cuts

May the body of a Pharisee be considered like that of a sufferer from gonorrhea for heave? Rebbi Joḥanan asked, but did we not state, “somebody who let a vulgar watch his house, at times when he sees those who enter and those who leave, food, and drinks, and open clay vessels are impure. But couches and seats and clay vessels tightly wound closed are pure”? If you are saying, they considered the body of a Pharisee like that of a sufferer from gonorrhea for heave then even those tightly [wound] closed should be impure. Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi said, explain it concerning a vulgar at a Pharisee’s, and you cannot infer anything. Rebbi Mana said, so said my teacher Rebbi Yose, all that we are considering here refers to heave. You may know that this is so, since we have stated there, “even moved, even tied, everything is impure.” Did they not say they are impure, not because moving? Did not Rebbi Joḥanan say, concerning heave there is neither separations, nor movings, nor [private domain, nor] vulgar. May heave itself be considered like a sufferer from gonorrhea in relation to sancta? Let us hear from the following. If one cuts a tube for sancta, he who cuts it and he who immerses it need immersion. One understands he who cuts. He who immerses? Could he not bind it with a (sit) [fiber] and immerse it? But explain it that he cut it in order to immerse it. May a sanctum itself be considered like a sufferer from gonorrhea in relation to the ashes of the Red Cow? Let us hear from the following. Two pitchers, one pure for sancta and one pure for heave, who touched one another are both pure. But does not a baraita disagree? They made that the person pure for the ashes of the Cow who moved spittle or semen of one pure for heave that it became impure. The same is pure for heave and pure for sancta.

If one cuts a tube for sancta, he who cuts it and he who immerses it need immersion. One understands he who cuts. He who immerses? Could he not bind it with a (sit) [fiber] and immerse it? But explain it that he cut it in order to immerse it. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, up to here about sanctified Temple sancta. From here on, about profane food prepared in the purity of sacrifices.

If one cuts a tube for sancta, he who cuts it and he who immerses it need immersion. One understands he who cuts. He who immerses? Could he not bind it with a (sit) [fiber] and immerse it? But explain it that he cut it in order to immerse it. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, up to here about sanctified Temple sancta. From here on, about profane food prepared in the purity of sacrifices.

If one cuts a tube for sancta, he who cuts it and he who immerses it need immersion. One understands he who cuts. He who immerses? Could he not bind it with a (sit) [fiber] and immerse it? But explain it that he cut it in order to immerse it. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, up to here about sanctified Temple sancta. From here on, about profane food prepared in the purity of sacrifices.

“The one whose urethra is cut off, anyone whose penis is cut, but he is qualified if there is a thread’s [breath] left of the corona,” etc. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: Of the upper side of the corona. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: Of the lower side of the corona. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, of the lower side of the corona. There, they said, if it has the shape of a drainpipe, he is qualified. Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if it has the shape of a writing reed, he is qualified, of an inverted writing reed, he is disqualified. If it is punctured, from the inside he is disqualified, from the outside he is qualified. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah, “inside” [means] from the corona towards the body; “outside” [means] from the corona away from the body. If it is punctured, he is disqualified; if it became blocked, he is qualified. If [the urethra] is punctured, he is disqualified, because it pours out; if it became blocked, he is qualified because he can be fertile. That is a disqualification which can revert to a qualification. The only difference between one injured in his lower parts and one whose testicles are injured are medical rules since an injured testicle may heal, an injured urethra does not heal. What can he do? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rav Jehudah: He brings ants, lets them bite, and cuts them off.

An old man asked the rabbis of Caesarea: Does the breaking of its neck clear its ṭerefa from its impurity? They said to him, is that not a Mishnah: “He who cuts the throat and it turns out to be ṭerefa.” He said to them, but I asked about breaking the neck and you answer me cutting the throat! They said to him, but did not Rebbi Yannai say, the words of Rebbi Meïr, even if it was ṭerefa he is guilty? He said to them, you answer me from that of Rebbi Yannai?

HALAKHAH: “The seducer pays three,” etc. This does not follow Rebbi Simeon, since Rebbi Simeon freed the rapist from paying for suffering. To what can you compare this? To one who cuts somebody’s wart when that one would have cut it himself in the future. To what can you compare this? To one who cuts somebody’s trees when that one would have cut them himself in the future. They said to him, you cannot compare one who is deflowered by rape to one who is deflowered by consent; you cannot compare one who is deflowered on a dungheap to one who is deflowered in the bridal chamber! How does Rebbi Simeon interpret ’’because he mistreated her”? They said in the name of Rav Ḥisda, explain it that he raped her on thorns.

HALAKHAH: “The seducer pays three,” etc. This does not follow Rebbi Simeon, since Rebbi Simeon freed the rapist from paying for suffering. To what can you compare this? To one who cuts somebody’s wart when that one would have cut it himself in the future. To what can you compare this? To one who cuts somebody’s trees when that one would have cut them himself in the future. They said to him, you cannot compare one who is deflowered by rape to one who is deflowered by consent; you cannot compare one who is deflowered on a dungheap to one who is deflowered in the bridal chamber! How does Rebbi Simeon interpret ’’because he mistreated her”? They said in the name of Rav Ḥisda, explain it that he raped her on thorns.

Rebbi Jeremiah asked: If somebody dedicated his slave’s earnings and the latter was a hunter, what are the rules? Let us hear from the following: If somebody dedicates his slave, that one is dedicated but his earnings are profane. His [slave’s] earnings, he is profane and his earnings are dedicated. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if somebody cuts off the hands of another person’s slave, that one’s owner collects the payments for his injuries, his pain, his shame, and impairment but he shall go out and subsist on alms. Did we not state: If somebody dedicates his slave, that one takes out his provisions but the remainder is dedicated. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, nobody thinks that he should die. [ ] more than for slaves. Did not Rebbi Joḥanan say, if somebody cuts off the hands of another person’s slave, that one’s owner collects the payments for his damages, his pain, his shame, and impairment but he shall go out and subsist on alms. The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: Jews are obligated to care for amputees, even slaves. Rebbi Joḥanan gave to his slave from everything he himself ate and quoted for this: “Did not his Maker make me in the belly and formed me likewise in a womb?”

Rebbi Jeremiah asked: If somebody dedicated his slave’s earnings and the latter was a hunter, what are the rules? Let us hear from the following: If somebody dedicates his slave, that one is dedicated but his earnings are profane. His [slave’s] earnings, he is profane and his earnings are dedicated. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if somebody cuts off the hands of another person’s slave, that one’s owner collects the payments for his injuries, his pain, his shame, and impairment but he shall go out and subsist on alms. Did we not state: If somebody dedicates his slave, that one takes out his provisions but the remainder is dedicated. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, nobody thinks that he should die. [ ] more than for slaves. Did not Rebbi Joḥanan say, if somebody cuts off the hands of another person’s slave, that one’s owner collects the payments for his damages, his pain, his shame, and impairment but he shall go out and subsist on alms. The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: Jews are obligated to care for amputees, even slaves. Rebbi Joḥanan gave to his slave from everything he himself ate and quoted for this: “Did not his Maker make me in the belly and formed me likewise in a womb?”

It is written: “The Cohen takes the cooked fore-leg of the ram.” If cooked, I could think separately. The verse says, “from the ram”. How is this? He cuts it off so that only a barley grain’s width remains. Does not the sanctified absorb from the profane, or the profane from the sanctified?.

If the witnesses do not know how to sign. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, one sketches for them in ink and they sign with vermilion, or with vermilion and they sign in ink. Rebbi Joḥanan told him, because we are occupied with the rules of the Sabbath, should we permit a married woman? But he brings an blank sheet of paper and cuts it before them. Would it not have been the first person’s handwriting? One has to widen the cuts. Rebbi Mana said, why do we not say that one sketches for them with water? If he would come and protest, his protest would be accepted. If somebody tears into skin in the form of writing it is valid. If somebody sketches on skin in the form of writing it is invalid.

If the witnesses do not know how to sign. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, one sketches for them in ink and they sign with vermilion, or with vermilion and they sign in ink. Rebbi Joḥanan told him, because we are occupied with the rules of the Sabbath, should we permit a married woman? But he brings an blank sheet of paper and cuts it before them. Would it not have been the first person’s handwriting? One has to widen the cuts. Rebbi Mana said, why do we not say that one sketches for them with water? If he would come and protest, his protest would be accepted. If somebody tears into skin in the form of writing it is valid. If somebody sketches on skin in the form of writing it is invalid.

HALAKHAH: “This is more severe regarding a human than an ox,” etc. “A person who hits his father or mother,” etc. It was stated: If the witnesses said, we testify that X blinded both of his eyes simultanously, or that he knocked out two of his teeth simultaneously, he does not have to pay anything. One after the other, he gains his freedom by the first and he pays him damages for the second. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: This implies that one estimates embarrassment for slaves. Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If a person dedicates his earnings, he dedicates everything. If he dedicates the earnings of his slave, he can take from there his upkeep and the remainder is dedicated. Here you say, the remainder is dedicated, but there you say, everything is holy. Rebbi Aḥa said, Jews are more obligated to support free people than slaves. But did not Rebbi Joḥanan say: If somebody cuts off the hands of somebody else’s slave, his master collects damages, suffering, medical costs, loss of earnings, and embarrassment, and that one should be supported by welfare. Rebbi Aḥa said, Jews are more obligated to support amputated slaves than unimpaired ones. But did not Rebbi Joḥanan also give to his slave when he ate meat? Give also to his slave when he drank wine? And recited for himself the verse: “Did not His maker make me in the womb”? They said, there a rule of law, here a rule of mercy.

MISHNAH: He who hits another pays him a tetradrachma; Rebbi Jehudah says in the name of Rebbi Yose the Galilean, a mina. If he slapped him, he pays 200 zuz, with the back of his hand he gives him 400 zuz. If he hurt him on his earlobe, tore out some of his hair, spat on him and the spit touched him, removed his stole, uncovered a woman’s hair, he pays 400 zuz; everything corresponding to his honor. Rebbi Aqiba said, even the poorest in Israel are treated as aristocrats who lost their property, for they are descendents of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. In a case where somebody uncovered a woman’s hair, she came before Rebbi Aqiba who obligated him to pay her 400 zuz. He said to him, Rabbi, give me some time, which he did. He watched her at the entrance of her courtyard and broke a flask before her which contained an as worth of oil. She uncovered her hair, splashed her hand with the oil and worked it onto her head. He had her observed by witnesses and came before Rebbi Aqiba, telling him, to such a one I have to give 400 zuz? He told him, you did not say anything since a person who injures himself, while he is not allowed to do that, is not liable, but others who injure him are liable; a person who cuts down his fruit trees, while he is not allowed to do that, is not liable, but others who cut down his fruit trees are.

MISHNAH: Which finds are his and which ones does he have to make public? The following finds are his: If he found scattered produce, scattered coins, bundles of grain in the public domain, or fig cakes, baker’s loaves, strings of fish, cuts of meat, local fleece-wool, bundles of flax, or strips of purple wool; these are his.

“Fig cakes.” That is, large cakes. But small cakes which come from Bostra he has to make public since they are typical for that place. Cuts of meat and among them a loaf or a kidney he has to make public. Strings of fish strung together with a vegetable or a whitefish he has to make public.

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.

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.

MISHNAH: One distances a tree from a town by 25 cubits; but carob tree or sycamore by 50 cubits; Abba Shaul says, every non-fruit tree by 50 cubits. If the town existed before the tree, one cuts it down and does not pay for it; if the tree existed before the town, one cuts it down and pays for it. If there is a doubt which one existed before the other, one cuts it down but does not pay. One distances a threshing floor 50 cubits from the town. A person shall not make a threshing floor on his property unless he owns 50 cubits in each direction. He distances it from another’s orchards or ploughed field so that he will not cause damage.

MISHNAH: One distances a tree from a town by 25 cubits; but carob tree or sycamore by 50 cubits; Abba Shaul says, every non-fruit tree by 50 cubits. If the town existed before the tree, one cuts it down and does not pay for it; if the tree existed before the town, one cuts it down and pays for it. If there is a doubt which one existed before the other, one cuts it down but does not pay. One distances a threshing floor 50 cubits from the town. A person shall not make a threshing floor on his property unless he owns 50 cubits in each direction. He distances it from another’s orchards or ploughed field so that he will not cause damage.

MISHNAH: One distances a tree from a town by 25 cubits; but carob tree or sycamore by 50 cubits; Abba Shaul says, every non-fruit tree by 50 cubits. If the town existed before the tree, one cuts it down and does not pay for it; if the tree existed before the town, one cuts it down and pays for it. If there is a doubt which one existed before the other, one cuts it down but does not pay. One distances a threshing floor 50 cubits from the town. A person shall not make a threshing floor on his property unless he owns 50 cubits in each direction. He distances it from another’s orchards or ploughed field so that he will not cause damage.

MISHNAH: One distances a tree 25 cubits from a cistern, but carob tree and sycamore 50 cubits, whether on top or level. If the cistern existed before, he shall cut it down and pay for it; if the tree existed before, one shall not cut it down. Rebbi Yose said, even if the cistern existed before, one shall not cut it down since the one digs on his property and the other plants on his property. A person should not plant a tree next to another’s field unless he distanced himself from it by four cubits, whether vines or any other tree. If there was a wall between them, each one goes close to the wall. If its roots extended to another’s field, he lowers the roots three handbreadths in order not to hinder the plough. If one was digging a cistern, or a ditch, or a cavern, he cuts and excavates and the wood is his.

MISHNAH: The order of beheading. They were chopping off his head with a sword just as the [Roman] government does. Rebbi Jehudah says, this is ugliness but one puts his head on the block and cuts it with a butcher knife. They told him, there is no death uglier than this.

MISHNAH: The following are forbidden to be sold to them: Pine cones, and white figs with their stalks, and incense, and white cocks. Rebbi Jehudah says, it is permitted to sell a white cock among chickens; when it is alone he cuts one claw and sells it since one does not sacrifice defective ones in pagan worship. All other things are permitted if unspecified but forbidden if specified. Rebbi Meïr says, it is also forbidden to sell good dates, and curved dates, and Nicolaos dates to Gentiles.

“One who cuts a Gentile’s hair cuts it until he comes to the lock. Once he comes to the lock he desists. One who gets a haircut from a Gentile looks in the mirror, from a Samaritan he does not look into the mirror. They permitted the family of Rebbi that they might look, because they were in need of Roman government connections.” Three things they permitted the House of Rebbi, that they might look into a mirror, that they got a haircut with a lock, and that they taught their children Greek, because they were in need of Roman government connections.

“One who cuts a Gentile’s hair cuts it until he comes to the lock. Once he comes to the lock he desists. One who gets a haircut from a Gentile looks in the mirror, from a Samaritan he does not look into the mirror. They permitted the family of Rebbi that they might look, because they were in need of Roman government connections.” Three things they permitted the House of Rebbi, that they might look into a mirror, that they got a haircut with a lock, and that they taught their children Greek, because they were in need of Roman government connections.

Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: If one cuts an idol in stone, even though you say that nothing connected to the ground is forbidden, one warns him on every single chiseling and when it will be separated from the rock he will be flogged. Rebbi Yose said, from this you understand that if somebody makes a statue for idol worship, even though you say that nothing breathing can be forbidden, one warns him about each single mallet and he will be flogged when it is finished.

because it is nourishing. R. Zera said : When we were at the school of Rab Huna he said to us : For the tops of turnips, if he cut them into large pieces, the benediction is "...Who createst the fruit of the ground"; if into small pieces, it is "...By Whose word all things exist." But when we came to the school of Rab Judah he said : In either case it is "...Who createst the fruit of the ground," because one cuts them up a great deal to sweeten the taste.

In that case the reason has been given, as Rabbi Shimon said: "What is the reason? Since they are susceptible to uncleanliness if [a zav] sits on them, as we have learned: if he cuts from any one of them a piece one handbreadth square, it is susceptible to uncleanliness’.

if he cuts from any one of them a piece one handbreadth square, it is susceptible to uncleanliness’. Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish in the name of R. Yannai said, it can be used as a patch for [the saddle of] a donkey.

They made him as one unclean through touching a dead animal. But regard it thus. Such an unclean thing will not make a man unclean by touching him. Perhaps it will not, you will say. But then to what purpose is the Baraitha, viz., He that cuts it and dips it, needs dipping? Or was it that they made him as one who is unclean by touching a dead man? If so, this would require the purifications of the third and seventh days. To what purpose is the Baraitha, He that cuts it and dips it, needs dipping? Dipping, yes; but the purifications of the third and seventh days, no. But was it that they made him as one who is unclean by touching a dead man on his seventh day? But lo, there is a Baraitha, viz., They absolutely refrain from making any new ordinance in the case of the heifer. But Abai said, They do not say that a spade makes unclean when used as a seat, according to the teaching, "And he that sitteth upon the vessel" (Lev. xv. 6). I might have thought, If he were to turn a two gallon measure upside down, and sit upon it, or a peck measure, and sit upon it, he would be unclean. But no; I should have been wrong, for the teaching says, "And he that sitteth upon the vessel, upon which there sitteth—" (ibid.), shall be unclean. But it must mean, that which is intended for sitting, and the other is excepted, for if he sit upon it, he will be told, Stand up and let us do our work.

They made him as one unclean through touching a dead animal. But regard it thus. Such an unclean thing will not make a man unclean by touching him. Perhaps it will not, you will say. But then to what purpose is the Baraitha, viz., He that cuts it and dips it, needs dipping? Or was it that they made him as one who is unclean by touching a dead man? If so, this would require the purifications of the third and seventh days. To what purpose is the Baraitha, He that cuts it and dips it, needs dipping? Dipping, yes; but the purifications of the third and seventh days, no. But was it that they made him as one who is unclean by touching a dead man on his seventh day? But lo, there is a Baraitha, viz., They absolutely refrain from making any new ordinance in the case of the heifer. But Abai said, They do not say that a spade makes unclean when used as a seat, according to the teaching, "And he that sitteth upon the vessel" (Lev. xv. 6). I might have thought, If he were to turn a two gallon measure upside down, and sit upon it, or a peck measure, and sit upon it, he would be unclean. But no; I should have been wrong, for the teaching says, "And he that sitteth upon the vessel, upon which there sitteth—" (ibid.), shall be unclean. But it must mean, that which is intended for sitting, and the other is excepted, for if he sit upon it, he will be told, Stand up and let us do our work.

MISHNA: One who balds a bald spot on his head, or one who cuts the corners of his head, or one who destroys the corners of his beard, or one who incised an incision [in his skin] over someone's death, is liable [to malkus]. One who makes a single incision over five deaths or makes five incisions over one death is liable for each and every one.

Rebbi Abahu asked, But let's also consider one who cuts off his bahares spot, which has its azhara from here: (Deuteronomy 24,8) "Guard your affliction of Tzeraas"

Ravina asked, But let's also consider one who cuts down fruit bearing trees, which has its azhara from here: (Deuteronomy 20,19) "For you may eat from them, but you may not cut them down".