contracts

Then the people of Israel began to write in their instruments and contracts, In the first year of Simon the high priest, the governor and leader of the Jews.

But because almost all our constitution depends on the wisdom of Moses, our legislator, I cannot avoid saying somewhat concerning him beforehand, though I shall do it briefly; I mean, because otherwise those that read my book may wonder how it comes to pass, that my discourse, which promises an account of laws and historical facts, contains so much of philosophy. The reader is therefore to know, that Moses deemed it exceeding necessary, that he who would conduct his own life well, and give laws to others, in the first place should consider the Divine nature; and, upon the contemplation of God's operations, should thereby imitate the best of all patterns, so far as it is possible for human nature to do, and to endeavor to follow after it: neither could the legislator himself have a right mind without such a contemplation; nor would any thing he should write tend to the promotion of virtue in his readers; I mean, unless they be taught first of all, that God is the Father and Lord of all things, and sees all things, and that thence he bestows a happy life upon those that follow him; but plunges such as do not walk in the paths of virtue into inevitable miseries. Now when Moses was desirous to teach this lesson to his countrymen, he did not begin the establishment of his laws after the same manner that other legislators did; I mean, upon contracts and other rights between one man and another, but by raising their minds upwards to regard God, and his creation of the world; and by persuading them, that we men are the most excellent of the creatures of God upon earth. Now when once he had brought them to submit to religion, he easily persuaded them to submit in all other things: for as to other legislators, they followed fables, and by their discourses transferred the most reproachful of human vices unto the gods, and afforded wicked men the most plausible excuses for their crimes; but as for our legislator, when he had once demonstrated that God was possessed of perfect virtue, he supposed that men also ought to strive after the participation of it; and on those who did not so think, and so believe, he inflicted the severest punishments. I exhort, therefore, my readers to examine this whole undertaking in that view; for thereby it will appear to them, that there is nothing therein disagreeable either to the majesty of God, or to his love to mankind; for all things have here a reference to the nature of the universe; while our legislator speaks some things wisely, but enigmatically, and others under a decent allegory, but still explains such things as required a direct explication plainly and expressly. However, those that have a mind to know the reasons of every thing, may find here a very curious philosophical theory, which I now indeed shall wave the explication of; but if God afford me time for it, I will set about writing it after I have finished the present work. I shall now betake myself to the history before me, after I have first mentioned what Moses says of the creation of the world, which I find described in the sacred books after the manner following.

But Simon, who was made high priest by the multitude, on the very first year of his high priesthood set his people free from their slavery under the Macedonians, and permitted them to pay tribute to them no longer; which liberty and freedom from tribute they obtained after a hundred and seventy years of the kingdom of the Assyrians, which was after Seleucus, who was called Nicator, got the dominion over Syria. Now the affection of the multitude towards Simon was so great, that in their contracts one with another, and in their public records, they wrote, "in the first year of Simon the benefactor and ethnarch of the Jews;" for under him they were very happy, and overcame the enemies that were round about them; for Simon overthrew the city Gazara, and Joppa, and Jamhis. He also took the citadel of Jerusalem by siege, and cast it down to the ground, that it might not be any more a place of refuge to their enemies when they took it, to do them a mischief, as it had been till now. And when he had done this, he thought it their best way, and most for their advantage, to level the very mountain itself upon which the citadel happened to stand, that so the temple might be higher than it. And indeed, when he had called the multitude to an assembly, he persuaded them to have it so demolished, and this by putting them in mind what miseries they had suffered by its garrison and the Jewish deserters, and what miseries they might hereafter suffer in case any foreigner should obtain the kingdom, and put a garrison into that citadel. This speech induced the multitude to a compliance, because he exhorted them to do nothing but what was for their own good: so they all set themselves to the work, and leveled the mountain, and in that work spent both day and night without any intermission, which cost them three whole years before it was removed, and brought to an entire level with the plain of the rest of the city. After which the temple was the highest of all the buildings, now the citadel, as well as the mountain whereon it stood, were demolished. And these actions were thus performed under Simon.

And let no one wonder that there was so much wealth in our temple, since all the Jews throughout the habitable earth, and those that worshipped God, nay, even those of Asia and Europe, sent their contributions to it, and this from very ancient times. Nor is the largeness of these sums without its attestation; nor is that greatness owing to our vanity, as raising it without ground to so great a height; but there are many witnesses to it, and particularly Strabo of Cappadocia, who says thus: "Mithridates sent to Cos, and took the money which queen Cleopatra had deposited there, as also eight hundred talents belonging to the Jews." Now we have no public money but only what appertains to God; and it is evident that the Asian Jews removed this money out of fear of Mithridates; for it is not probable that those of Judea, who had a strong city and temple, should send their money to Cos; nor is it likely that the Jews who are inhabitants of Alexandria should do so neither, since they were in no fear of Mithridates. And Strabo himself bears witness to the same thing in another place, that at the same time that Sylla passed over into Greece, in order to fight against Mithridates, he sent Lucullus to put an end to a sedition that our nation, of whom the habitable earth is full, had raised in Cyrene; where he speaks thus: "There were four classes of men among those of Cyrene; that of citizens, that of husbandmen, the third of strangers, and the fourth of Jews. Now these Jews are already gotten into all cities; and it is hard to find a place in the habitable earth that hath not admitted this tribe of men, and is not possessed by them; and it hath come to pass that Egypt and Cyrene, as having the same governors, and a great number of other nations, imitate their way of living, and maintain great bodies of these Jews in a peculiar manner, and grow up to greater prosperity with them, and make use of the same laws with that nation also. Accordingly, the Jews have places assigned them in Egypt, wherein they inhabit, besides what is peculiarly allotted to this nation at Alexandria, which is a large part of that city. There is also an ethnarch allowed them, who governs the nation, and distributes justice to them, and takes care of their contracts, and of the laws to them belonging, as if he were the ruler of a free republic. In Egypt, therefore, this nation is powerful, because the Jews were originally Egyptians, and because the land wherein they inhabit, since they went thence, is near to Egypt. They also removed into Cyrene, because that this land adjoined to the government of Egypt, as well as does Judea, or rather was formerly under the same government." And this is what Strabo says.

But now, when Agrippa and Herod were in Ionia, a great multitude of Jews, who dwelt in their cities, came to them, and laying hold of the opportunity and the liberty now given them, laid before them the injuries which they suffered, while they were not permitted to use their own laws, but were compelled to prosecute their law-suits, by the ill usage of the judges, upon their holy days, and were deprived of the money they used to lay up at Jerusalem, and were forced into the army, and upon such other offices as obliged them to spend their sacred money; from which burdens they always used to be freed by the Romans, who had still permitted them to live according to their own laws. When this clamor was made, the king desired of Agrippa that he would hear their cause, and assigned Nicolaus, one of his friends, to plead for those their privileges. Accordingly, when Agrippa had called the principal of the Romans, and such of the kings and rulers as were there, to be his assessors, Nicolaus stood up, and pleaded for the Jews, as follows: "It is of necessity incumbent on such as are in distress to have recourse to those that have it in their power to free them from those injuries they lie under; and for those that now are complainants, they approach you with great assurance; for as they have formerly often obtained your favor, so far as they have even wished to have it, they now only entreat that you, who have been the donors, will take care that those favors you have already granted them may not be taken away from them. We have received these favors from you, who alone have power to grant them, but have them taken from us by such as are no greater than ourselves, and by such as we know are as much subjects as we are; and certainly, if we have been vouchsafed great favors, it is to our commendation who have obtained them, as having been found deserving of such great favors; and if those favors be but small ones, it would be barbarous for the donors not to confirm them to us. And for those that are the hinderance of the Jews, and use them reproachfully, it is evident that they affront both the receivers, while they will not allow those to be worthy men to whom their excellent rulers themselves have borne their testimony, and the donors, while they desire those favors already granted may be abrogated. Now if any one should ask these Gentiles themselves, which of the two things they would choose to part with, their lives, or the customs of their forefathers, their solemnities, their sacrifices, their festivals, which they celebrated in honor of those they suppose to be gods? I know very well that they would choose to suffer any thing whatsoever rather than a dissolution of any of the customs of their forefathers; for a great many of them have rather chosen to go to war on that account, as very solicitous not to transgress in those matters. And indeed we take an estimate of that happiness which all mankind do now enjoy by your means from this very thing, that we are allowed every one to worship as our own institutions require, and yet to live [in peace]; and although they would not be thus treated themselves, yet do they endeavor to compel others to comply with them, as if it were not as great an instance of impiety profanely to dissolve the religious solemnities of any others, as to be negligent in the observation of their own towards their gods. And let us now consider the one of these practices. Is there any people, or city, or community of men, to whom your government and the Roman power does not appear to be the greatest blessing? Is there any one that can desire to make void the favors they have granted? No one is certainly so mad; for there are no men but such as have been partakers of their favors, both public and private; and indeed those that take away what you have granted, can have no assurance but every one of their own grants made them by you may be taken from them also; which grants of yours can yet never be sufficiently valued; for if they consider the old governments under kings, together with your present government, besides the great number of benefits which this government hath bestowed on them, in order to their happiness, this is instead of all the rest, that they appear to be no longer in a state of slavery, but of freedom. Now the privileges we desire, even when we are in the best circumstances, are not such as deserve to be envied, for we are indeed in a prosperous state by your means, but this is only in common with others; and it is no more than this which we desire, to preserve our religion without any prohibition; which as it appears not in itself a privilege to be envied us, so it is for the advantage of those that grant it to us; for if the Divinity delights in being honored, it must delight in those that permit them to be honored. And there are none of our customs which are inhuman, but all tending to piety, and devoted to the preservation of justice; nor do we conceal those injunctions of ours by which we govern our lives, they being memorials of piety, and of a friendly conversation among men. And the seventh day we set apart from labor; it is dedicated to the learning of our customs and laws, we thinking it proper to reflect on them, as well as on any [good] thing else, in order to our avoiding of sin. If any one therefore examine into our observances, he will find they are good in themselves, and that they are ancient also, though some think otherwise, insomuch that those who have received them cannot easily be brought to depart from them, out of that honor they pay to the length of time they have religiously enjoyed them and observed them. Now our adversaries take these our privileges away in the way of injustice; they violently seize upon that money of ours which is owed to God, and called sacred money, and this openly, after a sacrilegious manner; and they impose tributes upon us, and bring us before tribunals on holy days, and then require other like debts of us, not because the contracts require it, and for their own advantage, but because they would put an affront on our religion, of which they are conscious as well as we, and have indulged themselves in an unjust, and to them involuntary, hatred; for your government over all is one, tending to the establishing of benevolence, and abolishing of ill-will among such as are disposed to it. This is therefore what we implore from thee, most excellent Agrippa, that we may not be ill-treated; that we may not be abused; that we may not be hindered from making use of our own customs, nor be despoiled of our goods, nor be forced by these men to do what we ourselves force nobody to do; for these privileges of ours are not only according to justice, but have formerly been granted us by you. And we are able to read to you many decrees of the senate, and the tables that contain them, which are still extant in the capitol, concerning these things, which it is evident were granted after you had experience of our fidelity towards you, which ought to be valued, though no such fidelity had been; for you have hitherto preserved what people were in possession of, not to us only, but almost to all men, and have added greater advantages than they could have hoped for, and thereby your government is become a great advantage to them. And if any one were able to enumerate the prosperity you have conferred on every nation, which they possess by your means, he could never put an end to his discourse; but that we may demonstrate that we are not unworthy of all those advantages we have obtained, it will be sufficient for us, to say nothing of other things, but to speak freely of this king who now governs us, and is now one of thy assessors; and indeed in what instance of good-will, as to your house, hath he been deficient? What mark of fidelity to it hath he omitted? What token of honor hath he not devised? What occasion for his assistance of you hath he not regarded at the very first? What hindereth; therefore, but that your kindnesses may be as numerous as his so great benefits to you have been? It may also perhaps be fit not here to pass over in silence the valor of his father Antipater, who, when Cæsar made an expedition into Egypt, assisted him with two thousand armed men, and proved inferior to none, neither in the battles on land, nor in the management of the navy; and what need I say any thing of how great weight those soldiers were at that juncture? or how many and how great presents they were vouchsafed by Cæsar? And truly I ought before now to have mentioned the epistles which Cæsar wrote to the senate; and how Antipater had honors, and the freedom of the city of Rome, bestowed upon him; for these are demonstrations both that we have received these favors by our own deserts, and do on that account petition thee for thy confirmation of them, from whom we had reason to hope for them, though they had not been given us before, both out of regard to our king's disposition towards you, and your disposition towards him. And further, we have been informed by those Jews that were there with what kindness thou camest into our country, and how thou offeredst the most perfect sacrifices to God, and honoredst him with remarkable vows, and how thou gavest the people a feast, and acceptedst of their own hospitable presents to thee. We ought to esteem all these kind entertainments made both by our nation and to our city, to a man who is the ruler and manager of so much of the public affairs, as indications of that friendship which thou hast returned to the Jewish nation, and which hath been procured them by the family of Herod. So we put thee in mind of these things in the presence of the king, now sitting by thee, and make our request for no more but this, that what you have given us yourselves you will not see taken away by others from us."

Now the next day was the festival of Xylophory; upon which the custom was for every one to bring wood for the altar [that there might never be a want of fuel for that fire which was unquenchable and always burning]. Upon that day they excluded the opposite party from the observation of this part of religion. And when they had joined to themselves many of the Sicarii, who crowded in among the weaker people, [that was the name for such robbers as had under their bosoms swords called Sicae,] they grew bolder, and carried their undertaking further; insomuch that the king's soldiers were overpowered by their multitude and boldness; and so they gave way, and were driven out of the upper city by force. The others then set fire to the house of Ananias the high priest, and to the palaces of Agrippa and Bernice; after which they carried the fire to the place where the archives were reposited, and made haste to burn the contracts belonging to their creditors, and thereby to dissolve their obligations for paying their debts; and this was done in order to gain the multitude of those who had been debtors, and that they might persuade the poorer sort to join in their insurrection with safety against the more wealthy; so the keepers of the records fled away, and the rest set fire to them. And when they had thus burnt down the nerves of the city, they fell upon their enemies; at which time some of the men of power, and of the high priests, went into the vaults under ground, and concealed themselves, while others fled with the king's soldiers to the upper palace, and shut the gates immediately; among whom were Ananias the high priest, and the ambassadors that had been sent to Agrippa. And now the seditious were contented with the victory they had gotten, and the buildings they had burnt down, and proceeded no further.

Since, then, as reason teaches, we must repose faith in some one of those who have been the introducers of sects among the Greeks or barbarians, why should we not rather believe in God who is over all things, and in Him who teaches that worship is due to God alone, and that other things are to be passed by, either as non-existent, or as existing indeed, and worthy of honour, but not of worship and reverence? And respecting these things, he who not only believes, but who contemplates things with the eye of reason, will state the demonstrations that occur to him, and which are the result of careful investigation. And why should it not be more reasonable, seeing all human things are dependent upon faith, to believe God rather than them? For who enters on a voyage, or contracts a marriage, or becomes the father of children, or casts seed into the ground, without believing that better things will result from so doing, although the contrary might and sometimes does happen? And yet the belief that better things, even agreeably to their wishes, will follow, makes all men venture upon uncertain enterprises, which may turn out differently from what they expect. And if the hope and belief of a better future be the support of life in every uncertain enterprise, why shall not this faith rather be rationally accepted by him who believes on better grounds than he who sails the sea, or tills the ground, or marries a wife, or engages in any other human pursuit, in the existence of a God who was the Creator of all these things, and in Him who with surpassing wisdom and divine greatness of mind dared to make known this doctrine to men in every part of the world, at the cost of great danger, and of a death considered infamous, which He underwent for the sake of the human race; having also taught those who were persuaded to embrace His doctrine at the first, to proceed, under the peril of every danger, and of ever impending death, to all quarters of the world to ensure the salvation of men?

If four brothers were married to four women, and they died, if the eldest [surviving brother] desires he may contract yibbum with all of them. If a man was married to two women and died, sexual relations or halitzah with one of them exempts her rival. If one of them was eligible [to marry a priest] and one ineligible [to marry a priest], then if he performs halitzah it should be to her who is ineligible, and if he contracts yibbum it may be with her who is eligible.

The eunuch neither performs halitzah nor contracts yibbum. So too a woman who is incapable of procreation neither performs halizah nor is taken in yibbum. If a eunuch performed halitzah for his yevamah, he does not disqualify her [from subsequently marrying a priest]. If he has intercourse with her he disqualifies her, since this is an act of fornication. Similarly where brothers performed halitzah for a woman incapable of procreation, they do not disqualify her [from marrying a priest]. If they have intercourse with her they do disqualify her, since this is an act of fornication.

If the children of five women were mixed up and, when these mixed up children grew up, they took wives and then died, four perform halitzah for one [of the widows] and one contracts with her yibbum. [Then] he and three [brothers] perform halitzah to [another one of the widows] and one has with her yibbum. Thus every one [of the widows] has halitzah four times and yibbum once.

If the child of a priest’s wife was mixed-up with the child of her female slave, behold both may eat terumah and [together] they receive one share at the threshing-floor. They may not defile themselves for the dead nor may they marry any women whether these are eligible [for marriage with a priest] or ineligible. If when they grew up, the mixed-up children freed one another they may marry women who are eligible for marriage with a priest and they may not defile themselves for the dead. If they defiled themselves, they do not receive the penalty of forty lashes. They may not eat terumah, but if they did eat they need not pay compensation either for the principal or [the additional] fifth. They are not to receive a share at the threshing-floor, but they may sell [their own] terumah and the proceeds are theirs. They receive no share in the holy things of the temple, and no holy things are given to them but others do not take their holy things from them. They are exempt from [giving to any priest] the shoulder, the cheeks and the maw, while the firstling of either of them should remain in the pasture until it contracts a blemish. The restrictions relating to priests and the restrictions relating to Israelites are both imposed upon them.

If one of [the two husbands] was an Israelite and the other a priest: He may only marry a woman who is eligible to marry a priest. He may not defile himself for the dead, but if he did defile himself he does not suffer the penalty of forty stripes. He may not eat terumah, but if he did eat he need not pay compensation either for the principal or [for the additional] fifth. He does not receive a share at the threshing-floor, but he may sell [his own] terumah and the profits are his. He receives no share in the holy things of the temple, no holy things are given to him, but he is not deprived of his own. He is exempt from [giving to any priest] the shoulder, the cheeks and the maw, while his firstling must remain in the pasture until it contracts a blemish. The restrictions relating to priests and the restrictions relating to Israelites are imposed upon him. If the two [husbands] were priests: He must be an onen mourner for them and they must be onenim mourners for him, but he may not defile himself for them, nor may they defile themselves for him. He may not inherit from them, but they may inherit from him. He is exempt if he strikes or curses the one or the other. He goes up [to serve] in the Temple watch of the one as well as of the other, but he does not receive a share [in the offerings]. If both served in the same watch, he receives a single portion.

If she produced a get without a ketubah, she collects her kethubah. [If she produced her] ketubah without a get, and she says, “My get was lost”, and he says, “My receipt was lost”, and also a creditor who produced a debt document that was unaccompanied by a prosbul, these are not paid back. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: from the time of danger a woman collects her ketubah with out a get and a creditor collects [his debt] without a prosbul. [A woman who produced] two letters of divorce and two ketuboth collects two kethuboth. Two kethuboth and one get or one kethubah and two gittin, or a kethubah, a get and [evidence of her husband’s] death, she collects one kethubah only, for a man who divorces his wife and then remarries her contracts his second marriage on the condition of the first kethubah. A minor whose his father had given him in marriage, the ketubah of his wife is valid, since it is on this condition that he kept her as his wife. A convert who converted with his wife, the kethubah remains valid, since it is on this condition that he kept her as his wife.

The following are fit in the case of human beings, but unfit in the case of animals: A father with his son, A terefah; One born by means of a caesarean section. One with which a sin has been committed or has killed a person; A priest who contracts an illegal marriage is unfit [for the priesthood] until he vows not to derive any benefit from the woman. One who makes himself unclean through contact with the dead is unfit, until he undertakes that he will no longer make himself unclean through the dead.

A torch is susceptible to impurity. And the reservoir of a lamp contracts impurity through its air-space. The comb of a tzartzur: Rabbi Eliezer says: it is not susceptible to impurity, But the sages say that it is susceptible.

If a jar was about to be cracked but was strengthened with cattle dung, although the potsherds would fall apart were the dung to be removed, it is unclean, because the designation of vessel never ceased to apply. If it was broken and some of its pieces were stuck together again, or if he brought other pieces of clay from elsewhere, and it was also lined with cattle dung, even though the potsherds hold together when the dung is removed, it is clean, because the designation of vessel ceased to apply. If it contained one potsherd that could hold a quarter of a log, all its parts contract impurity by contact, but that potsherd contracts impurity through its air-space.

One who lines a sound vessel: Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon say: [the lining] contracts impurity. But the sages say: a lining over a sound vessel is not susceptible to impurity, and only one over a cracked vessel is susceptible. And the same dispute applies to the hoop of a pumpkin shell.

What is meant by a "damaged vessel" (gistera)? One whose handles were removed. If sharp ends projected from it: Any part of it which can contain olives contracts impurity by contact, while any impurity opposite an end conveys impurity to the vessel through its air-space, But any part of it which cannot contain olives contracts impurity by contact, while an impurity opposite an end does not convey impurity through its air-space. If it was leaning on its side like a kind of cathedra, Any part of it which can contain olives contracts impurity by contact, while any impurity opposite an end conveys impurity to the vessel through its air-space, But any part of it which cannot contain olives contracts impurity by contact, while an impurity opposite an end does not convey impurity to the vessel through its air-space. Bowls with Korfian [bottoms], and cups with Zidonian bottoms, although they cannot stand unsupported, are susceptible to impurity, because they were originally fashioned in this manner.

What is meant by a "damaged vessel" (gistera)? One whose handles were removed. If sharp ends projected from it: Any part of it which can contain olives contracts impurity by contact, while any impurity opposite an end conveys impurity to the vessel through its air-space, But any part of it which cannot contain olives contracts impurity by contact, while an impurity opposite an end does not convey impurity through its air-space. If it was leaning on its side like a kind of cathedra, Any part of it which can contain olives contracts impurity by contact, while any impurity opposite an end conveys impurity to the vessel through its air-space, But any part of it which cannot contain olives contracts impurity by contact, while an impurity opposite an end does not convey impurity to the vessel through its air-space. Bowls with Korfian [bottoms], and cups with Zidonian bottoms, although they cannot stand unsupported, are susceptible to impurity, because they were originally fashioned in this manner.

What is meant by a "damaged vessel" (gistera)? One whose handles were removed. If sharp ends projected from it: Any part of it which can contain olives contracts impurity by contact, while any impurity opposite an end conveys impurity to the vessel through its air-space, But any part of it which cannot contain olives contracts impurity by contact, while an impurity opposite an end does not convey impurity through its air-space. If it was leaning on its side like a kind of cathedra, Any part of it which can contain olives contracts impurity by contact, while any impurity opposite an end conveys impurity to the vessel through its air-space, But any part of it which cannot contain olives contracts impurity by contact, while an impurity opposite an end does not convey impurity to the vessel through its air-space. Bowls with Korfian [bottoms], and cups with Zidonian bottoms, although they cannot stand unsupported, are susceptible to impurity, because they were originally fashioned in this manner.

What is meant by a "damaged vessel" (gistera)? One whose handles were removed. If sharp ends projected from it: Any part of it which can contain olives contracts impurity by contact, while any impurity opposite an end conveys impurity to the vessel through its air-space, But any part of it which cannot contain olives contracts impurity by contact, while an impurity opposite an end does not convey impurity through its air-space. If it was leaning on its side like a kind of cathedra, Any part of it which can contain olives contracts impurity by contact, while any impurity opposite an end conveys impurity to the vessel through its air-space, But any part of it which cannot contain olives contracts impurity by contact, while an impurity opposite an end does not convey impurity to the vessel through its air-space. Bowls with Korfian [bottoms], and cups with Zidonian bottoms, although they cannot stand unsupported, are susceptible to impurity, because they were originally fashioned in this manner.

The crown of a double stove is clean. The fender around an oven: if it is four handbreadths high it contracts impurity by contact and through its air-space, but if it was lower it is clean. If it was joined to it, even if only by three stones, it is unclean. The place [on the stove] for the oil cruse, the spice-pot, and the lamp contract impurity by contact but not through their air-space, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Ishmael rules that they are clean.

If an oven was half filled with earth, the part from the earth downwards contracts impurity by contact only while the part from the earth upwards contracts impurity [also] from its air-space. If he put the oven over the mouth of a cistern or over that of a cellar and he put a stone at its side: Rabbi Judah says: if when heated below it becomes also heated above it is susceptible to impurity. But the sages say: since it was heated, no matter how, it is susceptible to impurity.

If an oven was half filled with earth, the part from the earth downwards contracts impurity by contact only while the part from the earth upwards contracts impurity [also] from its air-space. If he put the oven over the mouth of a cistern or over that of a cellar and he put a stone at its side: Rabbi Judah says: if when heated below it becomes also heated above it is susceptible to impurity. But the sages say: since it was heated, no matter how, it is susceptible to impurity.

An oven which came cut up in sections from the craftsman's house and he made for it hoops and put them on it, it is clean. If it contracts impurity, and then he removed its hoops it is clean. If he put them back on, it is still clean. If he plastered it with clay, it becomes susceptible to impurity and there is no need to heat it since it was once heated.

A double stove which was split into two parts along its length is clean. Through its breadth is unclean. A single stove which was split into two parts, by its length or by its width, it is not susceptible to impurity. As to the extension around a stove, whenever it is three fingerbreadths high it contracts impurity by contact and also through its air-space, but if it is less it contracts impurity through contact and not through its air-space. How is the air-space determined? Rabbi Ishmael says: He puts a spit from above to below and opposite it contracts impurity through the air-space. Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob says: if the stove contracted impurity the extension is also unclean, but if the fender contracts impurity the stove does not become unclean.

A double stove which was split into two parts along its length is clean. Through its breadth is unclean. A single stove which was split into two parts, by its length or by its width, it is not susceptible to impurity. As to the extension around a stove, whenever it is three fingerbreadths high it contracts impurity by contact and also through its air-space, but if it is less it contracts impurity through contact and not through its air-space. How is the air-space determined? Rabbi Ishmael says: He puts a spit from above to below and opposite it contracts impurity through the air-space. Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob says: if the stove contracted impurity the extension is also unclean, but if the fender contracts impurity the stove does not become unclean.

A double stove which was split into two parts along its length is clean. Through its breadth is unclean. A single stove which was split into two parts, by its length or by its width, it is not susceptible to impurity. As to the extension around a stove, whenever it is three fingerbreadths high it contracts impurity by contact and also through its air-space, but if it is less it contracts impurity through contact and not through its air-space. How is the air-space determined? Rabbi Ishmael says: He puts a spit from above to below and opposite it contracts impurity through the air-space. Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob says: if the stove contracted impurity the extension is also unclean, but if the fender contracts impurity the stove does not become unclean.

A double stove which was split into two parts along its length is clean. Through its breadth is unclean. A single stove which was split into two parts, by its length or by its width, it is not susceptible to impurity. As to the extension around a stove, whenever it is three fingerbreadths high it contracts impurity by contact and also through its air-space, but if it is less it contracts impurity through contact and not through its air-space. How is the air-space determined? Rabbi Ishmael says: He puts a spit from above to below and opposite it contracts impurity through the air-space. Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob says: if the stove contracted impurity the extension is also unclean, but if the fender contracts impurity the stove does not become unclean.

If it [the extension] was detached from the stove, whenever it was three fingerbreadths high it contracts impurity by contact and through its air-space, If it was lower or if it was smooth it is clean. If three props on a stove were three fingerbreadths high, they contract impurity by contact and through their air-space. If they were lower, all the more so they contract impurity, even where they were four in number.

A pot which was placed in an oven if a sheretz was in the oven, the pot remains clean since an earthen vessel does not impart impurity to vessels. If it contained dripping liquid, the latter contracts impurity and the pot also becomes unclean. It is as if this one says, "That which made you unclean did not make me unclean, but you have made me unclean."

If a rooster that swallowed a sheretz fell within the air-space of an oven, the oven remains clean; If the rooster died, the oven becomes unclean. If a sheretz was found in an oven, any bread in it contracts second degree impurity since the oven is of the first degree.

If a [bed] leg that had contracted midras uncleanness was joined to a bed, all the bed contracts midras uncleanness. If it was subsequently taken off, it retains its midras uncleanness while the bed is unclean from contact with midras. If a bed leg that was subject to a seven-day uncleanness was joined to a bed, all the bed contracts seven-day uncleanness. If it was subsequently taken off it remains subject to seven-day uncleanness while the bed is only subject to evening-uncleanness. If a leg that was subject to evening uncleanness was joined to a bed, all the bed contracts evening uncleanness. If it was subsequently taken off it is still subject to evening uncleanness while the bed becomes clean. The same law applies also to the prong of a mattock.

If a [bed] leg that had contracted midras uncleanness was joined to a bed, all the bed contracts midras uncleanness. If it was subsequently taken off, it retains its midras uncleanness while the bed is unclean from contact with midras. If a bed leg that was subject to a seven-day uncleanness was joined to a bed, all the bed contracts seven-day uncleanness. If it was subsequently taken off it remains subject to seven-day uncleanness while the bed is only subject to evening-uncleanness. If a leg that was subject to evening uncleanness was joined to a bed, all the bed contracts evening uncleanness. If it was subsequently taken off it is still subject to evening uncleanness while the bed becomes clean. The same law applies also to the prong of a mattock.

If a [bed] leg that had contracted midras uncleanness was joined to a bed, all the bed contracts midras uncleanness. If it was subsequently taken off, it retains its midras uncleanness while the bed is unclean from contact with midras. If a bed leg that was subject to a seven-day uncleanness was joined to a bed, all the bed contracts seven-day uncleanness. If it was subsequently taken off it remains subject to seven-day uncleanness while the bed is only subject to evening-uncleanness. If a leg that was subject to evening uncleanness was joined to a bed, all the bed contracts evening uncleanness. If it was subsequently taken off it is still subject to evening uncleanness while the bed becomes clean. The same law applies also to the prong of a mattock.

A jar full of clean liquid and sealed with a tightly fitting lid, which had been made the covering stone of a tomb, a person touching it contracts seven-day uncleanness but the jar and the liquid remain clean. An animal that had been used as a covering stone, a person touching it contracts seven-day uncleanness. Rabbi Meir says: anything possessing the breath of life does convey uncleanness on account of [its being used as] a covering stone.

A jar full of clean liquid and sealed with a tightly fitting lid, which had been made the covering stone of a tomb, a person touching it contracts seven-day uncleanness but the jar and the liquid remain clean. An animal that had been used as a covering stone, a person touching it contracts seven-day uncleanness. Rabbi Meir says: anything possessing the breath of life does convey uncleanness on account of [its being used as] a covering stone.

Rabbi Eliezer says: he who eats food with first degree uncleanness contracts first decree uncleanness; [He who eats food with] second [degree uncleanness contracts] second [degree uncleanness]; With third [degree uncleanness contracts] third [degree uncleanness]. Rabbi Joshua says: he who eats food with first [degree] or with second [degree uncleanness contracts] second [degree uncleanness]; With third [degree uncleanness, he contracts] second [degree uncleanness] in regard to holy things but not in regard to terumah. All this applies to common food that was prepared in condition of cleanness that is appropriate for terumah.

Rabbi Eliezer says: he who eats food with first degree uncleanness contracts first decree uncleanness; [He who eats food with] second [degree uncleanness contracts] second [degree uncleanness]; With third [degree uncleanness contracts] third [degree uncleanness]. Rabbi Joshua says: he who eats food with first [degree] or with second [degree uncleanness contracts] second [degree uncleanness]; With third [degree uncleanness, he contracts] second [degree uncleanness] in regard to holy things but not in regard to terumah. All this applies to common food that was prepared in condition of cleanness that is appropriate for terumah.

Rabbi Eliezer says: he who eats food with first degree uncleanness contracts first decree uncleanness; [He who eats food with] second [degree uncleanness contracts] second [degree uncleanness]; With third [degree uncleanness contracts] third [degree uncleanness]. Rabbi Joshua says: he who eats food with first [degree] or with second [degree uncleanness contracts] second [degree uncleanness]; With third [degree uncleanness, he contracts] second [degree uncleanness] in regard to holy things but not in regard to terumah. All this applies to common food that was prepared in condition of cleanness that is appropriate for terumah.

Rabbi Eliezer says: he who eats food with first degree uncleanness contracts first decree uncleanness; [He who eats food with] second [degree uncleanness contracts] second [degree uncleanness]; With third [degree uncleanness contracts] third [degree uncleanness]. Rabbi Joshua says: he who eats food with first [degree] or with second [degree uncleanness contracts] second [degree uncleanness]; With third [degree uncleanness, he contracts] second [degree uncleanness] in regard to holy things but not in regard to terumah. All this applies to common food that was prepared in condition of cleanness that is appropriate for terumah.

Rabbi Eliezer says: he who eats food with first degree uncleanness contracts first decree uncleanness; [He who eats food with] second [degree uncleanness contracts] second [degree uncleanness]; With third [degree uncleanness contracts] third [degree uncleanness]. Rabbi Joshua says: he who eats food with first [degree] or with second [degree uncleanness contracts] second [degree uncleanness]; With third [degree uncleanness, he contracts] second [degree uncleanness] in regard to holy things but not in regard to terumah. All this applies to common food that was prepared in condition of cleanness that is appropriate for terumah.

If a boy the age of nine years and one day had relations with his yevamah, he acquires her thereby; But he cannot divorce her until he is of majority age. He contracts uncleanness through intercourse with a menstruant so that he in turn conveys uncleanness to a couch underneath as to a cover above. He disqualifies a woman from the priesthood. But he doesn't give her the right to eat terumah. He renders a beast invalid for the altar, and it is stoned on his account. If he had intercourse with any of the forbidden relations mentioned in the Torah, she is to be executed on his account, but he is exempt from punishment.

Rabbi Joshua said: if a menstruant sat in a bed with a clean woman, [even] the cap on her head contracts midras uncleanness. And if she sat in a boat, the vessels on the top of the mast [also] contract midras uncleanness. If there was [on the boat] a tub full of clothes: If their weight was heavy, they become unclean, But if their weight was light, they remain clean. If a zav knocked against a balcony and thereby caused a loaf of terumah to fall down, it remains clean.

That which serves as a handle but does not protect, both contracts uncleanness and conveys uncleanness; but it is not included. If it protects but is not a handle, it contracts and conveys uncleanness and is included. If it neither protects nor serves as a handle, it neither contracts nor conveys uncleanness.

That which serves as a handle but does not protect, both contracts uncleanness and conveys uncleanness; but it is not included. If it protects but is not a handle, it contracts and conveys uncleanness and is included. If it neither protects nor serves as a handle, it neither contracts nor conveys uncleanness.

That which serves as a handle but does not protect, both contracts uncleanness and conveys uncleanness; but it is not included. If it protects but is not a handle, it contracts and conveys uncleanness and is included. If it neither protects nor serves as a handle, it neither contracts nor conveys uncleanness.

Rebbi Zeïra objected before Rebbi Yasa: But did we not state: The same applies to marriage? He answered him, divorce documents and marriage contracts have the same rules. But did we not state: The same applies to debt? He said to him, because if he said to him: Throw it into the sea and your debt will be forgiven, it would be forgiven. But if that is true, even if it fell down close to the debtor, the debtor should have the benefit! But we have stated, if it falls down close to the debtor, the debtor is still obligated. For he said to him, throw it so that it will enter my domain, and it did not yet enter his domain. Rebbi Abbahu said, all those objections that Rebbi Zeïra raised before Rebbi Yasa, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish raised before Rebbi Joḥanan. Did he accept them from him? He solved them with those same solutions.

“ ‘ Go and collect for yourself 20 figs from my tree’, he eats one after the other and is free. ‘Go and fill a basket.’ ” Rebbi says, I say that he has to show him the basket. What is the measure of a basket? Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: A standard basket is four qab, a large one a seah, a small one three qab. Rebbi Jonah asked: Has this been said for tithes or for contract law? If you say for tithes, then certainly also for contracts. If for contracts, then not for tithes. It was obvious to Rebbi Yose that this was said for tithes, and certainly also for contracts.

“ ‘ Go and collect for yourself 20 figs from my tree’, he eats one after the other and is free. ‘Go and fill a basket.’ ” Rebbi says, I say that he has to show him the basket. What is the measure of a basket? Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: A standard basket is four qab, a large one a seah, a small one three qab. Rebbi Jonah asked: Has this been said for tithes or for contract law? If you say for tithes, then certainly also for contracts. If for contracts, then not for tithes. It was obvious to Rebbi Yose that this was said for tithes, and certainly also for contracts.

“ ‘ Go and collect for yourself 20 figs from my tree’, he eats one after the other and is free. ‘Go and fill a basket.’ ” Rebbi says, I say that he has to show him the basket. What is the measure of a basket? Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: A standard basket is four qab, a large one a seah, a small one three qab. Rebbi Jonah asked: Has this been said for tithes or for contract law? If you say for tithes, then certainly also for contracts. If for contracts, then not for tithes. It was obvious to Rebbi Yose that this was said for tithes, and certainly also for contracts.

“Water used by a baker has to be poured out because it makes leavened.” There are Tannaim who state, he pours it into a depression. There are Tannaim who state, he pours it into a declivity. Rebbi Yose said, he who said, he pours it into a depression, if the depression was large. He who said, he pours it into a declivity, if the declivity was consierable. Rebbi Phineas said to him in the name of Rebbi Ila: So was he discussing it: If he soaked wheat or barley grains in water, if they became leavened, they are forbidden; if they did not become leavened, they are permitted. Rebbi Yose said, if he soaked barley in water, if they split they are forbidden. If he soaked them in vinegar they are permitted since the vinegar contracts them.

HALAKHAH: “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, her sale is valid,” etc. That is, if she sold them in four contracts. If she sold them in one contract, there is disagreement between Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, as they disagreed: If somebody wrote all his property over to two persons in one document and the testimony of the witnesses was valid for one but invalid for the other. Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Yasa: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagreed; one said, since it is invalid for one it is invalid for the other, but the other said, it is valid for one and invalid for the other. Rebbi Mana did not specify; Rebbi Abin specified: Rebbi Joḥanan said, since it is invalid for one it is invalid for the other; but Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it is valid for one and invalid for the other. Rebbi Elazar said, a Mishnah supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “Since testimony of two [witnesses] is invalid if one of them turns out to be related or disqualified, so also of three [witnesses] it is invalid if one of them turns out to be related or disqualified. From where even 100? The verse says, ‘witnesses’”. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Rebbi Ḥananiah the colleague of the rabbis and the rabbis disagree. One says, the argument of Rebbi Eleazar is correct, but the other says, the argument of Rebbi Eleazar is not correct. For him who says, the argument of Rebbi Eleazar is correct, it is as if there was one testimony about one person. For him who says, the argument of Rebbi Eleazar is not correct, it is as if two groups of witnesses came, valid for one and disqualified for the other.

MISHNAH: If somebody marries a woman and contracts with her to sustain her daughter for five years, he is obligated to sustain her for five years. If [the mother] was married to another man who contracted with her to sustain her daughter for five years, he is obligated to sustain her for five years. The first one cannot say, if she will come to live with me I shall sustain her, but he has to bring her support to her place. Similarly, the two cannot say we shall support her in common, but one of them sustains her and the other gives the money equivalent to her sustenance.

Rebbi Eleazar said, where do they disagree? About bills of divorce. But for contracts even Rebbi Jehudah will agree. He explains it if the document is on a smooth surface and the witnesses on the erasure. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it makes no difference; they disagree both about bills of divorce and contracts. He explains it if the document is on a smooth surface and the witnesses on the erasure. It is difficult for Rebbi Eleazar: If the witnesses [sign] on the erasure, do the Sages declare it valid? Rebbi Ze‘ira said before Rebbi Mana: The Sages follow the argument of Rebbi Eleazar, for he explains that the document is on the erasure and the witnesses on a smooth surface. Samuel said, everything is on the erasure. Does not Rebbi Jehudah say it correctly? Rebbi Abba said, it is recognizable whether there was an erasure once or twice.

Rebbi Eleazar said, where do they disagree? About bills of divorce. But for contracts even Rebbi Jehudah will agree. He explains it if the document is on a smooth surface and the witnesses on the erasure. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it makes no difference; they disagree both about bills of divorce and contracts. He explains it if the document is on a smooth surface and the witnesses on the erasure. It is difficult for Rebbi Eleazar: If the witnesses [sign] on the erasure, do the Sages declare it valid? Rebbi Ze‘ira said before Rebbi Mana: The Sages follow the argument of Rebbi Eleazar, for he explains that the document is on the erasure and the witnesses on a smooth surface. Samuel said, everything is on the erasure. Does not Rebbi Jehudah say it correctly? Rebbi Abba said, it is recognizable whether there was an erasure once or twice.

So far, if there were two contracts. If there was one contract? Rebbi Ze‘ira and Rebbi Ila both say, certainly the sale is invalid; i. e., if he bought from the wife and then bought from the husband. Rebbi Ḥanina and Rebbi Bevon both said, certainly the sale is valid; i. e., if he bought from the husband and then bought from the wife. But is not all the wife’s property administered by the husband? For the yield.

“A preliminarily married adolescent girl, or her father, can accept her bill of divorce.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, like the disagreement about divorce is the disagreement about preliminary marriage. Rebbi Joḥanan said, everybody agrees about preliminary marriage that [her father] contracts but not she herself. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish agrees about a definitive marriage that she is not empowered to marry herself off and let her father lose her earnings. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan she has no legal standing relative to her father and cannot appoint an agent. In the opinion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish she has legal standing relative to her father and can appoint an agent. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “A man contracts a preliminary marriage by himself and through his agent and a woman contracts a preliminary marriage by herself and through her agent.” He explains it about an adult woman. But did we not state: “If an underage girl said, accept the bill of divorce for me, it is no valid bill until the bill of divorce reaches her hand.” He explains it about an orphan. But did we not state: “If her father said to [an agent]: Go and receive my daughter’s bill of divorce, if [the husband] wants to retract he cannot retract.” He explains that the Mishnah deals with cases; the first part about an orphan and the second part if she has a father. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. “A man may contract a preliminary marriage for his adolescent daughter either by himself or by his agent.” He explains that following Rebbi Jehudah, since Rebbi Jehudah said, “no two hands can acquire together; only her father alone can accept her bill of divorce.” Rebbi Yose said, a rabbi came out from the assembly and said, a case was decided following Rebbi Joḥanan. Can one rely on that? It was no question of relying on him since it was as from the sea to the frying pan.

“A preliminarily married adolescent girl, or her father, can accept her bill of divorce.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, like the disagreement about divorce is the disagreement about preliminary marriage. Rebbi Joḥanan said, everybody agrees about preliminary marriage that [her father] contracts but not she herself. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish agrees about a definitive marriage that she is not empowered to marry herself off and let her father lose her earnings. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan she has no legal standing relative to her father and cannot appoint an agent. In the opinion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish she has legal standing relative to her father and can appoint an agent. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “A man contracts a preliminary marriage by himself and through his agent and a woman contracts a preliminary marriage by herself and through her agent.” He explains it about an adult woman. But did we not state: “If an underage girl said, accept the bill of divorce for me, it is no valid bill until the bill of divorce reaches her hand.” He explains it about an orphan. But did we not state: “If her father said to [an agent]: Go and receive my daughter’s bill of divorce, if [the husband] wants to retract he cannot retract.” He explains that the Mishnah deals with cases; the first part about an orphan and the second part if she has a father. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. “A man may contract a preliminary marriage for his adolescent daughter either by himself or by his agent.” He explains that following Rebbi Jehudah, since Rebbi Jehudah said, “no two hands can acquire together; only her father alone can accept her bill of divorce.” Rebbi Yose said, a rabbi came out from the assembly and said, a case was decided following Rebbi Joḥanan. Can one rely on that? It was no question of relying on him since it was as from the sea to the frying pan.

“A preliminarily married adolescent girl, or her father, can accept her bill of divorce.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, like the disagreement about divorce is the disagreement about preliminary marriage. Rebbi Joḥanan said, everybody agrees about preliminary marriage that [her father] contracts but not she herself. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish agrees about a definitive marriage that she is not empowered to marry herself off and let her father lose her earnings. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan she has no legal standing relative to her father and cannot appoint an agent. In the opinion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish she has legal standing relative to her father and can appoint an agent. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “A man contracts a preliminary marriage by himself and through his agent and a woman contracts a preliminary marriage by herself and through her agent.” He explains it about an adult woman. But did we not state: “If an underage girl said, accept the bill of divorce for me, it is no valid bill until the bill of divorce reaches her hand.” He explains it about an orphan. But did we not state: “If her father said to [an agent]: Go and receive my daughter’s bill of divorce, if [the husband] wants to retract he cannot retract.” He explains that the Mishnah deals with cases; the first part about an orphan and the second part if she has a father. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. “A man may contract a preliminary marriage for his adolescent daughter either by himself or by his agent.” He explains that following Rebbi Jehudah, since Rebbi Jehudah said, “no two hands can acquire together; only her father alone can accept her bill of divorce.” Rebbi Yose said, a rabbi came out from the assembly and said, a case was decided following Rebbi Joḥanan. Can one rely on that? It was no question of relying on him since it was as from the sea to the frying pan.

Rebbi Zeïra objected before Rebbi Yasa: But did we not state: The same applies to marriage? He answered him, divorce documents and marriage contracts have the same rules. But did we not state: The same applies to debt? He said to him, because if he said to him: Throw it into the sea and your debt will be forgiven, it would be forgiven. But if that is true, even if it fell down close to the debtor, the debtor should have the benefit! But we have stated, if it falls down close to the debtor, the debtor is still obligated. For he said to him, throw it so that it will enter my domain, but it did not yet enter his domain. Rebbi Abbahu said, all those objections that Rebbi Zeïra raised before Rebbi Yasa, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish raised before Rebbi Joḥanan. Did he accept them from him? He solved them with those same solutions.

We have stated: “A preliminarily married adolescent girl, or her father, can accept her bill of divorce.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, like the disagreement about divorce is the disagreement about preliminary marriage. Rebbi Joḥanan said, everybody agrees about preliminary marriage that her father contracts but not she herself. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish agrees about a definitive marriage that she is not empowered to marry herself off and to let her father lose her earnings. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan she has no legal standing relative to her father and cannot appoint an agent. In the opinion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish she does have legal standing relative to her father and can appoint an agent. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “A man contracts a preliminary marriage either in person or through his agent and a woman contracts a preliminary marriage either in person or through her agent.” He explains it about an adult woman. But did we not state: “If an underage girl said, accept the bill of divorce for me, it is no valid bill of divorce until it reaches her hand.” He explains it about an orphan. But did we not state: “If her father said to [an agent]: Go and receive my daughter’s bill of divorce, if [the husband] wants to retract he cannot retract.” He explains that the Mishnah deals with cases; the first part about an orphan and the second part if she has a father. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. “A man may contract a preliminary marriage for his adolescent daughter either by himself or by his agent.” He explains that following Rebbi Jehudah, since Rebbi Jehudah said, “no two hands can acquire together.” Rebbi Yose said, a rabbi came out from the assembly and said, a case was decided following Rebbi Joḥanan. Can one rely on that? It was no question of relying on him since it was as from the sea to the frying pan.

We have stated: “A preliminarily married adolescent girl, or her father, can accept her bill of divorce.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, like the disagreement about divorce is the disagreement about preliminary marriage. Rebbi Joḥanan said, everybody agrees about preliminary marriage that her father contracts but not she herself. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish agrees about a definitive marriage that she is not empowered to marry herself off and to let her father lose her earnings. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan she has no legal standing relative to her father and cannot appoint an agent. In the opinion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish she does have legal standing relative to her father and can appoint an agent. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “A man contracts a preliminary marriage either in person or through his agent and a woman contracts a preliminary marriage either in person or through her agent.” He explains it about an adult woman. But did we not state: “If an underage girl said, accept the bill of divorce for me, it is no valid bill of divorce until it reaches her hand.” He explains it about an orphan. But did we not state: “If her father said to [an agent]: Go and receive my daughter’s bill of divorce, if [the husband] wants to retract he cannot retract.” He explains that the Mishnah deals with cases; the first part about an orphan and the second part if she has a father. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. “A man may contract a preliminary marriage for his adolescent daughter either by himself or by his agent.” He explains that following Rebbi Jehudah, since Rebbi Jehudah said, “no two hands can acquire together.” Rebbi Yose said, a rabbi came out from the assembly and said, a case was decided following Rebbi Joḥanan. Can one rely on that? It was no question of relying on him since it was as from the sea to the frying pan.

We have stated: “A preliminarily married adolescent girl, or her father, can accept her bill of divorce.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, like the disagreement about divorce is the disagreement about preliminary marriage. Rebbi Joḥanan said, everybody agrees about preliminary marriage that her father contracts but not she herself. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish agrees about a definitive marriage that she is not empowered to marry herself off and to let her father lose her earnings. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan she has no legal standing relative to her father and cannot appoint an agent. In the opinion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish she does have legal standing relative to her father and can appoint an agent. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “A man contracts a preliminary marriage either in person or through his agent and a woman contracts a preliminary marriage either in person or through her agent.” He explains it about an adult woman. But did we not state: “If an underage girl said, accept the bill of divorce for me, it is no valid bill of divorce until it reaches her hand.” He explains it about an orphan. But did we not state: “If her father said to [an agent]: Go and receive my daughter’s bill of divorce, if [the husband] wants to retract he cannot retract.” He explains that the Mishnah deals with cases; the first part about an orphan and the second part if she has a father. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. “A man may contract a preliminary marriage for his adolescent daughter either by himself or by his agent.” He explains that following Rebbi Jehudah, since Rebbi Jehudah said, “no two hands can acquire together.” Rebbi Yose said, a rabbi came out from the assembly and said, a case was decided following Rebbi Joḥanan. Can one rely on that? It was no question of relying on him since it was as from the sea to the frying pan.

Rav Hamnuna in the name of Rebbi Assi: If an underage girl married herself off preliminarily with two pubic hairs, her father repudiates the marriage but not she herself. This follows neither Rebbi Joḥanan nor Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. If following Rebbi Joḥanan, there is no place for repudiation. If following Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, the marriage is valid by biblical standards. It follows only Rebbi Joḥanan. Even though Rebbi Joḥanan says that everybody agrees about preliminary marriage that her father contracts but not she herself, he agrees in this case that the father repudiates on her behalf.

When Rebbi Meïr expired, Rebbi Jehudah decided and said, Rebbi Meïr’s students shall not enter here. Symmachos squeezed by and entered. He said, “Most holy sacrifices for preliminary marriage,” how could a woman enter the Temple courtyard? He said to him, if he contracts preliminary marriage through an agent. By what does he contract preliminary marriage? Rebbi Eleazar said, by its body. Rebbi Joḥanan said, by the goodwill created. Or we might say that they do not disagree. When Rebbi Eleazar said, by its body, [he meant] by the expected goodwill from it. Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Bevai in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: One may contract preliminary marriage with a peruṭah from Second Tithe.

If both were Cohanim or brothers, both are forbidden. If there were three brothers; two of them contracted a preliminary marriage with her and then died. That is what Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: The wife of one deceased contracts levirate marriage but not the wife of two deceased men. If they were brothers, both contracted a preliminary marriage with her and then one of them died. Is she permitted to the second? As you take it, what he had acquired, he had acquired; the rest he inherits from his brother. Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi said, she is forbidden to him. Rebbi Yose said, the reason of Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi is that the aspect acquired in any sister-in-law who is not totally inside [the family] is considered to be under the incest prohibition and an incest prohibition frees the co-wife. Rebbi Ḥanina said, Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi said it correctly. Does she not become his because of his brother? To his brother she was forbidden; to him she should be permitted?

MISHNAH: If a person contracts a preliminary marriage with a woman and then says, I was of the opinion that she was a Cohenet but she is a Levite, a Levite but she is a Cohenet, poor but she is rich, rich but she is poor, she is preliminarily married since she did not trick him.

MISHNAH: One does not contract for produce until a rate was established. If he was the first to harvest, he may contract for the stack of sheaves, or the vat of grapes, or the barrel of olives, or for potter’s clay and lime when it was loaded in his oven. One may contract for manure the entire year; Rebbi Yose says, one may not contract for manure unless he has manure on his dungheap, but the Sages permit it. One contracts for wholesale price; Rebbi Jehudah says, even if one did not contract for wholesale price he may say to him, give me some like that or return my money. A person may lend to his sharecroppers wheat for wheat as seed grain but not as food; but Rebban Gamliel lent his sharecroppers wheat grain; if at high price and the rate went down or at low price and the rate went up, he took from them at the low rate, not because this is practice but because he wanted to be strict with himself.

HALAKHAH: “One does not contract for produce,” etc. May one contract based on Saracens’ rates? Rebbi Joḥanan says, one may contract; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, one may not contract. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Ze‘ira: Would it not be reasonable that Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish agree with Rebbi Joḥanan about rates of Saracens of Sepphoris, since that is uninterrupted? Rebbi Abun bar Cahana said, I am wondering about what the rabbis disagree? Whether contracting for produce, or contracting for money, or a loan on produce? Rebbi Jeremiah said, they disagree about a loan, but about (a hostelry) [a contract] everybody agrees that it is forbidden. Rebbi Yose said, they disagree about a contract, but about a loan everybody agrees that it is permitted. In the House of Rebbi Yannai they said, one contracts for cattle feed. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, also on honeycombs. Rebbi Joḥanan said, in all villages near Tiberias one contracts once the rate was established at Tiberias.

HALAKHAH: “One does not contract for produce,” etc. May one contract based on Saracens’ rates? Rebbi Joḥanan says, one may contract; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, one may not contract. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Ze‘ira: Would it not be reasonable that Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish agree with Rebbi Joḥanan about rates of Saracens of Sepphoris, since that is uninterrupted? Rebbi Abun bar Cahana said, I am wondering about what the rabbis disagree? Whether contracting for produce, or contracting for money, or a loan on produce? Rebbi Jeremiah said, they disagree about a loan, but about (a hostelry) [a contract] everybody agrees that it is forbidden. Rebbi Yose said, they disagree about a contract, but about a loan everybody agrees that it is permitted. In the House of Rebbi Yannai they said, one contracts for cattle feed. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, also on honeycombs. Rebbi Joḥanan said, in all villages near Tiberias one contracts once the rate was established at Tiberias.

MISHNAH: One who contracts with another for a field, at a place where one usually cuts, he has to cut, to uproot, he has to uproot, to plough after harvest, he has to plough, everything according to local usage. Just as they divide the grain, so they divide straw and chaff. Just as they divide the wine, so they divide the vine tendrils and the props; they both provide the props together.

HALAKHAH: “One who contracts with another for a field” etc. If he uprooted at a place where one usually cuts, he may tell him: “you make it sterile.” Where one uproots and he cuts, one tells him, go out and make it clean.

It was stated: “One who contracts with another for a field has to harvest, bind into sheaves, thresh, winnow, and grade. The digger, the measurer, the steward, the town watchmen, and the administrator take their wages from the community. The builder of furnaces, the maker of seals, and the scribe, if hired by the tenant they take from the tenant; if hired by the landlord they take from the landlord. One does not change local usage.”

MISHNAH: One who contracts with another for a field, if it is an irrigated field or an orchard and the source dried up or the orchard was cut down, he may not deduct from his leasing fee. If he said, this irrigated field or this orchard shall be leased to me and the source dried up or the orchard was cut down, he may deduct from his leasing fee.

HALAKHAH: “One who contracts with another for a field,” etc. Rebbi Isaac said, if the well dried up completely. But if it was two storeys deep and now it is three storeys deep, one may tell him: exert yourself and it will be sufficient.

MISHNAH: One contracts with another for a field; if after he received it he lets it lie fallow one estimates how much it could yield and gives to him, for so he writes to him: If I let it lie fallow or do not work it, I shall pay as if well-worked.

HALAKHAH: “One who contracts with another for a field,” etc. Rebbi Isaac said, this implies that if one lets another’s money lie idle, the other only has a complaint against him. If one lets another’s field lie idly, he has to compensate him adequately. If one lets another’s ship or store lie idly, what is the rule?

MISHNAH: One who contracts with another for a field, did not want to weed, and told him, what do you care since I am paying you rent? One does not listen to him since he may tell him, tomorrow you leave it and I’ll have it overgrown with grasses. One who contracts with another for a field and it did not produce. If it is enough to make a pile, he has to work on it. Rebbi Jehudah said, what is the definition of a pile? But if it is enough for spreading.

MISHNAH: One who contracts with another for a field, did not want to weed, and told him, what do you care since I am paying you rent? One does not listen to him since he may tell him, tomorrow you leave it and I’ll have it overgrown with grasses. One who contracts with another for a field and it did not produce. If it is enough to make a pile, he has to work on it. Rebbi Jehudah said, what is the definition of a pile? But if it is enough for spreading.

HALAKHAH: “One who contracts with another for a field,” etc. “One who contracts with another for a field,” etc. How much is “enough to make a pile”? Rebbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: that the winnowing shovel can stand upright in it. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: only that its handle be on top. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said: in addition to his expenses. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said: in addition to the expenses of both of them. Rebbi Abbahu said: “for spreading”, to recover the seed grain which was spread on it.

HALAKHAH: “One who contracts with another for a field,” etc. “One who contracts with another for a field,” etc. How much is “enough to make a pile”? Rebbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: that the winnowing shovel can stand upright in it. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: only that its handle be on top. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said: in addition to his expenses. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said: in addition to the expenses of both of them. Rebbi Abbahu said: “for spreading”, to recover the seed grain which was spread on it.

MISHNAH: One who contracts with another for a field, but it was eaten by locusts or scorched. If it was a countrywide calamity, he reduces his leasing fee; if it was not a countrywide calamity, he does not reduce his leasing fee. Rebbi Jehudah says, if he contracted for a sum of money in no case does he deduct from the leasing fee.

HALAKHAH: “One who contracts with another for a field,” etc. Rav Huna said, if the entire area in that direction was scorched. Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan. But only if it was sown. [But if he did not sow], the other can tell him, if you had sown it would have produced a lot. Think of it, if there were other fields [which were not hit]? He may tell him, the Holy One, praise to Him, is forbearing with the evildoers. If there were other fields which were damaged? He may tell him, so far I was liable in the case; from now on I am no longer liable.

MISHNAH: One who contracts with another for a field, for ten kor of wheat per year. If it was damaged, he delivers from it. If the wheat turned out to be of high quality, he may not tell him: I am buying wheat in the market, but he delivers from the yield.

HALAKHAH: “One who contracts with another for a field,” etc. It was stated: “One who contracts with another for a field tithes and delivers to him, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, both for the same kind and for the same field he lifts heave and delivers to him. But from another field or another kind he tithes and delivers to him. Rebbi Meïr says, only for the same kind and for the same field he lifts heave and delivers to him. But from another field or another kind he does (not) tithe and deliver to him.”

HALAKHAH: “One who contracts with another for a field,” etc. It was stated: “One who contracts with another for a field tithes and delivers to him, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, both for the same kind and for the same field he lifts heave and delivers to him. But from another field or another kind he tithes and delivers to him. Rebbi Meïr says, only for the same kind and for the same field he lifts heave and delivers to him. But from another field or another kind he does (not) tithe and deliver to him.”

MISHNAH: One who contracts with another for a field to sow barley shall not sow wheat; for wheat he may sow barley. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel prohibits. For legumes he may not sow grain; for grain he may sow legumes. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel prohibits.

HALAKHAH: “One who contracts with another for a field,” etc. One understands that for barley he may not sow wheat; for wheat, may he not sow barley? It follows Rebbi La or is the opinion of everybody at a place where the yield of barley is not twice that of wheat. But at a place where barley produces twice as much as wheat he may sow barley.

MISHNAH: One who contracts with another for a field for a few years may not sow flax and does not have sycamore logs. If he contracted for seven years, he may sow flax and does have sycamore logs.

HALAKHAH: “One who contracts with another for a field,” etc. One understands that for wheat he may not sow flax. For flax may he not sow wheat? Flax damages the soil for three years and you say so? Rebbi Menaḥem, the brother of Rebbi Gorion, explained before Rebbi La: It is better to sow flax after flax but not barley after barley.

MISHNAH: If one who contracts with another for a field for a Sabbatical cycle at 700 denars, the Sabbatical year is included. If he contracted for seven years at 700 denars, the Sabbatical is not included.

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.

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

MISHNAH: If a public way was passing through somebody’s field, he took it away and gave them [a road] to the side of his property, what he gave, he gave, but what he wanted for himself he did not get. A private way is four cubits wide, a public way sixteen cubits; a king’s highway has no limit; the way to the cemetary has no limit. The place for funeral orations, the judges of Sepphoris say an area of four qab. If somebody sells a plot to another to build a grave, or he contracts to build him a grave makes the cavity of the cavern four cubits by six and opens into it eight sepulchral chambers, three on each side and two at the back wall. The chambers are four cubits long, seven [handbreadths] high and six [handbreadths] wide. Rebbi Simeon says, he makes the cavity of the cavern six by eight [cubits] and opens into it thirteen sepulcral chambers, four on each side, three at the back wall, one to the right of the entrance and one to its left. In front of the cavern he excavates a courtyard of six by six [cubits] for the bier and its carriers. He opens into it two caverns, one at each side. Rebbi Simeon says four, each to each direction of the compass. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, all depends on the rock.

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