only from that moment in the future? Rebbi Isaac asked: If the crucial time passed at the end of forty days, did the importance of the crucial time invalidate that of forty days or did the importance of forty days invalidate that of the crucial time?

Rebbi Zeˋira asked before Rebbi Immi: If the person was checked and he said, that was not what I intended? He answered him, when he will be checked.

Rebbi Zeˋira asked before Rebbi Immi: If the person was checked and he said, that was not what I intended? He answered him, when he will be checked.

HALAKHAH: “The following are disqualified: The dice-player,” etc. The dice player is the one who plays with small stones. “Not only the player with stones, even one who plays with shells of nuts or pomegranates is not accepted unless he break his stones or tear up his IOU’s, and be checked out and repent in complete repentance.”

“Dealers in sabbatical produce.” “Who is a dealer in sabbatical produce? One who sits idle all the years of a sabbatical cycle. As soon as the sabbatical year starts, be becomes active and trades in sabbatical produce. One does not accept them before another sabbatical year starts and he can be checked out that he repented in complete repentance.” It was stated: Rebbi Yose says, two sabbatical periods. “Rebbi Nehemiah says, repentance in money, not repentance in words; that he say to them, here are 200 denars, distribute them to the poor, for I earned them from forbidden produce.” They added shepherds, extortionists, and any who are suspect in money matters, that their testimony be invalid. Rebbi Abbahu said, only shepherds of small animals.

It is written: At that moment Joshua dedicated them as hewers of wood and drawers of water for the congregation. One understands “for the congregation.” But “for the Eternal’s altar”? But Joshua kept them in limbo. He said, I shall [neither] exclude nor include them. But he who sometime in the future will build the Temple, if he wants to include he may include, if he wants to exclude he may exclude. David came and excluded them as it is said: But the Gibeonites are not part of the Children of Israel. Why did he exclude them? Because there was a famine in David’s time, three years year after year. David said, for three sins the rains are locked away: Foreign worship, incest and adultery, and murder. Foreign worship, as it is written: Beware, lest you be seduced and next to it, He locks the sky up. Incest and adultery, as it is written Rain-showers were withheld, there was no late rain, for you had the forehead of a whoring woman. Murder, as it is written: Because blood will distort the Land. Some say, also those who publicly promise money for welfare but do not pay, as it is written: Clouds and wind but no rain means the man who boasts with lying gifts. David checked on all his ways and did not find any of them. He turned to ask the Urim and Tummim. That is what is written: David asked before the Eternal. Rebbi Eleazar said, it is written: Ask the Eternal, all the meek of the Land, who execute His Law, etc. The Eternal said, because of Saul and the House of blood-guilt, for he had killed the Gibeonites. Because of Saul, whom you did not grant the last favor, and because of the House of blood-guilt, for he had killed the Gibeonites. David sent and called them. He asked them, what is between you and the House of Saul? They told him, because he killed seven of our men, two hewers of wood, two drawers of water, a scribe, a religious leader, and a beadle. He asked them, what do you want now? They said to him, May there be given to us seven men … and we shall hang them before the Eternal in Gibeon. He said to them, what use is it to you that they be killed? Take silver and gold for yourselves! But they answered, there is no silver or gold for us from Saul and his house. He said, maybe they are afraid one of the other; he dealt which each of them separately, trying to mollify him by himself, but nobody accepted it. That is what is written, there is no silver or gold for us, it is written for me. At this moment, David said that the Holy One gave three good gifts to Israel: They are decent, merciful, and charitable. Decent, for it is written: that His fear be on your faces. Merciful, for it is written: He gave you mercy, had mercy on you and increased you. Charitable, for it is written: The Eternal, your God, kept for you covenant and charity. But these, nothing of this is found in them; he excluded them: But the Gibeonites are not of the Children of Israel. And Ezra also excluded them, as it is said: And the dedicated ones dwelt in the Ophel; Ziha and Gishpa were of the dedicated ones. Also in the future, the Holy One, praise to Him, will exclude them as it is written: The city worker will cultivate it, from all tribes of Israel. He will eliminate them from all tribes of Israel.

But the rabbis say, he lifted his eyes to the walls of his heart. My innards, my innards I make tremble, the walls of my heart are in uproar; my heart is beating inside me, I cannot be silent. He said before Him: Master of the world, I checked all my 248 limbs that You gave me and I did not find one of them I offended you with; so much more that You should spare my life.

HALAKHAH: “And if the opposing party was suspect of perjury,” etc. The dice player is the one who plays with small stones. “Not only the player with stones, even one who plays with shells of nuts or pomegranates one does not accept unless he break his stones, and be checked out, and repent in complete repentance.” One who lends on interest one does not accept unless he tear up his IOU’s, and be checked out, and repent in complete repentance.

HALAKHAH: “And if the opposing party was suspect of perjury,” etc. The dice player is the one who plays with small stones. “Not only the player with stones, even one who plays with shells of nuts or pomegranates one does not accept unless he break his stones, and be checked out, and repent in complete repentance.” One who lends on interest one does not accept unless he tear up his IOU’s, and be checked out, and repent in complete repentance.

Dealers in sabbatical produce, that is the sabbatical trader. “Who is a sabbatical trader? One who sits idle all the years of a sabbatical cycle. In the sabbatical year he becomes active and trades in sabbatical produce. One does not accept him before another sabbatical year starts and he can be checked out that he repented in complete repentance.” Rebbi Yose stated, two sabbatical periods. “Rebbi Nehemiah says, repentance in money, not repentance in words; that he say to them, here are 200 denars, distribute them to the poor, for I earned them from forbidden produce.” They added shepherds, extortionists, and any who are suspect in money matters, that their testimony be invalid. Rebbi Abbahu said, shepherds of small animals.

HALAKHAH: “Within three days before Gentile holidays,” etc. Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba understood all from here: Bring your sacrifices in the morning, on the third day your tithes. Rebbi Yose said to him, if it were so, even in the diasporas. But it was stated, Nahum the Mede said, in the diasporas one day is forbidden. What about this? There, they checked and found that they supplied their needs in one day and forbade them one day. But here they checked and found that they cover their needs in three days and forbade them three days.

HALAKHAH: “Within three days before Gentile holidays,” etc. Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba understood all from here: Bring your sacrifices in the morning, on the third day your tithes. Rebbi Yose said to him, if it were so, even in the diasporas. But it was stated, Nahum the Mede said, in the diasporas one day is forbidden. What about this? There, they checked and found that they supplied their needs in one day and forbade them one day. But here they checked and found that they cover their needs in three days and forbade them three days.

How does Rebbi Yose uphold this verse, bring your sacrifices in the morning, etc? The verse speaks about Jeroboam’s kingdom. When Jeroboam became king over Israel he started seducing Israel and said to them come, let us worship pagan worship. Pagan worship is lenient. This is what is written, let us go against Jehudah, cut it down, break it up, and appoint a king in it, the man from Ṭabeal. Rebbi Abba said, we checked all of Scripture but did not find a place named Ṭabeal. But it treats its worshippers well. The Torah said, selected him from all of the tribes of Israel to be a priest for Me. Pagan worship says, he made priests from the fringes of the people. Rebbi La said, from the thorns of the people, the rubbish of the people. The Torah said, the fat of My sacrifice shall not remain until the morning; but pagan worship said, bring your sacrifices in the morning. The Torah said, it should be eaten on the day of its slaughter and the next day; but pagan worship said, on the third day your tithes. The Torah said, do not sacrifice the blood of My sacrifice on leavened matter; but pagan worship said, and burn your thanksgiving offer of leavened matter. The Torah said, if you are vowing a vow to the Eternal, your God, do not tarry to fulfill it, but pagan worship said, pledge gifts, publicize them. Rebbi Yudan, Rebbi Mattaniah’s father, said, the verse only serves to mention the shame of Israel. The day of our king, the princes are sick from wine’s heat, he draws the mockers by his hand. On the day when Jeroboam became king over Israel, all of Israel came to him late in the evening and told him, come and worship pagan worship. He told them, it is late in the evening; I am drunk and not drunk. Everybody is drinking; but if you wish, go and come in the morning. That is what is written, for their heart is like an oven while they are lying in ambush; all night long their baker is sleeping. All night long their baker did not sleep. In the morning he is burning like fire of a conflagration. In the morning they came to him. He told them, I do understand what you want but I am afraid of your Synhedrion lest they kill me. They told him, we shall kill them; this is what is written, that all are glowing like an oven and eat their judges. Rebbi Levi said, they killed them, as is written, if a corpse is found. Rebbi La said, they deposed them; The day of our king, the princes are profaned from wine’s heat; the day when princes were profaned. From wine’s heat, they were addicted to wine. He draws the mockers by his hand: When he saw a serious person he placed two scoffers next to him who asked him, which generation was preferred over all generations? He told them, the generation of the Exodus. But did they not practice pagan worship? He answered them, because they were beloved they were not punished. But they told him, be quiet for the king wants to do the same. Not only that, but they made one and this one made two. He put the one up at Bethel; the other he gave to Dan.

Rebbi Joḥanan asked: Did we not state, “for no court may invalidate the words of another court unless it be greater in wisdom and numbers”? And Rebbi and his court permit what Daniel and his companions forbade? Rebbi Joḥanan follows his own opinion: Rebbi Joḥanan said, I have a tradition in the name of Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Ṣadoq that any restrictive edict passed by a court which is not accepted by the majority of the public is not an edict. They checked and found in the matter of the edict about oil and did not find that a majority of the public followed it.

What is uncut triton? Any where heads and spines exist. Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: It happened that on a ship of the House of Rebbi there were more than 300 amphoras. Rebbi checked them all out and found only one where heads and spines were found. He permitted all of them. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Rebbi Assi asked, would it not be reasonable that one amphora be permitted but the other amphoras be forbidden? But it was by a pretext. (A sale) was mixed up. Rebbi Ḥaggai asked Rebbi Abba bar Zavda who said to him, the property of the public cannot be forbidden. Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi said, Rebbi Isaac asked: Is not Cajus Lycus written on these documents, and you say, by a pretext?