decision

Multitudes, multitudes in the valley of decision: for the day of the LORD is near in the valley of decision.

Multitudes, multitudes in the valley of decision: for the day of the LORD is near in the valley of decision.

Behold now what shall come upon them in the last days, when the day of God and the day of the decision of the judgement of God cometh. From the east unto the west shall all the children of men be gathered together before my Father that liveth for ever. And he shall command hell to open its bars of adamant and give up all that is therein.

For all things come to pass on the day of decision, on the day of judgement, at the word of God: and as all things were done when he created the world and commanded all that is therein and it was done—even so shall it be in the last days; for all things are possible with God. And therefore saith he in the scripture: Son of man, prophesy upon the several bones and say unto the bones: bone unto bone in joints, sinew, nerves, flesh and skin and hair thereon [and soul and spirit].

How much more shall God raise up on the day of decision them that believe in him and are chosen of him, for whose sake he made the world? And all things shall the earth restore on the day of decision, for it also shall be judged with them, and the heaven with it.

How much more shall God raise up on the day of decision them that believe in him and are chosen of him, for whose sake he made the world? And all things shall the earth restore on the day of decision, for it also shall be judged with them, and the heaven with it.

Ezraël the angel of God †shall bring them forth out of this fire and establish a judgement of decision†. This then is their judgement. A river of fire shall flow and all †judgement† (they that are judged) shall be drawn down into the middle of the river. And Uriel shall set them there.

And there are wheels of fire, and men and women hung thereon by the strength of the whirling thereof. †And they that are in the pit shall burn†: now these are the sorcerers and sorceresses. †Those wheels shall be in all decision (judgement, punishment) by fire without number†.

When the question was raised whether the sum of twenty talents was to be paid for these, the king ordered that it should be done, and thus he carried out his decision in the most comprehensive way.

For behold, I see the heritage which the Most Mighty showed me in the night, and lo the days come when Moab shall be amazed at that which befalleth her, for Balac desired to persuade the Most Mighty with gifts and to purchase decision with money. Oughtest thou not to have asked what he sent upon Pharao and upon his land because he would bring them into bondage? Behold an overshadowing vine, desirable exceedingly, and who shall be jealous against it, for it withereth not? But if any say in his counsel that the Most Mighty hath laboured in vain or chosen them to no purpose, lo now I see the salvation of deliverance which is to come unto them. I am restrained in the speech of my voice and I cannot express that which I see with mine eyes, for but a little is left to me of the holy spirit which abideth in me, since I know that in that I was persuaded of Balac I have lost the days of my life:

And the judge said to Eliezer, This man speaketh truth to thee, give him his hire, for this is the custom in our land; and Eliezer heard the words of the judge, and he lifted up a stone and smote the judge, and the stone struck on his forehead, and the blood flowed copiously from the forehead of the judge, and Eliezer said, If this then is the custom in your land give thou unto this man what I should have given him, for this has been thy decision, thou didst decree it.

And the judge said, The judgment of death must pass upon this woman because she transgressed our law, and this therefore is the decision concerning her.

And I will not alter this my decision, and will not diminish it, and I will neither make it to be a lie nor to have no effect; and I will carry it out quickly, and will write it down for ever.

And behold, I have seized his sheep and they are in my house; what decision wilt thou come to in respect of me?"

An end or consummation would seem to be an indication of the perfection and completion of things. And this reminds us here, that if there be any one imbued with a desire of reading and understanding subjects of such difficulty and importance, he ought to bring to the effort a perfect and instructed understanding, lest perhaps, if he has had no experience in questions of this kind, they may appear to him as vain and superfluous; or if his mind be full of preconceptions and prejudices on other points, he may judge these to be heretical and opposed to the faith of the church, yielding in so doing not so much to the convictions of reason as to the dogmatism of prejudice. These subjects, indeed, are treated by us with great solicitude and caution, in the manner rather of an investigation and discussion, than in that of fixed and certain decision. For we have pointed out in the preceding pages those questions which must be set forth in clear dogmatic propositions, as I think has been done to the best of my ability when speaking of the Trinity. But on the present occasion our exercise is to be conducted, as we best may, in the style of a disputation rather than of strict definition. The end of the world, then, and the final consummation, will take place when every one shall be subjected to punishment for his sins; a time which God alone knows, when He will bestow on each one what he deserves. We think, indeed, that the goodness of God, through His Christ, may recall all His creatures to one end, even His enemies being conquered and subdued. For thus says holy Scripture, “The Lord said to my Lord, Sit Thou at my right hand, until I make Thine enemies Thy footstool.” And if the meaning of the prophet’s language here be less clear, we may ascertain it from the Apostle Paul, who speaks more openly, thus: “For Christ must reign until He has put all enemies under His feet.” But if even that unreserved declaration of the apostle do not sufficiently inform us what is meant by “enemies being placed under His feet,” listen to what he says in the following words, “For all things must be put under Him.” What, then, is this “putting under” by which all things must be made subject to Christ? I am of opinion that it is this very subjection by which we also wish to be subject to Him, by which the apostles also were subject, and all the saints who have been followers of Christ. For the name “subjection,” by which we are subject to Christ, indicates that the salvation which proceeds from Him belongs to His subjects, agreeably to the declaration of David, “Shall not my soul be subject unto God? From Him cometh my salvation.”

A similar method must be followed in treating of the angels; nor are we to suppose that it is the result of accident that a particular office is assigned to a particular angel: as to Raphael, e.g., the work of curing and healing; to Gabriel, the conduct of wars; to Michael, the duty of attending to the prayers and supplications of mortals. For we are not to imagine that they obtained these offices otherwise than by their own merits, and by the zeal and excellent qualities which they severally displayed before this world was formed; so that afterwards, in the order of archangels, this or that office was assigned to each one, while others deserved to be enrolled in the order of angels, and to act under this or that archangel, or that leader or head of an order. All of which things were disposed, as I have said, not indiscriminately and fortuitously, but by a most appropriate and just decision of God, who arranged them according to deserts, in accordance with His own approval and judgment: so that to one angel the church of the Ephesians was to be entrusted; to another, that of the Smyrnæans; one angel was to be Peter’s, another Paul’s; and so on through every one of the little ones that are in the church, for such and such angels as even daily behold the face of God must be assigned to each one of them; and there must also be some angel that encampeth round about them that fear God. All of which things, assuredly, it is to be believed, are not performed by accident or chance, or because they [the angels] were so created, lest on that view the Creator should be accused of partiality; but it is to be believed that they were conferred by God, the just and impartial Ruler of all things, agreeably to the merits and good qualities and mental vigour of each individual spirit.

But since a rational animal not only has within itself these natural movements, but has moreover, to a greater extent than other animals, the power of reason, by which it can judge and determine regarding natural movements, and disapprove and reject some, while approving and adopting others, so by the judgment of this reason may the movements of men be governed and directed towards a commendable life. And from this it follows that, since the nature of this reason which is in man has within itself the power of distinguishing between good and evil, and while distinguishing possesses the faculty of selecting what it has approved, it may justly be deemed worthy of praise in choosing what is good, and deserving of censure in following that which is base or wicked. This indeed must by no means escape our notice, that in some dumb animals there is found a more regular movement than in others, as in hunting-dogs or war-horses, so that they may appear to some to be moved by a kind of rational sense. But we must believe this to be the result not so much of reason as of some natural instinct, largely bestowed for purposes of that kind. Now, as we had begun to remark, seeing that such is the nature of a rational animal, some things may happen to us human beings from without; and these, coming in contact with our sense of sight, or hearing, or any other of our senses, may incite and arouse us to good movements, or the contrary; and seeing they come to us from an external source, it is not within our own power to prevent their coming. But to determine and approve what use we ought to make of those things which thus happen, is the duty of no other than of that reason within us, i.e. of our own judgment; by the decision of which reason we use the incitement, which comes to us from without for that purpose, which reason approves, our natural movements being determined by its authority either to good actions or the reverse.

But as it is not sufficient, in the discussion of matters of such importance, to entrust the decision to the human senses and to the human understanding, and to pronounce on things invisible as if they were seen by us, we must, in order to establish the positions which we have laid down, adduce the testimony of Holy Scripture. And that this testimony may produce a sure and unhesitating belief, either with regard to what we have still to advance, or to what has been already stated, it seems necessary to show, in the first place, that the Scriptures themselves are divine, i.e. were inspired by the Spirit of God. We shall therefore with all possible brevity draw forth from the Holy Scriptures themselves, such evidence on this point as may produce upon us a suitable impression, [making our quotations] from Moses, the first legislator of the Hebrew nation, and from the words of Jesus Christ, the Author and Chief of the Christian religious system. For although there have been numerous legislators among the Greeks and Barbarians, and also countless teachers and philosophers who professed to declare the truth, we do not remember any legislator who was able to produce in the minds of foreign nations an affection and a zeal [for him] such as led them either voluntarily to adopt his laws, or to defend them with all the efforts of their mind. No one, then, has been able to introduce and make known what seemed to himself the truth, among, I do not say many foreign nations, but even amongst the individuals of one single nation, in such a manner that a knowledge and belief of the same should extend to all. And yet there can be no doubt that it was the wish of the legislators that their laws should be observed by all men, if possible; and of the teachers, that what appeared to themselves to be truth, should become known to all. But knowing that they could by no means succeed in producing any such mighty power within them as would lead foreign nations to obey their laws, or have regard to their statements, they did not venture even to essay the attempt, lest the failure of the undertaking should stamp their conduct with the mark of imprudence. And yet there are throughout the whole world—throughout all Greece, and all foreign countries—countless individuals who have abandoned the laws of their country, and those whom they had believed to be gods, and have yielded themselves up to the obedience of the law of Moses, and to the discipleship and worship of Christ; and have done this, not without exciting against themselves the intense hatred of the worshippers of images, so as frequently to be exposed to cruel tortures from the latter, and sometimes even to be put to death. And yet they embrace, and with all affection preserve, the words and teaching of Christ.

He continues in this strain: “If he had determined upon these things, and underwent chastisement in obedience to his Father, it is manifest that, being a God, and submitting voluntarily, those things that were done agreeably to his own decision were neither painful nor distressing.” But he did not observe that here he was at once contradicting himself. For if he granted that He was chastised because He had determined upon these things, and had submitted Himself to His Father, it is clear that He actually suffered punishment, and it was impossible that what was inflicted on Him by His chastisers should not be painful, because pain is an involuntary thing. But if, because He was willing to suffer, His inflictions were neither painful nor distressing, how did He grant that “He was chastised?” He did not perceive that when Jesus had once, by His birth, assumed a body, He assumed one which was capable both of suffering pains, and those distresses incidental to humanity, if we are to understand by distresses what no one voluntarily chooses. Since, therefore, He voluntarily assumed a body, not wholly of a different nature from that of human flesh, so along with His body He assumed also its sufferings and distresses, which it was not in His power to avoid enduring, it being in the power of those who inflicted them to send upon Him things distressing and painful. And in the preceding pages we have already shown, that He would not have come into the hands of men had He not so willed. But He did come, because He was willing to come, and because it was manifest beforehand that His dying upon behalf of men would be of advantage to the whole human race.

It came to pass then again, after all this, that Mary came forward, adored the feet of Jesus and said: "My Lord, be not wroth with me, if I question thee, because we question concerning everything with precision and certainty. For thou hast said unto us aforetime: 'Seek that ye may find, and knock that it may be opened unto you. For every one who seeketh shall find, and to every one who knocketh it shall be opened.' Now, therefore, my Lord, who is it whom I shall seek, or who is it at whom we shall knock? Or who rather is able to give us the decision upon the words concerning which we shall question thee? Or who rather knoweth the power of the words concerning which we shall question? Because thou in the mind hast given us mind of the Light and hast given us sense and an exceedingly exalted thought; for which cause, therefore, no one existeth in the world of men nor any one in the height of the æons, who can give the decision on the words concerning which we question, save thee alone, who knoweth [sic] the universe, who is perfected in the universe; because we do not question in the manner in which the men of the world question, but because we question in the gnosis of the Height which thou hast given unto us, and we question moreover in the type of the excellent questioning which thou hast taught us, that we may question therein. Now, therefore, my Lord, be not wroth with me, but reveal unto me the matter concerning which I shall question thee."

It came to pass then again, after all this, that Mary came forward, adored the feet of Jesus and said: "My Lord, be not wroth with me, if I question thee, because we question concerning everything with precision and certainty. For thou hast said unto us aforetime: 'Seek that ye may find, and knock that it may be opened unto you. For every one who seeketh shall find, and to every one who knocketh it shall be opened.' Now, therefore, my Lord, who is it whom I shall seek, or who is it at whom we shall knock? Or who rather is able to give us the decision upon the words concerning which we shall question thee? Or who rather knoweth the power of the words concerning which we shall question? Because thou in the mind hast given us mind of the Light and hast given us sense and an exceedingly exalted thought; for which cause, therefore, no one existeth in the world of men nor any one in the height of the æons, who can give the decision on the words concerning which we question, save thee alone, who knoweth [sic] the universe, who is perfected in the universe; because we do not question in the manner in which the men of the world question, but because we question in the gnosis of the Height which thou hast given unto us, and we question moreover in the type of the excellent questioning which thou hast taught us, that we may question therein. Now, therefore, my Lord, be not wroth with me, but reveal unto me the matter concerning which I shall question thee."

"Thereafter there cometh a receiver of the little Sabaōth, the Good, him of the Midst. He himself bringeth a cup filled with thoughts and wisdom, and soberness is in it; [and] he handeth it to the soul. And they cast it into a body which can neither sleep nor forget because of the cup of soberness which hath been handed unto it; but it will whip its heart persistently to question about the mysteries of the Light until it find them, through the decision of the Virgin of Light, and inherit the Light for ever."

Rabban Gamaliel sent to him: I order you to appear before me with your staff and your money on the day which according to your count should be Yom Hakippurim. Rabbi Akiva went and found him in distress. He said to him: I can teach that whatever Rabban Gamaliel has done is valid, because it says, “These are the appointed seasons of the Lord, holy convocations, which you shall proclaim at their appointed times” (Leviticus 23:4), whether they are [proclaimed] at their proper time or not at their proper time, I have no other appointed times save these. He [Rabbi Joshua] then went to Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas. He said to him: if we call in question the court of Rabban Gamaliel we must call in question the decisions of every court which has existed since the days of Moses until now. As it says, “Then Moses and Aaron, Nadav and Avihu and seventy of the elders of Israel went up” (Exodus 24:9). Why were the names of the elders not mentioned? To teach that every group of three which has acted as a court over Israel, behold it is like the court of Moses. He [Rabbi Joshua] took his staff and his money and went to Yavneh to Rabban Gamaliel on the day which according to his count should be Yom Hakippurim. Rabban Gamaliel rose and kissed him on his head and said to him: Come in peace, my teacher and my student my teacher in wisdom and my student because you have accepted my decision.

If he wished to suspend [his decision] until a minor becomes of age, or until the eldest returns from a country beyond the sea or [until a brother who was] a deaf-mute or an imbecile [should recover], he is not to be listened to, but is told, “the commandment is upon you; either perform halitzah or yibbum.”

Any matter of doubt regarding [leprous affliction] at the outset is clean before a decision is made [to declare it] unclean. Once a decision has been made [to declare it] unclean, any matter of doubt is regarded as unclean. A person suffering from gonorrhea (a is examined regarding seven things, before it has been decided that it is gonorrhea: With regard to food, drink, carrying things, jumping, sickness, something seen, or an impure thought. Once gonorrhea is established, he is no longer examined. [Any flux resulting] from an accident to him, doubtful [flux] and his semen are unclean, for there are grounds for this assumption. If a one strikes his fellow, and they expected him to die and he partially recovered and then grew worse and died [the other] is liable [for murder]. Rabbi Nehemiah exempts him, for there are grounds for this assumption.

Any matter of doubt regarding [leprous affliction] at the outset is clean before a decision is made [to declare it] unclean. Once a decision has been made [to declare it] unclean, any matter of doubt is regarded as unclean. A person suffering from gonorrhea (a is examined regarding seven things, before it has been decided that it is gonorrhea: With regard to food, drink, carrying things, jumping, sickness, something seen, or an impure thought. Once gonorrhea is established, he is no longer examined. [Any flux resulting] from an accident to him, doubtful [flux] and his semen are unclean, for there are grounds for this assumption. If a one strikes his fellow, and they expected him to die and he partially recovered and then grew worse and died [the other] is liable [for murder]. Rabbi Nehemiah exempts him, for there are grounds for this assumption.

A tribe, a false prophet, or the high priest may not be tried save by the court of seventy-one; They may not send forth the people to wage a battle of free choice save by the decision of the court of one and seventy; They may not add to the City [of Jerusalem], or the Courts of the Temple save by the decision of the court of seventy-one; They may not set up sanhedrins for the several tribes save by the decision of the court of one and seventy. And they may not proclaim [any city to be] an Apostate City (ir ha-niddahat) (Deut. 13:13–19] save by the decision of one and seventy. No city on the frontier may be proclaimed an Apostate City, nor three together, but only one or two.

A tribe, a false prophet, or the high priest may not be tried save by the court of seventy-one; They may not send forth the people to wage a battle of free choice save by the decision of the court of one and seventy; They may not add to the City [of Jerusalem], or the Courts of the Temple save by the decision of the court of seventy-one; They may not set up sanhedrins for the several tribes save by the decision of the court of one and seventy. And they may not proclaim [any city to be] an Apostate City (ir ha-niddahat) (Deut. 13:13–19] save by the decision of one and seventy. No city on the frontier may be proclaimed an Apostate City, nor three together, but only one or two.

A tribe, a false prophet, or the high priest may not be tried save by the court of seventy-one; They may not send forth the people to wage a battle of free choice save by the decision of the court of one and seventy; They may not add to the City [of Jerusalem], or the Courts of the Temple save by the decision of the court of seventy-one; They may not set up sanhedrins for the several tribes save by the decision of the court of one and seventy. And they may not proclaim [any city to be] an Apostate City (ir ha-niddahat) (Deut. 13:13–19] save by the decision of one and seventy. No city on the frontier may be proclaimed an Apostate City, nor three together, but only one or two.

A tribe, a false prophet, or the high priest may not be tried save by the court of seventy-one; They may not send forth the people to wage a battle of free choice save by the decision of the court of one and seventy; They may not add to the City [of Jerusalem], or the Courts of the Temple save by the decision of the court of seventy-one; They may not set up sanhedrins for the several tribes save by the decision of the court of one and seventy. And they may not proclaim [any city to be] an Apostate City (ir ha-niddahat) (Deut. 13:13–19] save by the decision of one and seventy. No city on the frontier may be proclaimed an Apostate City, nor three together, but only one or two.

The greater Sanhedrin was made up of seventy one and the little Sanhedrin of twenty three. From where do we learn that the greater Sanhedrin should be made up of seventy one? As it says, “Gather unto me seventy men of the elders of Israel” (Num. 11:16), and when Moses is added to them there is seventy one. Rabbi Judah says: “Seventy.” From where do we learn that the little Sanhedrin should be made up of twenty three? As it says, “The assembly shall judge”, “The assembly shall deliver” (Num. 35:24-25), an assembly that judges and an assembly that delivers, thus we have twenty. And from where do we know that an assembly has ten? As it says, “How long shall I bear this evil congregation?” (Num. 14:27) [which refers to the twelve spies] but Joshua and Caleb were not included. And from where do we learn that we should bring three others [to the twenty]? By inference from what it says, “You shall not follow after the many to do evil” (Ex. 23:2), I conclude that I must be with them to do well. Then why does it say, “[To follow] after the many to change judgment” (Ex. 23:2). [It means that] your verdict of condemnation should not be like your verdict of acquittal, for your verdict of acquittal is reached by the decision of a majority of one, but your verdict of condemnation must be reached by the decision of a majority of two. The court must not be divisible equally, therefore they add to them one more; thus they are twenty three. And how many should there be in a city that it may be fit to have a Sanhedrin? A hundred and twenty. Rabbi Nehemiah says: “Two hundred and thirty, so that [the Sanhedrin of twenty three] should correspond with them that are chiefs of [at least] groups of ten.

The greater Sanhedrin was made up of seventy one and the little Sanhedrin of twenty three. From where do we learn that the greater Sanhedrin should be made up of seventy one? As it says, “Gather unto me seventy men of the elders of Israel” (Num. 11:16), and when Moses is added to them there is seventy one. Rabbi Judah says: “Seventy.” From where do we learn that the little Sanhedrin should be made up of twenty three? As it says, “The assembly shall judge”, “The assembly shall deliver” (Num. 35:24-25), an assembly that judges and an assembly that delivers, thus we have twenty. And from where do we know that an assembly has ten? As it says, “How long shall I bear this evil congregation?” (Num. 14:27) [which refers to the twelve spies] but Joshua and Caleb were not included. And from where do we learn that we should bring three others [to the twenty]? By inference from what it says, “You shall not follow after the many to do evil” (Ex. 23:2), I conclude that I must be with them to do well. Then why does it say, “[To follow] after the many to change judgment” (Ex. 23:2). [It means that] your verdict of condemnation should not be like your verdict of acquittal, for your verdict of acquittal is reached by the decision of a majority of one, but your verdict of condemnation must be reached by the decision of a majority of two. The court must not be divisible equally, therefore they add to them one more; thus they are twenty three. And how many should there be in a city that it may be fit to have a Sanhedrin? A hundred and twenty. Rabbi Nehemiah says: “Two hundred and thirty, so that [the Sanhedrin of twenty three] should correspond with them that are chiefs of [at least] groups of ten.

He may send forth the people to a battle waged of free choice by the decision of the court of seventy one. He may break through [the private domain of any man] to make himself a road and none may protest him. The king’s road has no limit. Whatsoever the people take in plunder they must place before him, and he may take first. “And he shall not have many wives” (Deut. 17:17) eighteen only. Rabbi Judah says: “He may take many wives provided they don’t turn his heart away [from worshipping God]. Rabbi Shimon says: “Even one that might turn his heart away, he should not marry. Why then does it say, “He shall not have many wives”, even if they are like Avigayil. “He shall not keep many horses” (Deut. 17:16) enough for his chariot only. “Nor shall he amass silver and gold to excess” (Deut. 17:17) enough to pay his soldier’s wages. He must write a Torah scroll for himself; when he goes forth to battle he shall take it with him, and when he returns he shall bring it back with him; when he sits in judgement it shall be with him, and when he sits to eat it shall be with him, as it says, “Let it remain with him and let him read it all his life” (Deut. 17:19)

When the judges reached their decision they would bring in the litigants. The chief among the judges says: “You, so-and-so are not obligated”, or “You, so-and-so are obligated”. And from where do we know that after one of the judges has gone out that he may not say, “I declared him not obligated and my colleagues declared him obligated, so what can I do since they outvoted me?” Of such a one it says, “Do not go about as a talebearer amongst your people” (Lev. 19:16) and it also says, “He that goes about as a talebearer reveals secrets” (Proverbs 11:13).

Both non-capital and capital cases require examination and inquiry [of the witnesses], as it says, “You shall have one manner of law” (Lev. 24:22). How do non-capital cases differ from capital cases? Non-capital cases [are decided] by three and capital cases by twenty three. Non-capital cases may begin either with reasons for acquittal or for conviction; capital cases begin with reasons for acquittal and do not begin with reasons for conviction. In non-capital cases they may reach a verdict of either acquittal or conviction by the decision of a majority of one; in capital cases they may reach an acquittal by the majority of one but a verdict of conviction only by the decision of a majority of two. In non-capital cases they may reverse a verdict either [from conviction] to acquittal or [from acquittal] to conviction; in capital cases they may reverse a verdict [from conviction] to acquittal but not [from acquittal] to conviction. In non-capital cases all may argue either in favor of conviction or of acquittal; in capital cases all may argue in favor of acquittal but not all may argue in favor of conviction. In non-capital cases he that had argued in favor of conviction may afterward argue in favor of acquittal, or he that had argued in favor of acquittal may afterward argue in favor of conviction; in capital cases he that had argued in favor of conviction may afterward argue in favor of acquittal but he that had argued in favor of acquittal cannot afterward argue in favor of conviction. In non-capital cases they hold the trial during the daytime and the verdict may be reached during the night; in capital cases they hold the trial during the daytime and the verdict also must be reached during the daytime. In non-capital cases the verdict, whether of acquittal or of conviction, may be reached the same day; in capital cases a verdict of acquittal may be reached on the same day, but a verdict of conviction not until the following day. Therefore trials may not be held on the eve of a Sabbath or on the eve of a Festival.

Both non-capital and capital cases require examination and inquiry [of the witnesses], as it says, “You shall have one manner of law” (Lev. 24:22). How do non-capital cases differ from capital cases? Non-capital cases [are decided] by three and capital cases by twenty three. Non-capital cases may begin either with reasons for acquittal or for conviction; capital cases begin with reasons for acquittal and do not begin with reasons for conviction. In non-capital cases they may reach a verdict of either acquittal or conviction by the decision of a majority of one; in capital cases they may reach an acquittal by the majority of one but a verdict of conviction only by the decision of a majority of two. In non-capital cases they may reverse a verdict either [from conviction] to acquittal or [from acquittal] to conviction; in capital cases they may reverse a verdict [from conviction] to acquittal but not [from acquittal] to conviction. In non-capital cases all may argue either in favor of conviction or of acquittal; in capital cases all may argue in favor of acquittal but not all may argue in favor of conviction. In non-capital cases he that had argued in favor of conviction may afterward argue in favor of acquittal, or he that had argued in favor of acquittal may afterward argue in favor of conviction; in capital cases he that had argued in favor of conviction may afterward argue in favor of acquittal but he that had argued in favor of acquittal cannot afterward argue in favor of conviction. In non-capital cases they hold the trial during the daytime and the verdict may be reached during the night; in capital cases they hold the trial during the daytime and the verdict also must be reached during the daytime. In non-capital cases the verdict, whether of acquittal or of conviction, may be reached the same day; in capital cases a verdict of acquittal may be reached on the same day, but a verdict of conviction not until the following day. Therefore trials may not be held on the eve of a Sabbath or on the eve of a Festival.

An elder rebelling against the ruling of the court [is strangled], for it says, “If there arise a matter too hard for you for judgement […you shall promptly repair to the place that the Lord your God will have chosen, and appear before the levitical priests, or the magistrate in charge at the time, and present your problem. When they have announced to you the verdict in the case, you shall carry out the verdict that is announced to you from that place that the Lord chose, observing scrupulously all their instructions to you. You shall act in accordance with the instructions given you and the ruling handed down to you; you must not deviate from the verdict that they announce to you either to the right or to the left. Should a man act presumptuously and disregard the priest charged with serving there the Lord your God, or the magistrate, that man shall die” (Deut. 17:8-13, JPS translation). Three courts of law were there, one situated at the entrance to the Temple mount, another at the door of the [Temple] court, and the third in the Chamber of Hewn Stone. They [first] went to the court which is at the entrance to the Temple mount, and he [the rebellious elder] stated, “Thus have I expounded and thus have my colleagues expounded; thus have I taught, and thus have my colleagues taught.” If [this first court] had heard [a ruling on the matter], they state it. If not, they go to the [second court] which is at the entrance of the Temple court, and he declares, “Thus have I expounded and thus have my colleagues expounded; thus have I taught, and thus have my colleagues taught.” If [this second court] had heard [a ruling on the matter] they state it; if not, they all proceed to the great court of the Chamber of Hewn Stone from whence instruction issued to all Israel, for it says, [you shall carry out the verdict that is announced to you] from that place that the Lord chose (Deut. 17:10). If he returned to his town and taught again as he did before, he is not liable. But if he gave a practical decision, he is guilty, for it says, “Should a man act presumptuously” (Deut. 17:12) he is liable only for a practical ruling. But if a disciple gave a practical decision [opposed to the court], he is exempt: thus his stringency is his leniency.

An elder rebelling against the ruling of the court [is strangled], for it says, “If there arise a matter too hard for you for judgement […you shall promptly repair to the place that the Lord your God will have chosen, and appear before the levitical priests, or the magistrate in charge at the time, and present your problem. When they have announced to you the verdict in the case, you shall carry out the verdict that is announced to you from that place that the Lord chose, observing scrupulously all their instructions to you. You shall act in accordance with the instructions given you and the ruling handed down to you; you must not deviate from the verdict that they announce to you either to the right or to the left. Should a man act presumptuously and disregard the priest charged with serving there the Lord your God, or the magistrate, that man shall die” (Deut. 17:8-13, JPS translation). Three courts of law were there, one situated at the entrance to the Temple mount, another at the door of the [Temple] court, and the third in the Chamber of Hewn Stone. They [first] went to the court which is at the entrance to the Temple mount, and he [the rebellious elder] stated, “Thus have I expounded and thus have my colleagues expounded; thus have I taught, and thus have my colleagues taught.” If [this first court] had heard [a ruling on the matter], they state it. If not, they go to the [second court] which is at the entrance of the Temple court, and he declares, “Thus have I expounded and thus have my colleagues expounded; thus have I taught, and thus have my colleagues taught.” If [this second court] had heard [a ruling on the matter] they state it; if not, they all proceed to the great court of the Chamber of Hewn Stone from whence instruction issued to all Israel, for it says, [you shall carry out the verdict that is announced to you] from that place that the Lord chose (Deut. 17:10). If he returned to his town and taught again as he did before, he is not liable. But if he gave a practical decision, he is guilty, for it says, “Should a man act presumptuously” (Deut. 17:12) he is liable only for a practical ruling. But if a disciple gave a practical decision [opposed to the court], he is exempt: thus his stringency is his leniency.

And why do they record the opinion of a single person among the many, when the halakhah must be according to the opinion of the many? So that if a court prefers the opinion of the single person it may depend on him. For no court may set aside the decision of another court unless it is greater than it in wisdom and in number. If it was greater than it in wisdom but not in number, in number but not in wisdom, it may not set aside its decision, unless it is greater than it in wisdom and in number.

And why do they record the opinion of a single person among the many, when the halakhah must be according to the opinion of the many? So that if a court prefers the opinion of the single person it may depend on him. For no court may set aside the decision of another court unless it is greater than it in wisdom and in number. If it was greater than it in wisdom but not in number, in number but not in wisdom, it may not set aside its decision, unless it is greater than it in wisdom and in number.

Rabbi Ishmael his son said: he who refrains himself from judgment, rids himself of enmity, robbery and false swearing; But he whose heart is presumptuous in giving a judicial decision, is foolish, wicked and arrogant.

If a court ruled, and later discovered that they had erred and changed their decision, whether they brought their offering or whether they did not bring their offering, if an individual proceeded and acted in accordance with their [erroneous] decision, Rabbi Shimon exempts him and Rabb Elazar declares [his case] doubtful. Which case may be regarded doubtful? If he was at home, he is liable. If he went abroad, he is exempt. Rabbi Akiba said: I agree that a person in such a case is nearer to exemption than to culpability. Said Ben Azzai to him: how does such a person differ from one who remains at home? He who remains at home is in a position to ascertain the facts but the other was not in such a position.

If a court ruled, and later discovered that they had erred and changed their decision, whether they brought their offering or whether they did not bring their offering, if an individual proceeded and acted in accordance with their [erroneous] decision, Rabbi Shimon exempts him and Rabb Elazar declares [his case] doubtful. Which case may be regarded doubtful? If he was at home, he is liable. If he went abroad, he is exempt. Rabbi Akiba said: I agree that a person in such a case is nearer to exemption than to culpability. Said Ben Azzai to him: how does such a person differ from one who remains at home? He who remains at home is in a position to ascertain the facts but the other was not in such a position.

If the court ruled and one of them knew that they had erred and said to the others, “You are making a mistake”, or if the mufla of the court was not there, or if one of them was a proselyte or a mamzer or a nathin or an elder who did not have children, they are exempt, for it says here (Lev 4:13) “congregation” and it says later on (Num 35:24) “congregation”; just as the “congregation” further on must be fit to issue rulings, so too the “congregation” mentioned here must be fit to issue rulings. If the court issued a [wrong] decision unwittingly and all the people acted unwittingly, they bring a bull. [If the court ruled wrong] intentionally and [the people] acted unwillingly, they bring a lamb or a goat. [If the court ruled] unwittingly and [the people] acted willingly accordingly, they are exempt.

An anointed priest who rendered a decision for himself in error and acted unwittingly accordingly, must bring a bull. If he rendered the decision in error but acted upon it willfully, or made it willfully but acted upon it unwittingly, he is exempt; for a decision a high priest made for himself is like a ruling issued by the court to the community.

An anointed priest who rendered a decision for himself in error and acted unwittingly accordingly, must bring a bull. If he rendered the decision in error but acted upon it willfully, or made it willfully but acted upon it unwittingly, he is exempt; for a decision a high priest made for himself is like a ruling issued by the court to the community.

An anointed priest who rendered a decision for himself in error and acted unwittingly accordingly, must bring a bull. If he rendered the decision in error but acted upon it willfully, or made it willfully but acted upon it unwittingly, he is exempt; for a decision a high priest made for himself is like a ruling issued by the court to the community.

An [anointed high priest] who rendered an errant decision alone and acted accordingly alone, he makes his atonement alone. If he rendered his ruling together with [the court of] the congregation and acted accordingly together with the congregation, he makes his atonement together with the congregation. For the court is not liable unless they ruled to annul part of a commandment and to retain a part of it; and so [it is with] the anointed [high] priest. Nor [are they liable] for idolatry unless they ruled to annul the law in part and to retain it in part.

If one who is not an expert sees a first born and it was slaughtered by his instructions, in such a case it shall be buried and he shall make reparation from his own pocket. If a [non-expert] judge gave a judgment and declared innocent a person who was really liable or made liable a person who was really innocent, declared unclean a thing which was clean or declared clean a thing which was really unclean, his decision stands but he has to make reparation from his own pocket. If the judge was an expert [sanctioned by the] court, he is exempt from making reparation. It happened once that a cow's womb was removed and Rabbi Tarfon gave it [the cow] to the dogs to eat. The matter came before the sages at Yavneh and they permitted the animal. Todos the physician said: no cow or pig leaves Alexandria of Egypt before its womb is removed in order that it may not breed. Rabbi Tarfon said: “There goes your donkey, Tarfon.” Rabbi Akiva said to him: you are exempt, for you are an expert and whoever is an expert sanctioned by the court is exempt from reparation.

A scroll on which the writing has become erased and eighty-five letters remain, as many as are in the section beginning, "And it came to pass when the ark set forward" (Numbers 10:35-36) defiles the hands. A single sheet on which there are written eighty-five letters, as many as are in the section beginning, "And it came to pass when the ark set forward", defiles the hands. All the Holy Scriptures defile the hands. The Song of Songs and Kohelet (Ecclesiastes) defile the hands. Rabbi Judah says: the Song of Songs defiles the hands, but there is a dispute about Kohelet. Rabbi Yose says: Kohelet does not defile the hands, but there is a dispute about the Song of Songs. Rabbi Shimon says: [the ruling about] Kohelet is one of the leniencies of Bet Shammai and one of the stringencies of Bet Hillel. Rabbi Shimon ben Azzai said: I have received a tradition from the seventy-two elders on the day when they appointed Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah head of the academy that the Song of Songs and Kohelet defile the hands. Rabbi Akiba said: Far be it! No man in Israel disputed that the Song of Songs [saying] that it does not defile the hands. For the whole world is not as worthy as the day on which the Song of Songs was given to Israel; for all the writings are holy but the Song of Songs is the holy of holies. If they had a dispute, they had a dispute only about Kohelet. Rabbi Yohanan ben Joshua the son of the father-in-law of Rabbi Akiva said in accordance with the words of Ben Azzai: so they disputed and so they reached a decision.

It is a condition of Joshua that one may collect grasses everywhere except in a field of fenugreek. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman: The Mishnah deals with him who sowed for sheaves. But did we not state: “One is not required to weed … fenugreek in which grasses appeared?” Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in his own name: “When it grew for seeds.” Rebbi Yose said, did Joshua come only to help sinners? If he committed a sin, it is forbidden as robbery, if he did not commit a sin it is permitted in respect to robbery. Hence, there is no difference whether he sowed for seeds or for sheaves. But did we not state: “One is not required to weed … fenugreek in which grasses appeared?” If he intends to use the grasses, one should oblige him to weed! Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Miasha: He would be happy if they were torn out and lying before him. Rebbi Yose did not say so, but in the end he approves that they should be torn out and lying before him. But then, if somebody found kilaim in a vineyard, they should be forbidden as robbery since in the end he desires that they should be torn out and lie before him! There, he has the means to bring it in, here he does not have the means to bring it in. Rav Naḥman said that Rebbi Mana asked: Think about it, if he had another field of fenugreek close by, then he has the means to bring it in! The words of the rabbis disagree, since Rebbi Zeriqan said in the name of the House of Yannai: All aftergrowth is forbidden except for that which appears on a fallow field, a field ready to be ploughed under, and a vineyard. He should have added, except for a field of fenugreek sown for the production of seeds! Rebbi Yose said, the words of Rebbi Joḥanan support me. It happened that somebody bought a garden plot of vegetables from a Gentile. He came and asked Rebbi Joḥanan, who said to him, go, harvest and sell at the going rate. Rebbi Abbahu objected before Rebbi Joḥanan: Did we not state: “or the threshing place on which many kinds are appearing?” He said to him, that place proves that he does not want them to exist. Could he not have answered, the one is like robbery, the other is permitted with respect to robbery? How can you object based on a scenario where it is forbidden as robbery to a decision in a case which is permitted with respect to robbery? It is as Rebbi Immi said, they were rich in answers. Or it is as Rebbi Nasa said, like a person who has two reasons but he answers only with one of them.

When is it impure because of territory of Gentiles? Rebbi Simeon said, if the decision stands for forty days. Rebbi Jeremiah said, did we not hold it by error? Certainly it is immediately impure because of territory of the Gentiles! Rebbi Mana said, did not Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa say in the name of Rebbi Zeïra: Since we have stated “the gardens of Ascalon” it follows that Ascalon is outside. Is it not forbidden to go to Tyre and is the one who buys there not obligated? They voted to exempt it from tithes that you should not say the same in this case.

Did not Rabbi Abbahu say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If he is in error about fat but intentional about a sacrifice, he can be warned, is whipped, and brings a sacrifice. Say also here, if he has intention about heave but is inadvertent about the fifth, one should warn him and he should be whipped and bring a fifth. Rebbi Zeїra said, it is a decision of the verse, “if somebody eats heave in error,” that all his eating should be in error. If he is intentional in doubt it is as if he is unintentional in his certainty. Rebbi Yose said, this means that if somebody forgot after he knew, he is guilty unintentionally.

Rebbi Yannai said, the Mishnah is split. If there is the size of an olive but it is not worth a peruṭah, he pays to the Sanctuary. If it is worth a peruṭah but is not the size of an olive, he pays to the tribe. If it is the size of an olive and is worth a peruṭah, Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, he pays to the Sanctuary. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he pays to the tribe. Rebbi Zeïra said, it is a decision of the verse (Lev. 22:14): “If somebody should eat consecrated food in error,” where the principal goes, there the fifth has to go. Cahana said, he pays two fifths, one to the tribe and one to the Sanctuary.

Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: The hot, the bitter, and the sweet are not under the rules for being uncovered. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: The hot, the bitter, and the sweet are not under the rules for being uncovered or under those of libation wine. Rebbi Simeon explains: The hot, spice wine. And the bitter, vermouth wine. And the sweet, cooked wine. Rebbi Joshua ben Zeidal had cooked wine which was left unsupervised in the possession of a Gentile. He asked Rebbi Yannai ben Rebbi Ismael who said to him, so says Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: The sweet is not under the rules for being uncovered or under those of libation wine. Rebbi Yannai ben Rebbi Ismael fell ill. Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Hoshaiah, Rebbi Abun bar Cahana, and Rebbi Ḥananiah the colleague of the rabbis went to visit him. They saw that Rebbi Joshua ben Zeidal was sitting [there]. They said, there is the master of the decision and the person of the happening; they went and asked him. Rebbi Yannai ben Rebbi Ismael said to them, so says Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, the sweet is not under the rules for being uncovered or under those of libation wine. Rebbi Zeïra said to him, maybe that statement of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is for argument’s sake? He told him no, it is for action and you can rely on me. When they came back, there was Rebbi Hila standing with Rebbi Abun bar Cahana. He told him, if you did not prefer decisions, is it not a baraita? Since Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: “Why is cooked wine of Gentiles forbidden? Because it started out as wine. Why is vinegar of Gentiles forbidden? Because it started out as wine.” Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah says so: “wine and vinegar of Gentiles which originally was wine.”

So far following Rebbi Aqiba, following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Ismael, an argument a minore ad majus. If heave which is forbidden to outsiders can be lifted, ‘orlah which is permitted to outsiders, not so much more? No, if you said that about heave whose use is permitted, what can you say about ‘orlah whose use is prohibited! Rebbi Ḥinena: “Fruit, fruit” as equal decision.

HALAKHAH: Circumcising he shall circumcise. A decision for two circumcisions, one for the circumcision, the other for uncovering. One for circumcision, the other for the fibers. So far following Rebbi Aqiba who said, these are expressions of additions. From where for Rebbi Ismael who said, these are double expressions in the style of the Torah, going I went, desiring you desired, stealing (you were) stolen? Rebbi Judah ben Pazi said, then she said, a blood bridegroom for circumcisions, from there that there are two circumcisions, one for the circumcision, the other for uncovering; one for circumcision, the other for the fibers. Rav said, circumcising he shall circumcise, from here that one has to draw a drop of covenant blood from one born circumcised. Circumcising he shall circumcise, from here that an uncircumcised Jew cannot circumcise; not to speak of an uncircumcised Gentile. Rebbi Levi said, it is written: But you have to keep My Covenant, you and yours.

There are Tannaim who state that all of them are inferred from the Pesaḥ. There are Tannaim who state that each of them is inferred from its place. He who said that all of them are inferred from the Pesaḥ, since at its fixed time which is said (here) [about Pesaḥ pushes impurity aside, also at its fixed time which is written about all of them] pushes impurity aside. He who said that each of them is inferred from its place, from where does he have it? It comes as it is stated: “Rebbi says, why does the verse say, Moses told the holidays of the Eternal. Since we learned only about Pesaḥ and the daily sacrifices that they push the Sabbath aside, since it is said about them at its fixed time, from where the rest of public offerings? The verse says, these you shall offer to the Eternal at your fixed times. For the Omer and what is brought with it, and for the Two Breads and what is brought with them, we have no information. But since it is said, Moses told the holidays of the Eternal to the Children of Israel, this fixed it as obligation that all of them have to be offered in impurity.” Just as they are brought in impurity, should they not be eaten in impurity? It is a decision of the verse: Any meat that touched anything impure may not be eaten. One would say that the same is valid for the Pesaḥ. This is different since from the start this is what it is for.

Rebbi Eleazar said, παρά βασιλέως ‘ο νόμος ʼάγραφος. Usually in the world a king of flesh and blood decides a decision. If he desires it, he keeps it. If he desires it, others keep it. But the Holy One, praise to Him, is not so but if He decides a decision He keeps it first. What is the reason? They have to keep My watch, I am the Eternal, I am He Who keeps the commandments of the Torah first. Rebbi Simon said, it is written, before white hairs you have to stand, and honor the presence of an elderly person, and to fear your God, I am the Eternal. I am He Who first stood before an elderly person. Rebbi Simon said, it is written: for who is a great people which has just laws and ordinances, etc. <For who is this great people that has God close to it.> Rebbi Ḥama ben Rebbi Ḥanina and Rebbi Hoshaia. One said, is there a people like this people? Usually in the world a person who knows that he will stand in trial dresses in black, wears black headdress, and lets his beard grow, since he does not know how his trial will end. But Israel are not so, but they wear white, wear white headdress, cut their beard, eat, and drink, and are happy. They know that the Holy One, praise to Him, will perform wonders for them. But the other one said, is there a people like this people? Usually in the world if the ruler says, the trial is today, but the robber says, tomorrow is the trial, whom does one listen to, not the ruler? But the Holy One, praise to Him, is not like this. If the Court said, today is New Year’s Day, the Holy One, praise to Him, says to the angels of service, put up the dais, [summon defenders, summon accusers, for My children said that today is New Year’s Day.] If the Court took counsel to transfer it to the next day, the Holy One, praise to Him, says to the angels of service, remove the dais, remove the defenders, remove the accusers, for My children took counsel to transfer to tomorrow. What is the reason? Certainly, it is a rule for Israel, a law of the God of Jacob. If it is not a rule for Israel, so to speak it is not a law for the God of Jacob. Rebbi Crispus in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: In the past, the festive times of the Eternal, from then and onwards which You shall declare. Rebbi Ila said, if you declare them they are My festive times, otherwise they are not My festive times. Rebbi Simon said, it is written, great things You did, You, Eternal my God, Your wonders and intentions regarding us. In the past, great things You did; from then onwards, Your wonders and intentions regarding us. Rebbi <Joshua ben> Levi said, a parable of a king who had a watch; when his son came of age, he handed it to him. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, a parable of a king who had a watch-box; when his son came of age, he handed it to him. Rebbi Aḥa said, a parable of a king who had a ring; when his son came of age, he handed it to him. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, a parable of a carpenter who had carpenter’s tools; when his son came of age, he handed them to him. Rebbi Isaac said, a parable of a king who had treasures; when his son came of age, he handed them to him. But the rabbis say, a parable of a healer who had a box of medicines; when his son came of age, he handed it to him.

Rebbi Eleazar said, παρά βασιλέως ‘ο νόμος ʼάγραφος. Usually in the world a king of flesh and blood decides a decision. If he desires it, he keeps it. If he desires it, others keep it. But the Holy One, praise to Him, is not so but if He decides a decision He keeps it first. What is the reason? They have to keep My watch, I am the Eternal, I am He Who keeps the commandments of the Torah first. Rebbi Simon said, it is written, before white hairs you have to stand, and honor the presence of an elderly person, and to fear your God, I am the Eternal. I am He Who first stood before an elderly person. Rebbi Simon said, it is written: for who is a great people which has just laws and ordinances, etc. <For who is this great people that has God close to it.> Rebbi Ḥama ben Rebbi Ḥanina and Rebbi Hoshaia. One said, is there a people like this people? Usually in the world a person who knows that he will stand in trial dresses in black, wears black headdress, and lets his beard grow, since he does not know how his trial will end. But Israel are not so, but they wear white, wear white headdress, cut their beard, eat, and drink, and are happy. They know that the Holy One, praise to Him, will perform wonders for them. But the other one said, is there a people like this people? Usually in the world if the ruler says, the trial is today, but the robber says, tomorrow is the trial, whom does one listen to, not the ruler? But the Holy One, praise to Him, is not like this. If the Court said, today is New Year’s Day, the Holy One, praise to Him, says to the angels of service, put up the dais, [summon defenders, summon accusers, for My children said that today is New Year’s Day.] If the Court took counsel to transfer it to the next day, the Holy One, praise to Him, says to the angels of service, remove the dais, remove the defenders, remove the accusers, for My children took counsel to transfer to tomorrow. What is the reason? Certainly, it is a rule for Israel, a law of the God of Jacob. If it is not a rule for Israel, so to speak it is not a law for the God of Jacob. Rebbi Crispus in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: In the past, the festive times of the Eternal, from then and onwards which You shall declare. Rebbi Ila said, if you declare them they are My festive times, otherwise they are not My festive times. Rebbi Simon said, it is written, great things You did, You, Eternal my God, Your wonders and intentions regarding us. In the past, great things You did; from then onwards, Your wonders and intentions regarding us. Rebbi <Joshua ben> Levi said, a parable of a king who had a watch; when his son came of age, he handed it to him. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, a parable of a king who had a watch-box; when his son came of age, he handed it to him. Rebbi Aḥa said, a parable of a king who had a ring; when his son came of age, he handed it to him. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, a parable of a carpenter who had carpenter’s tools; when his son came of age, he handed them to him. Rebbi Isaac said, a parable of a king who had treasures; when his son came of age, he handed them to him. But the rabbis say, a parable of a healer who had a box of medicines; when his son came of age, he handed it to him.

“And on Tabernacles they are judged about water.” The Mishnah is Rebbi Aqiba’s, since Rebbi Aqiba said the pouring of water is a word of the Torah: On the second day and their libations. On the sixth say, and its libations. On the seventh day, and its rules. מ י מ “water”. The Torah said, bring first-fruit barley on Passover that your grain be blessed; bring first-fruit wheat on Pentecost that your tree fruits be blessed. Therefore say, water libation on Tabernacles that your water be blessed. Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai stated: If Israel were acceptable on New Year’s Day and ample rain was decided for them, but in the end they sinned. To reduce it is impossible [since the decision had been rendered.] What does the Holy One, praise to Him, do? He disperses it into oceans, deserts, and rivers, so that the earth have no benefit from it. What is the reason? To let rain on manless earth, desert no human in it. If Israel were not acceptable on New Year’s Day and scarce rain was decided for them, but in the end they repented. To augment it is impossible [since the decision had been rendered.] What does the Holy One, praise to Him, do? He brings it down appropriately for the land and blows dew and winds so that the earth benefit from it. What is the reason? Its furrows make fertile, bring down its bundles, make it fat by soft rains, bless its growth. Aridity, also heat, will steal the snow waters; they sinned to the pit. The sins which they committed during the summer robbed them of the snow waters. It is written: Always the eyes of the Eternal, your God, are on it, from the start of the year. Cahana said, it is written “from poverty.” He lets it suffer at the beginning and gives it a good future at the end.

“And on Tabernacles they are judged about water.” The Mishnah is Rebbi Aqiba’s, since Rebbi Aqiba said the pouring of water is a word of the Torah: On the second day and their libations. On the sixth say, and its libations. On the seventh day, and its rules. מ י מ “water”. The Torah said, bring first-fruit barley on Passover that your grain be blessed; bring first-fruit wheat on Pentecost that your tree fruits be blessed. Therefore say, water libation on Tabernacles that your water be blessed. Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai stated: If Israel were acceptable on New Year’s Day and ample rain was decided for them, but in the end they sinned. To reduce it is impossible [since the decision had been rendered.] What does the Holy One, praise to Him, do? He disperses it into oceans, deserts, and rivers, so that the earth have no benefit from it. What is the reason? To let rain on manless earth, desert no human in it. If Israel were not acceptable on New Year’s Day and scarce rain was decided for them, but in the end they repented. To augment it is impossible [since the decision had been rendered.] What does the Holy One, praise to Him, do? He brings it down appropriately for the land and blows dew and winds so that the earth benefit from it. What is the reason? Its furrows make fertile, bring down its bundles, make it fat by soft rains, bless its growth. Aridity, also heat, will steal the snow waters; they sinned to the pit. The sins which they committed during the summer robbed them of the snow waters. It is written: Always the eyes of the Eternal, your God, are on it, from the start of the year. Cahana said, it is written “from poverty.” He lets it suffer at the beginning and gives it a good future at the end.

HALAKHAH: “Simeon ben Shataḥ sent to him and told him, you should be excommunicated.” For if there had been a decision made as it was decided in the days of Elijah, would you not have caused a desecration of the Name in public? And everybody who causes a public desecration of the Name must be excommunicated. [There, we have stated: Rabban Gamliel sent to him, if you hinder the public you will cause a deluge. Would you not hinder the public from performing a meritorious act? And any who would hinder the public from performing a meritorious act must be excommunicated.] He answered him, but does not the Holy One, praise to Him, cancel His decision because of the decision of a just person? He said to him, [yes]. The Holy One, praise to Him, may cancel His decision because of the decision of a just person, but He will not cancel the decision of one just person because of the decision of his just colleague.

HALAKHAH: “Simeon ben Shataḥ sent to him and told him, you should be excommunicated.” For if there had been a decision made as it was decided in the days of Elijah, would you not have caused a desecration of the Name in public? And everybody who causes a public desecration of the Name must be excommunicated. [There, we have stated: Rabban Gamliel sent to him, if you hinder the public you will cause a deluge. Would you not hinder the public from performing a meritorious act? And any who would hinder the public from performing a meritorious act must be excommunicated.] He answered him, but does not the Holy One, praise to Him, cancel His decision because of the decision of a just person? He said to him, [yes]. The Holy One, praise to Him, may cancel His decision because of the decision of a just person, but He will not cancel the decision of one just person because of the decision of his just colleague.

HALAKHAH: “Simeon ben Shataḥ sent to him and told him, you should be excommunicated.” For if there had been a decision made as it was decided in the days of Elijah, would you not have caused a desecration of the Name in public? And everybody who causes a public desecration of the Name must be excommunicated. [There, we have stated: Rabban Gamliel sent to him, if you hinder the public you will cause a deluge. Would you not hinder the public from performing a meritorious act? And any who would hinder the public from performing a meritorious act must be excommunicated.] He answered him, but does not the Holy One, praise to Him, cancel His decision because of the decision of a just person? He said to him, [yes]. The Holy One, praise to Him, may cancel His decision because of the decision of a just person, but He will not cancel the decision of one just person because of the decision of his just colleague.

HALAKHAH: “Simeon ben Shataḥ sent to him and told him, you should be excommunicated.” For if there had been a decision made as it was decided in the days of Elijah, would you not have caused a desecration of the Name in public? And everybody who causes a public desecration of the Name must be excommunicated. [There, we have stated: Rabban Gamliel sent to him, if you hinder the public you will cause a deluge. Would you not hinder the public from performing a meritorious act? And any who would hinder the public from performing a meritorious act must be excommunicated.] He answered him, but does not the Holy One, praise to Him, cancel His decision because of the decision of a just person? He said to him, [yes]. The Holy One, praise to Him, may cancel His decision because of the decision of a just person, but He will not cancel the decision of one just person because of the decision of his just colleague.

HALAKHAH: “Simeon ben Shataḥ sent to him and told him, you should be excommunicated.” For if there had been a decision made as it was decided in the days of Elijah, would you not have caused a desecration of the Name in public? And everybody who causes a public desecration of the Name must be excommunicated. [There, we have stated: Rabban Gamliel sent to him, if you hinder the public you will cause a deluge. Would you not hinder the public from performing a meritorious act? And any who would hinder the public from performing a meritorious act must be excommunicated.] He answered him, but does not the Holy One, praise to Him, cancel His decision because of the decision of a just person? He said to him, [yes]. The Holy One, praise to Him, may cancel His decision because of the decision of a just person, but He will not cancel the decision of one just person because of the decision of his just colleague.

HALAKHAH: “Simeon ben Shataḥ sent to him and told him, you should be excommunicated.” For if there had been a decision made as it was decided in the days of Elijah, would you not have caused a desecration of the Name in public? And everybody who causes a public desecration of the Name must be excommunicated. [There, we have stated: Rabban Gamliel sent to him, if you hinder the public you will cause a deluge. Would you not hinder the public from performing a meritorious act? And any who would hinder the public from performing a meritorious act must be excommunicated.] He answered him, but does not the Holy One, praise to Him, cancel His decision because of the decision of a just person? He said to him, [yes]. The Holy One, praise to Him, may cancel His decision because of the decision of a just person, but He will not cancel the decision of one just person because of the decision of his just colleague.

HALAKHAH: “Simeon ben Shataḥ sent to him and told him, you should be excommunicated.” For if there had been a decision made as it was decided in the days of Elijah, would you not have caused a desecration of the Name in public? And everybody who causes a public desecration of the Name must be excommunicated. [There, we have stated: Rabban Gamliel sent to him, if you hinder the public you will cause a deluge. Would you not hinder the public from performing a meritorious act? And any who would hinder the public from performing a meritorious act must be excommunicated.] He answered him, but does not the Holy One, praise to Him, cancel His decision because of the decision of a just person? He said to him, [yes]. The Holy One, praise to Him, may cancel His decision because of the decision of a just person, but He will not cancel the decision of one just person because of the decision of his just colleague.

“The child.” Rebbi Jeremiah and Rebbi Ayvo bar Naggari were sitting. They said, we have stated: Who is a child? Any who cannot ride on his father’s shoulder.” And can a child hear and can a child speak? They turned around and said, all your males, to include the child. Or should we say, to include the deaf-mute? So they should hear and learn, to exclude (the child) [the deaf-mute. Or should we say, so they should hear and learn, to exclude the child?] Rebbi Yose said, since one verse excludes and one verse includes, I am including the child who will be able to come in the future, and excluding the deaf-mute who will not be able to come in the future. Samuel bar Abba asked before Rebbi Ze`ira: May a deaf-mute child be liable? He said to him, come and see; the permanent dweller (in Heaven) [on earth] and the traveller in the highest Heaven? Since an adult deaf-mute is not liable, a child deaf-mute not a fortiori? Rebbi Jeremiah said, it would have been logical that a child who is no deaf-mute should be not liable. It is the decision of the verse, all your males, to include the child. I would say, but a (child) [adult] deaf-mute should be liable, not to split the practice of males. Therefore what Rebbi Yose said is necessary: since one verse excludes and one verse includes, I am including the child who will be able to come in the future, and excluding the deaf-mute who will not be able to come in the future.

Rebbi Joshua ben Levi sent for a man three times but he did not come. He sent, saying to him, if I had not ever excommunicated a person, I would have excommunicated this man since for 24 reasons one excommunicates and this is one of them: The entire property of anybody who will not come within three days following the council of ministers and Elders shall be confiscated and he shall be separated from the community of the Diaspora. Rebbi Isaac ben Rebbi Eleazar said, there are many more of these dispersed in the Mishnah. There, we have stated: “Simeon ben Shataḥ sent to him and told him, you should be excommunicated.” For if there had been a decision made as it was decided in the days of Elijah, [would you not have caused a desecration of the Name in public? And everybody who causes a public desecration of the Name must be excommunicated. There, we have stated: Rabban Gamliel sent to him, if you hinder the public you will create a future stumbling block for the public;] would not prevent the public from performing a meritorious act? And any who would hinder the public from performing a meritorious act must be excommunicated.

“Circumcising he shall circumcise.” A decision for two circumcisions, one for the circumcision, the other for the uncovering. One for the uncovering, the other for the fibers. So far following Rebbi Aqiba who said, these are expressions of additions. From where for Rebbi Ismael who said, these are double expressions in the style of the Torah, “going you went, desiring you desired, by stealing I was stolen”? Rebbi Judah bar Pazi said, “then she said, a blood bridegroom for circumcisions,” from here that there are two circumcisions, one for the circumcision, the other for the uncovering; one for the uncovering, the other for the fibers. Rav said, “circumcising he shall circumcise,” from here that one has to draw a drop of covenant blood from one born circumcised. “Circumcising he shall circumcise,” from here that an uncircumcised Jew cannot circumcise until he circumcises himself; not to speak of an uncircumcised Gentile. Rebbi Levi said, it is written: “But you have to keep my covenant.” You and yours.

MISHNAH: Rebbi Yose says, her ketubah is from the property of her first husband. Rebbi Eleazar says, the first [husband] is entitled to what she finds and earns and may annul her vows. Rebbi Simeon says, copulation with her or ḥaliṣah with her by a brother of the first [husband] frees her co-wives and a child from him is not a bastard; if she was married without permission she is permitted to return to him. If she married by a decision of the court, she must leave but is free from the sacrifice; without a decision of the court, she must leave but must bring the sacrifice. The power of the court frees her from the sacrifice. If the court instructed her to marry but she misbehaved, she must bring a sacrifice since they permitted her only to marry.

MISHNAH: Rebbi Yose says, her ketubah is from the property of her first husband. Rebbi Eleazar says, the first [husband] is entitled to what she finds and earns and may annul her vows. Rebbi Simeon says, copulation with her or ḥaliṣah with her by a brother of the first [husband] frees her co-wives and a child from him is not a bastard; if she was married without permission she is permitted to return to him. If she married by a decision of the court, she must leave but is free from the sacrifice; without a decision of the court, she must leave but must bring the sacrifice. The power of the court frees her from the sacrifice. If the court instructed her to marry but she misbehaved, she must bring a sacrifice since they permitted her only to marry.

HALAKHAH: “If she married by a decision of the court,” etc. Rebbi Abba: Rav Hamnuna and Rebbi Ze‘ira both say that this refers to the beginning of the chapter. What does Rebbi Yose say about the other matters? Let us hear from the following: “Rebbi Yose said, anything which disables for others disables for himself; anything which does not disable for others does not disable for himself.” And Rebbi Abba said, Rav Hamnuna and Rebbi Ze‘ira both say that this refers to the beginning of the chapter. This means that Rebbi Yose does not disagree about the other matters.

Would it not be reasonable that she should be permitted if she remarried with permission, forbidden if she remarried without permission? Rebbi Joḥanan said, the words of Rebbi Simeon [imply] that the court made their decision like intentional [relations between] man and woman, if she remarried without permission like erroneous [relations between] man and woman. Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is no “free” here but “obligated”. Rebbi Ḥaggai objected before Rebbi Yose: should it not be an act of instruction? When they instructed that it is permitted to sleep with an [otherwise] married woman. Is that not uprooting a principle? When they instructed that she is forbidden for five years, from then on permitted. Then it should be so if she misbehaved! Misbehaving is like eating fat or blood. When they instructed that fat is permitted and [she ate] blood.

The people of Simonia came to Rebbi and told him, please give us a man who preaches, judges, runs the synagogue, teaches reading, teaches Mishnah, and looks after all our needs. He gave them Levi bar Sisi. They made him a big platform and sat him on it. They came and asked him, how does the handless [woman] perform ḥalîṣah? He did not respond. If she spat blood” He did not respond. They said, maybe he is not competent in studies, let us ask him in homiletics. They came and asked him, what is that which is written: “Truly, I shall tell you what is traced in writing, it is true.” If it is true, why is it traced, and if traced, why is it true? He did not respond. They came to Rebbi and told him, that required one we asked you for? He told them, by your lives, I gave you one who is my equal! He sent to bring him and examined him. He asked him, what if she spat blood. He said, if it contains some fluid of spittle it is valid. How does the handless [woman] perform ḥalîṣah? He said, with her teeth. What is that which is written: “Truly, I shall tell you what is traced in writing, it is true.” If it is true, why is it traced, and if traced, why is it true? He said, until the decision of the court is sealed, it is traced. After it has been sealed, it is true. He asked him, and why did you not give any answers? He said to him, they made me a big platform and sat me on it; by that my spirit became bloated. He quoted about him: “If you became subject to contempt when you rose, if you planned, hand to mouth”; why did you become contemptible in the words of the Torah? That you used them to aggrandize yourself.

HALAKHAH: “A preliminarily married woman or one who waits for her brother-in-law,” etc. Why can he not make her drink? It is a decision of the verse: “The man shall bring his wife to the Cohen.” Then he should not be able to declare his jealousy! The Torah said, “and he declared his jealousy to his wife,” “and he declared his jealousy to his wife,” even if she is only partially his wife.

Why can he not make her drink? It is a decision of the verse: “The man shall bring his wife to the Cohen.” Then he should not be able to declare his jealousy! The Torah said, “and he declared his jealousy to his wife,” “and he declared his jealousy to his wife,” even if she is only partially his wife.

If the wine is freshly pressed, if the wine is sour? As it was stated: Sour wine may be used to make an eruv and participating, one makes a benediction for it, and one may use it for the preliminary marriage of a bride, for consoling the mourner, and it may be sold in a store as wine. If somebody made an unqualified contract for wine, he did not sell sour wine. One is prohibited from delivering a decision, or to dissolve a vow, or to enter the Temple. Only it is forbidden on the altar. And about the rebellious son it is problematic.

HALAKHAH: “If one of the bloods was sprinkled for her,” etc. He dissolves for her because of her hair. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: It is a decision of Scripture: “He dissolved her vows,” he dissolves what is on her. Whenever he dissolves her vow, he dissolves what is on her. Rebbi Eleazar said, it follows Rebbi Simeon. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is everybody’s opinion, after she was transferred from the prohibition to the positive commandment. The rabbis say, “afterwards, the nazir shall drink wine,” after all these actions. Rebbi Simeon says, even after a single action. Ḥizqiah said, the Mishnah supports Rebbi (Bevai). “When has this been said? If she shaves in purity. But if she shaves in impurity, he may dissolve since he can say, I cannot stand an unseemly wife.” Therefore, shaving in purity does not make her unseemly. Who holds that shaving does not make unseemly? Rebbi Simeon. Rebbi Yose bar Abun said, even Rebbi thinks so: “Rebbi says, he may dissolve even if she shaves [in purity], since he can say, I cannot stand a shorn wife.” Should he not say, I cannot stand an unseemly and shorn wife? Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi (Jehudah) said that only for the purification sacrifice, since a purification sacrifice would be invalid if not in her name. That means, as long as it is alive it is surrendered to Heaven only by slaughter.

“Except ‘do not destroy’, ‘do not shear,’ and ‘do not become impure for the dead’.” Issy says, also because of “do not make a bald spot.” What is the reason? “They shall not make a bald spot.” One subject to the rules of the beard is subject to the rules of the bald spot; women who have no beard are free from the rules of the bald spot. And also from the following: “sons,” not daughters. Rebbi Eleazar said, women are obligated by the rules of the bald spot. What is the reason? “For you are a holy people for the Eternal, your God.” Both men and women. How does Rebbi Eleazar explain “sons”? When they do the will of the Holy One, praise to Him, they are called sons, but when they do not do the will of the Holy One, praise to Him, they are not called sons. Rav was ordering his students, there came Rav Hamnuna ordering the colleagues: Order you wives not to tear out their hair when standing by a deceased, that they should not make a bald spot. What is a bald spot? There are Tannaïm who stated: Any size. There are Tannaïm who state: The size of a peeled grain. The one who says, any size, because the meaning of “bald spot” is of any size. The one who says, a peeled grain, for it is said here “to make a bald spot”, and it says there, a bald spot. Since “bald spot” mentioned there means in the size of a peeled grain, here also it means the size of a peeled grain. Rebbi Yose bar Mamal: A Cohenet is permitted to leave the Land. What is the reason? “Say to the Cohanim,” not to the Cohanot. If it were otherwise, what would we say? Since she is included in the decision, she may not leave. If you say so, you push aside the paragraph of impurities.

It is written: “The King said, I shall give.” “The King took the two sons of Riṣpah bat Ayah whom she had born to Saul, Admoni and Mephiboshet,” etc. “Michal, Saul’s daughter, did not have a child until the day of her death,” and you say so? Say now that they were sons of Merab but Michal raised them, so they were named after her. “He gave them into the hand of the Gibeonites who hanged them on the mountain before the Eternal; all seven fell together.” Defective without י. That refers to Mephiboshet ben Jonathan ben Saul, who was great in the Torah and David intended to save him from their hand. David said, I let them pass by the altar and anyone received by the altar will be mine. He let each pass by the altar, prayed for him, and the altar moved and received him. This is what is written: “I shall call to the Most High God, to the Power Who has the ultimate decision about me!” For the Holy One, praise to Him, agreed with David. “ They were killed on the first days of harvest;” it is written “the barley harvest.” “Riṣpah bat Ayah took a sack and laid it out on the rock.” What means: “On the rock”? Rebbi Hoshaia said, she was reciting: “The rock, perfect is His action.” Rebbi Abba bar Zamina in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Sanctification of the Name is greater than desecration of the Name. Referring to desecration of the Name it is written: “Do not leave his corpse on the gallows overnight.” But referring to sanctification of the Name it is written: “From the start of harvest until water was poured on them.” This teaches that they were hanging from the sixteenth of Nisan to the seventeenth of Marḥeshwan. The passers-by were saying: How did these people sin that the rules of justice were changed for them? They were answered: Because these had attacked attached proselytes. They would say that even for those who did not convert for the sake of Heaven, the Eternal avenged their blood; if one would convert for the sake of Heaven not so much more? There is no Power like your God and no people like your people. Many converts were converted at that time; that is what is written: “Solomon counted all proselytes and appointed from them 70’000 carriers and 80’000 hewers of stone in the mountains.”

Rav Huna said that in the days of Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah they tried to include them. Rebbi Abbahu inverts the wording: In the days of Rebbi Eleazar they said, who could purify the altar’s part? That implies that Joshua excluded them. He excluded them only as disqualified for marriage. If you would say, disqualified (because of sins) then the rapist of a Gibeonite girl should not have to pay the fine, but we have stated: The rapist of a Gibeonite girl has to pay the fine.” Rebbi Eleazar said, he cursed them as a snake, as it is said: “But now you are cursed.” And it is written: “The people of Israel said to the Ḥiwwite.” But were they Ḥiwwites? They acted like the snake which said, I know that the Holy One, praise to Him, did say “because on the day you eat from it, you will die a death.” I shall go and trick them so that they eat and will be punished and I shall inherit the earth for myself. So these people acted; they said, we know that the Holy One, praise to Him, said to Israel: “You shall certainly ban them, the Hittite, the Emorite, and the Perizite, as the Eternal, your God, has commanded you” And it is written: “You shall not conclude a covenant with them.” We shall go and trick them that they conclude a covenant with us. As you take it, if they kill us, they violate their oath. If they let us live, they violated the [divine] decision. In any case, they will be punished and we shall inherit the Land.

Rebbi Zachariah asked before Rebbi Immi: Does one act following that Tanna, as it was stated: “Rebbi Simeon ben Menassiah says, sometimes you are empowered to propose a compromise, sometimes you are not empowered to propose a compromise. How is this? Two come before a judge; before he heard their arguments, or after he heard their arguments but does not know how to correctly apply the law, he may tell them, go and work out a compromise. After you heard their arguments and know how to correctly apply the law, you may not propose a compromise, as it is said: One may remove the beginning of a quarrel like water; before it becomes manifest, the quarrel may be abandoned. Before the quarrel became manifest, you are permitted to abandon it; after the quarrel became manifest, you are not permitted to abandon it.” Rebbi Mattaniah said, even compromise needs intelligent decision.

Rebbi Abbahu asked: Following Rebbi Meïr, should an ox which is stoned have to pay damages by a court of three and be stoned by 23? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun told him, the rules of an ox which is stoned are all about money; it is a decision of the verse that it should be stoned.

“Capital crimes [are judged] by 23.” Rebbi Abbahu asked: Following Rebbi Meïr, should an ox which is stoned have to pay damages by a court of three and be stoned by 23? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun told him, the rules of an ox which is stoned are all about money; it is a decision of the verse that it should be stoned.

Rav Ḥisda asked: May one receive witnesses not in the presence of one of the parties? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Sabbatai: One may receive witnesses not in the presence of the parties and even issue a decision, but if [the absent party] appeals, their appeal must be heard. If a person was summoned by the court three times and did not appear, Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said that one may receive witnesses not in the presence of the parties and issue a decision. As the following: Cahana died and had willed his estate to Rebbi Joshia. Rebbi Eleazar heard witnesses not in the presence [of the heirs] and handed the estate to Rebbi Joshia. Not only that, but the estate contained Torah scrolls. Rebbi Eleazar wrote to his heirs: Scrolls won by the Land of Israel cannot be taken outside. Rebbi Nissai in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: If they were written for export, they can be exported. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba asked before Rebbi Yasa: May one export? He asked him, do you ask me in a practical case? He answered, no. Rebbi Zeˋira was dissatisfied that he had not asked in a practical case, to know what he would have said.

Rav Ḥisda asked: May one receive witnesses not in the presence of one of the parties? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Sabbatai: One may receive witnesses not in the presence of the parties and even issue a decision, but if [the absent party] appeals, their appeal must be heard. If a person was summoned by the court three times and did not appear, Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said that one may receive witnesses not in the presence of the parties and issue a decision. As the following: Cahana died and had willed his estate to Rebbi Joshia. Rebbi Eleazar heard witnesses not in the presence [of the heirs] and handed the estate to Rebbi Joshia. Not only that, but the estate contained Torah scrolls. Rebbi Eleazar wrote to his heirs: Scrolls won by the Land of Israel cannot be taken outside. Rebbi Nissai in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: If they were written for export, they can be exported. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba asked before Rebbi Yasa: May one export? He asked him, do you ask me in a practical case? He answered, no. Rebbi Zeˋira was dissatisfied that he had not asked in a practical case, to know what he would have said.

MISHNAH: When they have come to a decision, they bring the parties in. The chief judge says, Mr. X, you are not guilty, Mr. X, you are guilty. From where that afterwards, one may not say, I had found for you but my colleagues found you guilty, but what can I do since they were a majority against me? On such a one it was said: The gossip uncovers secrets.

HALAKHAH: “When they have come to a decision,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, one forces the one who finds guilty to write “not guilty.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish says, the one who finds guilty, writes “guilty”; the one who finds not guilty, writes “not guilty”. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: “From where that afterwards, one may not say, I had found for you but my colleagues found you guilty.” What does Rebbi Joḥanan do with this? That nobody could say, I really wanted to justify X in his suit but they did not let me do it. What is Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish’s reason? That no other person should come, reason as he did, and say, also that one was there and he erred.

MISHNAH: If they told him, produce witnesses; he said, I have no witness; produce proofs; he said, I have no proofs. If later he found a proof, or he found witnesses, this is irrelevant. Rabban Gamliel said, what should he do who did not know that he had witnesses but found witnesses; he did not know that he had proof, but he found proof? If they told him, produce witnesses; he said, I have no witness; produce proofs; he said, I have no proofs; when he saw that the decision would go against him he said, X and Y shall come and testify for me, or he produced proof from his money belt, this is irrelevant.

Rebbi Levi had a suit against a certain person about houses; they had it judged before Rebbi Eleazar. After a decision was reached he presented proof. He asked Rebbi Joḥanan, who told him, any time one brings proof he can demand a new trial. Rebbi Eumachos had a suit against a certain person about mills; they had it judged before Rebbi Eleazar. After a decision was reached he presented witnesses. He asked Rebbi Joḥanan, who said to him, is that still a problem for you? Any time one brings proof he can demand a new trial. Why did it need two cases? In Rebbi Levy’s case, no formal verdict had been rendered, in Rebbi Eumachos’s case, a formal verdict had been rendered.

Rebbi Levi had a suit against a certain person about houses; they had it judged before Rebbi Eleazar. After a decision was reached he presented proof. He asked Rebbi Joḥanan, who told him, any time one brings proof he can demand a new trial. Rebbi Eumachos had a suit against a certain person about mills; they had it judged before Rebbi Eleazar. After a decision was reached he presented witnesses. He asked Rebbi Joḥanan, who said to him, is that still a problem for you? Any time one brings proof he can demand a new trial. Why did it need two cases? In Rebbi Levy’s case, no formal verdict had been rendered, in Rebbi Eumachos’s case, a formal verdict had been rendered.

The king said, I shall give. The king took the two sons of Riṣpah bat Ayah. Michal, Saul’s daughter, did not have a child, and you say so? Say now that they were sons of Merab but Michal raised them, so they were named after her. The king gave them into the hand of the Gibeonites who hanged them on the mountain before the Eternal. All seven is written defective of one letter. That refers to Mephiboshet, for whom David prayed and whom the altar received. He told them, I let them pass by the altar and anyone whom the altar receives will be his, because of Mephiboshet who was great in Torah. He let him pass by the altar, which received him. Rebbi Avin said, I shall call to the Most High God, to the Power Who has the ultimate decision over me. For the Holy One, praise to Him, agreed with David. They were killed on the day of harvest …at the start of the barley harvest. Riṣpah bat Ayah took a garment and laid it out on the rock. What means on the rock? Rebbi Hoshaia said, she was reciting: The rock, perfect is His action. Rebbi Abba bar Zamina in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Sanctification of the Name is greater than desecration of the Name. Referring to sanctification of the Name it is written: Do not leave his corpse overnight. But referring to desecration of the Name it is written that they were left hanging until water was poured on them. This teaches that they were hanging from the sixteenth of Nisan to the seventeenth of Marḥeshwan. The passers-by were saying: How did these people sin that the rules of justice were changed for them? They were answered: Because these had attacked cursed proselytes. Is that not an argument de minore ad majus? Since even for those who did not convert for the sake of Heaven, the Eternal avenged their blood; if one would convert for the sake of Heaven not so much more? Many converts were converted at that time; that is what is written: Solomon counted all proselytes … and appointed from them 70’000 carriers, etc.

HALAKHAH: “The following Gentile properties are forbidden,” etc. Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Bitter, sweet, and hot are not under the rules of being uncovered. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: The hot, the bitter, and the sweet are not under the rules of being uncovered or under those of libation wine. Rebbi Simon explains: The hot, spice wine. The bitter, vermouth wine. And the sweet, cooked wine. Rebbi Joshua ben Zeidal had cooked wine which was left unsupervised in the custudy of a Gentile. He asked Rebbi Yannai ben Rebbi Ismael who said to him, so says Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: The sweet is not under the rules of being uncovered or under those of libation wine. Rebbi Yannai ben Rebbi Ismael fell ill. Rebbi Ze`ira, Rebbi (Joshua) [Hoshaia], Rebbi Abun bar Cahana, and Rebbi Ḥanianiah the colleague of the rabbis, went to visit him. They saw Rebbi Joshua ben Zeidal sitting there. They said, there is the master of the decision and the person of the happening, let us ask him. He said to them, so says Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, the sweet is not under the rules of being uncovered or under those of libation wine. One said to him, maybe that of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is for argument’s sake? He told them, it is for action and you can rely on it. When (they got up) [returned], Rebbi Ila was standing with Rebbi Abun bar Cahana and told him, if you did not prefer decisions, is this not a baraita? As Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, “why is cooked wine of Gentiles forbidden? Because it started out as wine.” Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah says so, “wine and vinegar which originally was wine.”

“Rebbi Eliezer says, the timing of any woman who misses three periods is exact.” But we stated on this: They said to him, the Sages said this only for the old woman. But did we not state: “Rebbi Eliezer said, it happened with a girl in Aitlo that she missed for three periods and then had a period. When the case came before the Sages, they said that her timing was exact.” They said to him, you were underage, and an underage boy cannot testify. Once did Rebbi decide to follow Rebbi Eliezer and he regretted it. Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose: Come and see, when he instructed following the leniencies of Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Yose, he did not regret it, but in this case he regretted? He said to him, there we deal with isolated opinions. You can say, we add his opinion to that of Rebbi Meïr to form a plurality against Rebbi Yose, and we add his opinion to that of Rebbi Yose to form a plurality against Rebbi Meïr; can you say here that we add his opinion to that of Rebbi Eliezer to form a plurality against the Sages? And in addition, it was stated on this: “It was an emergency decision.”

When Rabin came he said in the name of R. Yohanan: Both this one and that one for seven days. R. Yoseph said: Hold fast to the decision of Rabbah b. Bar Hana, since with regard to Sukkah, all the amoraim adopt the same position as he.

What is the decision? R. Nahman said: We say [the blessing of the] season on the Eighth Day of the Festival But R. Shesheth said: We do not say [the blessing of the] season on the Eighth Day of the Festival. And the law is that we say [the blessing of the] season on the Eighth Day of the Festival.

R. Joseph said: Accept the version of R. Bibi, since it is Shmuel who rules according to the view of a minority opinion, as we have learned: ‘If a woman was waiting for the yavam [to make his decision], and a [younger] brother of his betrothed her sister, in the name of R. Judah b. Batera they said: They say to him, Wait till your elder brother acts [one way or the other];