denar

One who possesses two hundred zuz, may not take gleanings” the forgotten sheaf, peah or the poor man’s tithe. If he possesses two hundred minus one denar, then even if a thousand [men] each give him at the same time, he may accept. If he had [two hundred zuz] mortgaged to a creditor or to his wife’s ketubah, he may take. They do not force him to sell his house or his tools.

One who exchanges a sela of second tithe in Jerusalem: Bet Shammai says: he may exchange the whole sela for copper coins. Bet Hillel says: a shekel of silver and a shekel’s worth of copper coins [can be exchanged for the sela]. Those discussing before the sages say: silver for three dinars and copper coins for one denar. Rabbi Akiva says: silver for three denars and copper coins for a fourth [of the fourth denar]. Rabbi Tarfon says: four aspers in silver. Shammai says: he must leave it in a shop and eat as much as it is worth.

One who exchanges a sela of second tithe in Jerusalem: Bet Shammai says: he may exchange the whole sela for copper coins. Bet Hillel says: a shekel of silver and a shekel’s worth of copper coins [can be exchanged for the sela]. Those discussing before the sages say: silver for three dinars and copper coins for one denar. Rabbi Akiva says: silver for three denars and copper coins for a fourth [of the fourth denar]. Rabbi Tarfon says: four aspers in silver. Shammai says: he must leave it in a shop and eat as much as it is worth.

One who says: “Behold, I am obligated to bring wood”, he may not bring less than two logs. [If he says: “Behold, I am obligated to bring] frankincense”, he may not bring less than a handful of it. [If he says: “Behold, I am obligated to bring] gold”, he may not bring less than a gold denar. “On six [was inscribed] “for freewill-offerings”: What was done with the freewill-offerings? They would buy with them burnt-offerings, the flesh [of which] was for the name [of God] and the hides for the priests. The following is the midrash which was expounded by Yehoyada the high priest: “It is a guilt-offering; it is a guilt offering, it goes to the Lord” (Leviticus 5:19). This is the general rule: anything which is brought because of a sin or because of guilt, they should purchase with it burnt offerings, the flesh [of which] was for the name [of God] and the hides for the priests. Thus the two verses are fulfilled: a guilt offering for the Lord and a guilt offering for the priests, and it says: “Money brought as a guilt offering or as a sin offering was not deposited in the House of the Lord; it went to the priests” (II Kings 12:17).

If a woman agreed to bring her husband one thousand denarii he must agree to give her a corresponding sum of fifteen maneh. As a corresponding sum for appraised goods, he agrees to give one-fifth less. [If a husband is requested to enter in his wife's ketubah] “goods assessed at one maneh”, and these are in fact worth a maneh, he only [must agree to] a maneh. [Otherwise, if he is requested to enter in the ketubah:] “goods assessed at a maneh”, his wife must give him thirty-one sela and a denar, and if “at four hundred”, she must give [him goods valued at] five hundred. Whatever a bridegroom agrees to give [his wife in her ketubah] he writes one fifth less [than the appraised value].

If a man was married to two wives and they died, and subsequently he died, and the orphans [of one of the wives] claim their mother’s kethubah and there is only enough for the two kethuboth,[all the orphans] they divide it equally. If there was a surplus of [at least] one dinar, these take their mother’s ketubah and these take their mothers ketubah. If the orphans [of one of the wives] says, “We are raising the estate of our father by a denar [more than the total amount of the kethuboth]”, in order that they can take their mother's kethubah, they are not listened to, rather the estate is evaluated by the court.

If there was property that would soon belong to the estate, it is not [regarded] as [property held] in possession. Rabbi Shimon says: even if there was movable property it is not regarded unless there was real estate worth one denar more than [the total amount of] the two kethuboth.

If a widow whose ketubah was two hundred zuz sold [land] worth a maneh for two hundred zuz or [land] worth two hundred zuz for one maneh, she has received her ketubah. If her kethubah was one maneh, and she sold [land] worth a maneh and a denar’ for one maneh, her sale is void. Even if she says, “I will return the denar to the heirs”, her sale is void. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: her sale is always valid unless there was so much land there as to allow her to leave a field of nine kab, and from a garden an area of half a kab, or, according to Rabbi Akiba, a quarter of a kab. If her ketubah was four hundred zuz and she sold [land] to [three] persons, to each for one maneh, and to a fourth [she sold] what was worth a maneh and a denar for one maneh, [the sale] to the last person is void but [the sale] to all the others are valid.

If a widow whose ketubah was two hundred zuz sold [land] worth a maneh for two hundred zuz or [land] worth two hundred zuz for one maneh, she has received her ketubah. If her kethubah was one maneh, and she sold [land] worth a maneh and a denar’ for one maneh, her sale is void. Even if she says, “I will return the denar to the heirs”, her sale is void. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: her sale is always valid unless there was so much land there as to allow her to leave a field of nine kab, and from a garden an area of half a kab, or, according to Rabbi Akiba, a quarter of a kab. If her ketubah was four hundred zuz and she sold [land] to [three] persons, to each for one maneh, and to a fourth [she sold] what was worth a maneh and a denar for one maneh, [the sale] to the last person is void but [the sale] to all the others are valid.

If a widow whose ketubah was two hundred zuz sold [land] worth a maneh for two hundred zuz or [land] worth two hundred zuz for one maneh, she has received her ketubah. If her kethubah was one maneh, and she sold [land] worth a maneh and a denar’ for one maneh, her sale is void. Even if she says, “I will return the denar to the heirs”, her sale is void. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: her sale is always valid unless there was so much land there as to allow her to leave a field of nine kab, and from a garden an area of half a kab, or, according to Rabbi Akiba, a quarter of a kab. If her ketubah was four hundred zuz and she sold [land] to [three] persons, to each for one maneh, and to a fourth [she sold] what was worth a maneh and a denar for one maneh, [the sale] to the last person is void but [the sale] to all the others are valid.

[If he says,] “The gold denar that comes into my hand first shall be consecrated”, and a silver denar came to his hand: Beth Shammai says: it is consecrated, Beth Hillel says: it is not consecrated. [If he says,] “The cask of wine that comes into may hand first shall be consecrated,” and a cask of oil came into his hand: Beth Shammai says: it is consecrated, Beth Hillel says: it is not consecrated.

[If he says,] “The gold denar that comes into my hand first shall be consecrated”, and a silver denar came to his hand: Beth Shammai says: it is consecrated, Beth Hillel says: it is not consecrated. [If he says,] “The cask of wine that comes into may hand first shall be consecrated,” and a cask of oil came into his hand: Beth Shammai says: it is consecrated, Beth Hillel says: it is not consecrated.

A woman is acquired in three ways and acquires herself in two: She is acquired by money, by document, or by intercourse. “By money”: Bet Shammai says: a denar or the equivalent of a denar; Bet Hillel says: a perutah or the equivalent of a perutah. And how much is a perutah? An eighth of an Italian issar. And she acquires herself by divorce or by her husband's death. A yevamah is acquired by intercourse. And she acquires herself by halitzah or by the yavam’s death.

A woman is acquired in three ways and acquires herself in two: She is acquired by money, by document, or by intercourse. “By money”: Bet Shammai says: a denar or the equivalent of a denar; Bet Hillel says: a perutah or the equivalent of a perutah. And how much is a perutah? An eighth of an Italian issar. And she acquires herself by divorce or by her husband's death. A yevamah is acquired by intercourse. And she acquires herself by halitzah or by the yavam’s death.

[If a man says to a woman], “Be betrothed to me with this cup of wine,” and it is found to be of honey, or “of honey” and it is found to be of wine; “with this silver denar,” and it is found to be of gold, or “of gold” and it is found to be of silver; “on condition that I am wealthy,” and he is found to be poor, or “poor” and he is found to be rich, she is not betrothed. Rabbi Shimon says: if he deceives her to [her] advantage, she is betrothed.

A laborer may eat cucumbers even to a denar’s worth, and dates even to a denar’s worth. Rabbi Elazar ben Hisma says: “A laborer may not eat more than the value of his wages. But the Sages permit it, but they teach a man not to be gluttonous as to close the door against himself.

A laborer may eat cucumbers even to a denar’s worth, and dates even to a denar’s worth. Rabbi Elazar ben Hisma says: “A laborer may not eat more than the value of his wages. But the Sages permit it, but they teach a man not to be gluttonous as to close the door against himself.

“You have of mine a litra of gold”, [and he replies], “I have of yours only a litra of silver,” he is exempt. “You have of mine a golden denar”, [and he replies], “I have of yours only a silver denar, or a tresis, or a pundion, or a perutah”, he is liable, for all are one kind of coinage. “You have of mine a kor of grain”, [and he replies], “I have of yours only a letek of beans”, he is exempt. “You have of mine a kor of produce”, [and he replies], “I have of yours only a letek of beans,” he is liable, for beans are included in produce. If he claimed from him wheat, and the other admitted barley, he is exempt. But Rabban Gamaliel makes him liable. If he claims from his neighbor jars of oil, and he admits [his claim to the empty] jars, Admon says, since he admits to him a portion of the same kind as the claim, he must swear. But the sages say, the admission is not of the same kind as the claim. Rabban Gamaliel said, “I approve the words of Admon. If he claims from him vessels and lands, and he admits the vessels, but denies the lands; or admits the lands, but denies the vessels, he is exempt. If he admits a portion of the lands, he is exempt; a portion of the vessels, he is liable because properties for which there is no security bind properties for which there is security to take an oath for them.

“You have of mine a litra of gold”, [and he replies], “I have of yours only a litra of silver,” he is exempt. “You have of mine a golden denar”, [and he replies], “I have of yours only a silver denar, or a tresis, or a pundion, or a perutah”, he is liable, for all are one kind of coinage. “You have of mine a kor of grain”, [and he replies], “I have of yours only a letek of beans”, he is exempt. “You have of mine a kor of produce”, [and he replies], “I have of yours only a letek of beans,” he is liable, for beans are included in produce. If he claimed from him wheat, and the other admitted barley, he is exempt. But Rabban Gamaliel makes him liable. If he claims from his neighbor jars of oil, and he admits [his claim to the empty] jars, Admon says, since he admits to him a portion of the same kind as the claim, he must swear. But the sages say, the admission is not of the same kind as the claim. Rabban Gamaliel said, “I approve the words of Admon. If he claims from him vessels and lands, and he admits the vessels, but denies the lands; or admits the lands, but denies the vessels, he is exempt. If he admits a portion of the lands, he is exempt; a portion of the vessels, he is liable because properties for which there is no security bind properties for which there is security to take an oath for them.

All whom the Torah obligates to take an oath, take an oath, and do not pay. But these take an oath, and receive [payment]: the hired laborer, he who has been robbed, he who has been wounded, and he whose opponent is suspected of taking a false oath, and the shopkeeper with his account book. “The hired laborer” How so? [If] he says to him [his employer], “Give me my wages which you owe me,” and he replies, “I have given,” and the other says, “I have not received it,” he [the laborer] takes an oath and collects his wages. Rabbi Judah says: “[There is no oath] unless there is partial admission: How so? If he says to him, “Give me my wages, fifty denarii, which you owe me,” and the other says, “You have received a gold denar (25 silver denar).”

All whom the Torah obligates to take an oath, take an oath, and do not pay. But these take an oath, and receive [payment]: the hired laborer, he who has been robbed, he who has been wounded, and he whose opponent is suspected of taking a false oath, and the shopkeeper with his account book. “The hired laborer” How so? [If] he says to him [his employer], “Give me my wages which you owe me,” and he replies, “I have given,” and the other says, “I have not received it,” he [the laborer] takes an oath and collects his wages. Rabbi Judah says: “[There is no oath] unless there is partial admission: How so? If he says to him, “Give me my wages, fifty denarii, which you owe me,” and the other says, “You have received a gold denar (25 silver denar).”

If he said to a shopkeeper, “Give me fruit for a denar,” and he gave him, and then the shopkeeper said to him, “Give me the denar”, and he replied to him, “I gave it to you, and you placed it in the till”, the customer takes an oath. If he gave him the denar, and said to him, “Give me the fruit,” and the shopkeeper says to him, “I have given it to you, and you took it to your house,” the shopkeeper takes an oath. Rabbi Judah says: “He who has the fruit in his possession, has the advantage.” If he said to a money-changer, “Give me change for a denar,” and he gave him; and said to him, “Give me the denar,” and the other said, “I have given it to you, and you placed it in the till,” the customer takes an oath. If he gave him the denar, and said to him, “Give me the small change,” and the other said to him, “I have given it to you, and you threw it in your purse,” the money -changer takes an oath. Rabbi Judah says: “It is not usual for a money-changer to give [even] an issar until he receives the denar.”

If he said to a shopkeeper, “Give me fruit for a denar,” and he gave him, and then the shopkeeper said to him, “Give me the denar”, and he replied to him, “I gave it to you, and you placed it in the till”, the customer takes an oath. If he gave him the denar, and said to him, “Give me the fruit,” and the shopkeeper says to him, “I have given it to you, and you took it to your house,” the shopkeeper takes an oath. Rabbi Judah says: “He who has the fruit in his possession, has the advantage.” If he said to a money-changer, “Give me change for a denar,” and he gave him; and said to him, “Give me the denar,” and the other said, “I have given it to you, and you placed it in the till,” the customer takes an oath. If he gave him the denar, and said to him, “Give me the small change,” and the other said to him, “I have given it to you, and you threw it in your purse,” the money -changer takes an oath. Rabbi Judah says: “It is not usual for a money-changer to give [even] an issar until he receives the denar.”

If he said to a shopkeeper, “Give me fruit for a denar,” and he gave him, and then the shopkeeper said to him, “Give me the denar”, and he replied to him, “I gave it to you, and you placed it in the till”, the customer takes an oath. If he gave him the denar, and said to him, “Give me the fruit,” and the shopkeeper says to him, “I have given it to you, and you took it to your house,” the shopkeeper takes an oath. Rabbi Judah says: “He who has the fruit in his possession, has the advantage.” If he said to a money-changer, “Give me change for a denar,” and he gave him; and said to him, “Give me the denar,” and the other said, “I have given it to you, and you placed it in the till,” the customer takes an oath. If he gave him the denar, and said to him, “Give me the small change,” and the other said to him, “I have given it to you, and you threw it in your purse,” the money -changer takes an oath. Rabbi Judah says: “It is not usual for a money-changer to give [even] an issar until he receives the denar.”

If he said to a shopkeeper, “Give me fruit for a denar,” and he gave him, and then the shopkeeper said to him, “Give me the denar”, and he replied to him, “I gave it to you, and you placed it in the till”, the customer takes an oath. If he gave him the denar, and said to him, “Give me the fruit,” and the shopkeeper says to him, “I have given it to you, and you took it to your house,” the shopkeeper takes an oath. Rabbi Judah says: “He who has the fruit in his possession, has the advantage.” If he said to a money-changer, “Give me change for a denar,” and he gave him; and said to him, “Give me the denar,” and the other said, “I have given it to you, and you placed it in the till,” the customer takes an oath. If he gave him the denar, and said to him, “Give me the small change,” and the other said to him, “I have given it to you, and you threw it in your purse,” the money -changer takes an oath. Rabbi Judah says: “It is not usual for a money-changer to give [even] an issar until he receives the denar.”

If he said to a shopkeeper, “Give me fruit for a denar,” and he gave him, and then the shopkeeper said to him, “Give me the denar”, and he replied to him, “I gave it to you, and you placed it in the till”, the customer takes an oath. If he gave him the denar, and said to him, “Give me the fruit,” and the shopkeeper says to him, “I have given it to you, and you took it to your house,” the shopkeeper takes an oath. Rabbi Judah says: “He who has the fruit in his possession, has the advantage.” If he said to a money-changer, “Give me change for a denar,” and he gave him; and said to him, “Give me the denar,” and the other said, “I have given it to you, and you placed it in the till,” the customer takes an oath. If he gave him the denar, and said to him, “Give me the small change,” and the other said to him, “I have given it to you, and you threw it in your purse,” the money -changer takes an oath. Rabbi Judah says: “It is not usual for a money-changer to give [even] an issar until he receives the denar.”

If he said to a shopkeeper, “Give me fruit for a denar,” and he gave him, and then the shopkeeper said to him, “Give me the denar”, and he replied to him, “I gave it to you, and you placed it in the till”, the customer takes an oath. If he gave him the denar, and said to him, “Give me the fruit,” and the shopkeeper says to him, “I have given it to you, and you took it to your house,” the shopkeeper takes an oath. Rabbi Judah says: “He who has the fruit in his possession, has the advantage.” If he said to a money-changer, “Give me change for a denar,” and he gave him; and said to him, “Give me the denar,” and the other said, “I have given it to you, and you placed it in the till,” the customer takes an oath. If he gave him the denar, and said to him, “Give me the small change,” and the other said to him, “I have given it to you, and you threw it in your purse,” the money -changer takes an oath. Rabbi Judah says: “It is not usual for a money-changer to give [even] an issar until he receives the denar.”

If he said to a shopkeeper, “Give me fruit for a denar,” and he gave him, and then the shopkeeper said to him, “Give me the denar”, and he replied to him, “I gave it to you, and you placed it in the till”, the customer takes an oath. If he gave him the denar, and said to him, “Give me the fruit,” and the shopkeeper says to him, “I have given it to you, and you took it to your house,” the shopkeeper takes an oath. Rabbi Judah says: “He who has the fruit in his possession, has the advantage.” If he said to a money-changer, “Give me change for a denar,” and he gave him; and said to him, “Give me the denar,” and the other said, “I have given it to you, and you placed it in the till,” the customer takes an oath. If he gave him the denar, and said to him, “Give me the small change,” and the other said to him, “I have given it to you, and you threw it in your purse,” the money -changer takes an oath. Rabbi Judah says: “It is not usual for a money-changer to give [even] an issar until he receives the denar.”

One who exchanges a sela from second tithe in Jerusalem: Beth Shammai says: “Copper coin for the whole sela.” And Beth Hillel says: “Silver for one shekel and copper coin for one shekel.” The disputants before the Sages say: “Silver for three denars and copper coin for one denar.” Rabbi Akiva says: “Silver for three denars and for the fourth silver, copper coin.” Rabbi Tarfon says: “Four aspers in silver.” Shammai says: “He must leave it in the shop and eat on the credit thereof.”

A woman is betrothed by a denar or the value of a denar, according to the opinion of Beth Shammai. But Beth Hillel says: by a perutah or the value of a perutah. And how much is a perutah? One-eighth of an Italian issar. Beth Shammai says: one may dismiss his wife with an old bill of divorcement, But Beth Hillel forbids it. What is an old bill of divorcement? Whenever he was secluded with her after he has written it for her. One who divorces his wife and she [afterwards] spends a night with him at the [same] inn: Beth Shammai says: she does not require a second bill of divorcement from him. But Beth Hillel says: she requires a second bill of divorcement from him. When [does she require a second bill of divorcement]? When she was divorced after marriage. But if she was divorced after betrothal she does not require from him a second bill of divorcement, since he is not [yet] familiar with her.

A woman is betrothed by a denar or the value of a denar, according to the opinion of Beth Shammai. But Beth Hillel says: by a perutah or the value of a perutah. And how much is a perutah? One-eighth of an Italian issar. Beth Shammai says: one may dismiss his wife with an old bill of divorcement, But Beth Hillel forbids it. What is an old bill of divorcement? Whenever he was secluded with her after he has written it for her. One who divorces his wife and she [afterwards] spends a night with him at the [same] inn: Beth Shammai says: she does not require a second bill of divorcement from him. But Beth Hillel says: she requires a second bill of divorcement from him. When [does she require a second bill of divorcement]? When she was divorced after marriage. But if she was divorced after betrothal she does not require from him a second bill of divorcement, since he is not [yet] familiar with her.

“I take upon myself to offer gold,” he must bring not less than a golden denar. “Silver,” he must bring not less than a silver denar. “Copper,” he must bring not less than [the value of] a silver maah. [If he said] “I specified [how much I would bring] but I do not know what I specified,” he must bring until he says, “I certainly did not intend to give so much!”

“I take upon myself to offer gold,” he must bring not less than a golden denar. “Silver,” he must bring not less than a silver denar. “Copper,” he must bring not less than [the value of] a silver maah. [If he said] “I specified [how much I would bring] but I do not know what I specified,” he must bring until he says, “I certainly did not intend to give so much!”

[If he said,] “I take upon myself to offer an ox,” he must bring one with its drink-offerings to the value of a maneh. “A calf,” he must bring one with its drink-offerings to the value of five selas. “A ram,” he must bring one with its drink-offerings to the value of two selas. “A lamb,” he must bring one with its drink-offerings to the value of one sela. If he said “An ox valued at one maneh,” he must bring one worth a maneh apart from its drink-offerings. “A calf valued at five selas,” he must bring one worth five selas apart from its drink-offerings. “A ram valued at two selas,” he must bring one worth two selas apart from its drink-offerings. “A lamb valued at one sela,” he must bring one worth one sela apart from its drink-offerings. [If he said, “I take upon myself to offer] an ox valued at a maneh,” and he brought two together worth a maneh, he has not fulfilled his obligation, even if one was worth a maneh less one denar and the other also was worth a maneh less one denar. [If he said] “A black one” and he brought a white one, or “a white one” and he brought a black one, or “a large one” and he brought a small one, he has not fulfilled his obligation. [If he said] “a small one” and he brought a large one, he has fulfilled his obligation; Rabbi says: he has not fulfilled his obligation.

[If he said,] “I take upon myself to offer an ox,” he must bring one with its drink-offerings to the value of a maneh. “A calf,” he must bring one with its drink-offerings to the value of five selas. “A ram,” he must bring one with its drink-offerings to the value of two selas. “A lamb,” he must bring one with its drink-offerings to the value of one sela. If he said “An ox valued at one maneh,” he must bring one worth a maneh apart from its drink-offerings. “A calf valued at five selas,” he must bring one worth five selas apart from its drink-offerings. “A ram valued at two selas,” he must bring one worth two selas apart from its drink-offerings. “A lamb valued at one sela,” he must bring one worth one sela apart from its drink-offerings. [If he said, “I take upon myself to offer] an ox valued at a maneh,” and he brought two together worth a maneh, he has not fulfilled his obligation, even if one was worth a maneh less one denar and the other also was worth a maneh less one denar. [If he said] “A black one” and he brought a white one, or “a white one” and he brought a black one, or “a large one” and he brought a small one, he has not fulfilled his obligation. [If he said] “a small one” and he brought a large one, he has fulfilled his obligation; Rabbi says: he has not fulfilled his obligation.

If one said I will acquire it for twenty-one selas, then the owners must pay twenty-six. [If one said] Twenty-two, the owners must pay twenty-seven. Twenty-three, the owners must pay twenty-eight. Twenty-four, the owners must pay twenty-nine. Twenty-five, the owners must pay thirty, For they need not add one fifth to what the other bids more. If one said: I will acquire it for twenty-six, if the owners want to pay thirty-one and an extra denar, the owner comes first. And if not, we say to the other: It has become yours.

If a woman had five doubtful genital discharges or five doubtful births, she needs to bring only one offering, and she may eat sacrifices [immediately], and she is not liable to bring the other [offerings]. If a woman had five certain births, or five certain genital discharges, she brings one offering and may then eat sacrifices [immediately], and she is liable to bring the other offerings. It once happened in Jerusalem that the price of a pair of doves rose to a golden denar. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel said: By this sanctuary, I shall not go to sleep tonight before they cost but a [silver] denar! Then he entered the court and taught: if a woman had five certain births or five certain genital discharges she needs to bring only one offering, and she may then eat sacrifices, and she is not liable to bring the other [offerings]. Thereupon the price of a pair of birds stood at a quarter of a [silver] denar each.

If a woman had five doubtful genital discharges or five doubtful births, she needs to bring only one offering, and she may eat sacrifices [immediately], and she is not liable to bring the other [offerings]. If a woman had five certain births, or five certain genital discharges, she brings one offering and may then eat sacrifices [immediately], and she is liable to bring the other offerings. It once happened in Jerusalem that the price of a pair of doves rose to a golden denar. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel said: By this sanctuary, I shall not go to sleep tonight before they cost but a [silver] denar! Then he entered the court and taught: if a woman had five certain births or five certain genital discharges she needs to bring only one offering, and she may then eat sacrifices, and she is not liable to bring the other [offerings]. Thereupon the price of a pair of birds stood at a quarter of a [silver] denar each.

If a woman had five doubtful genital discharges or five doubtful births, she needs to bring only one offering, and she may eat sacrifices [immediately], and she is not liable to bring the other [offerings]. If a woman had five certain births, or five certain genital discharges, she brings one offering and may then eat sacrifices [immediately], and she is liable to bring the other offerings. It once happened in Jerusalem that the price of a pair of doves rose to a golden denar. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel said: By this sanctuary, I shall not go to sleep tonight before they cost but a [silver] denar! Then he entered the court and taught: if a woman had five certain births or five certain genital discharges she needs to bring only one offering, and she may then eat sacrifices, and she is not liable to bring the other [offerings]. Thereupon the price of a pair of birds stood at a quarter of a [silver] denar each.

If he gave him two perutahs and said, “Bring me for them an etrog,” and he brought for one perutah an etrog and for the other a pomegranate, both are guilty of sacrilege. Rabbi Judah says: the employer is not guilty of sacrilege for he could say, “I wanted a large etrog and you brought me a small and bad one.” If he gave him a golden denar and said to him, “Bring me a shirt,” and he brought him for three [silver selas] a shirt and for the other three a cloak, both are guilty of sacrilege. Rabbi Judah says: the employer is not guilty of sacrilege, for he can argue, “I wanted a large shirt and you brought me a small and bad one.”

HALAKHAH: A student of Rebbi had 199 denar; Rebbi used to let him receive the tithe of the poor once every three years. His students cast an evil eye on him and completed for him. The next time, when he wanted to let him receive, he said: My teacher, I have the measure. He said, this one was hit by a beast of prey. He gave a hint to his student who took him to a store, made him spend a carat, then he (Rebbi) let him receive as he was used to do.

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

MISHNAH: Rebbi Meïr says, something which usually is sold retail and he sold wholesale, the wholesale is adjunct to the retail; something which usually is sold wholesale and he sold retail, the retail is adjunct to the wholesale. What is wholesale? For dry produce, three qab, for liquids, the value of one denar. Rebbi Yose says, baskets of figs, baskets of grapes, and boxes of vegetables, all these if sold en bloc are free.

It was stated: “One may say to his worker: Here you have a denar, use it for food, here you have a denar, use it for drink, and not be worried about either the Sabbatical year, tithes, or wine for libations. But if he told him, go and buy yourself a loaf and I shall give you the money, go and buy yourself a reviït of wine and I shall give you the money, he has to worry because of the Sabbatical year, tithes, and wine used for libations.” Rebbi Zeïra said, the grocer becomes the plenipotentiary of the employer to let the worker acquire. Rebbi Hila said, the worker acquired for the employer from the grocer and then acquires it himself. What is the difference between them? If the grocer was deaf-mute. According to Rebbi Zeïra, he does not have to worry because a deaf-mute cannot become a plenipotentiary; according to Rebbi Hila, he has to worry.

It was stated: “One may say to his worker: Here you have a denar, use it for food, here you have a denar, use it for drink, and not be worried about either the Sabbatical year, tithes, or wine for libations. But if he told him, go and buy yourself a loaf and I shall give you the money, go and buy yourself a reviït of wine and I shall give you the money, he has to worry because of the Sabbatical year, tithes, and wine used for libations.” Rebbi Zeïra said, the grocer becomes the plenipotentiary of the employer to let the worker acquire. Rebbi Hila said, the worker acquired for the employer from the grocer and then acquires it himself. What is the difference between them? If the grocer was deaf-mute. According to Rebbi Zeïra, he does not have to worry because a deaf-mute cannot become a plenipotentiary; according to Rebbi Hila, he has to worry.

HALAKHAH: It was stated: “Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Simeon prohibit to do so, maybe the wine bag will spring a leak and it turns out retroactively that he drank ṭevel.” But the reason of one is not the reason of the other. The reason of Rebbi Yose is that maybe he will pour. The reason of Rebbi Simeon is that maybe he will forget and drink the remainder. As it was stated: “The Second Tithe in this container should be redeemed by the tetradrachma in that wallet, it is redeemed. Rebbi Yose says, it is not redeemed.” What is the reason of Rebbi Yose? “ If he said, the old tetradrachma or the old denar, he did redeem. The Sages admit to Rebbi Yose that if he said, the tetradrachma I shall take from my son’s hand, or the denar I shall take from my son’s hand, it is not redeemed since it was not in his hand at that time.”

HALAKHAH: It was stated: “Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Simeon prohibit to do so, maybe the wine bag will spring a leak and it turns out retroactively that he drank ṭevel.” But the reason of one is not the reason of the other. The reason of Rebbi Yose is that maybe he will pour. The reason of Rebbi Simeon is that maybe he will forget and drink the remainder. As it was stated: “The Second Tithe in this container should be redeemed by the tetradrachma in that wallet, it is redeemed. Rebbi Yose says, it is not redeemed.” What is the reason of Rebbi Yose? “ If he said, the old tetradrachma or the old denar, he did redeem. The Sages admit to Rebbi Yose that if he said, the tetradrachma I shall take from my son’s hand, or the denar I shall take from my son’s hand, it is not redeemed since it was not in his hand at that time.”

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, this is a fine imposed by Rebbi Meïr. Did he act on that, “if somebody draws his vine over somebody else’s grain …”? But what did that person do? When it grows, it grows according to his intention. One person showed his tetradrachma to Rebbi Eleazar who told him that it was good. It turned out to be worthless. This case came before Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish who fined him according to the following: If somebody shows a denar to the money-changer and it turns out to be bad, [the money-changer] has to pay because he takes a fee. Does Rebbi Eleazar take a fee? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Abuna: One who takes it into his hand has the status of one who takes a fee. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun does not say so, but Rebbi Eleazar says that this fine is imposed by the rabbis; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish says the fine is imposed by Rebbi Meïr. When the case came before Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, he asked Rebbi Eleazar, who imposed this fine? He [Rebbi Eleazar] said, the rabbis. He [Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish] answered him, go and pay.

Rebbi Hillel ben Rebbi Vales had a garment worth 30’000 denar, (he gave it to Rebbi who) found kilaim in it and burnt it. Rebbi Mana had a garment worth 30’000 denar. He gave it to Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada and told him that he had bought it for the dead. He kept it until he was wrapped in it. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, Rebbi Samuel bar Isaac brought a garment from the cleaner; there were on it ten threads and he rubbed them off. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, Rebbi Samuel bar Isaac commanded his house not to put a bale of wool next to a bale of flax because of the fibers.

Rebbi Hillel ben Rebbi Vales had a garment worth 30’000 denar, (he gave it to Rebbi who) found kilaim in it and burnt it. Rebbi Mana had a garment worth 30’000 denar. He gave it to Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada and told him that he had bought it for the dead. He kept it until he was wrapped in it. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, Rebbi Samuel bar Isaac brought a garment from the cleaner; there were on it ten threads and he rubbed them off. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, Rebbi Samuel bar Isaac commanded his house not to put a bale of wool next to a bale of flax because of the fibers.

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, if he shows him the stump; then he pays him only the wages of his feet. Rebbi Joḥanan said, even if he did not show it to him it is as if he had. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, as it was stated: “If somebody hires a worker to bring wine for a sick person, or an apple for a sick person, if he delivered it, he must pay, otherwise he does not have to pay. But if he said to him, wine for a sick person from place X, or an apple for a sick person from place X, he has to pay him whether he delivered or not because he pays him the wages of his feet.” What does Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish do with this? He explains that he showed him. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan, as it was stated: “Nobody should say to his neighbor, here you have a denar and bring me gleanings today, bring me peah today. But he may say to him, for gleanings you will bring today, for peah you will bring today. The same rules apply to a Levite.” Here, he did not show him; is it considered as if he showed him? What does Rebbi Joḥanan dowith this? They were particularly lenient with the Sabbatical because it is rabbinical.

Rebbi Joḥanan says, for ploughing. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, for building. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan, any work that stops because of the Sabbatical. In the opinion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, any work that stops in any way. Does Rebbi Yose hold with Rebbi Jehudah; does not Rebbi Yose say, for any work that stops in the Sabbatical they are remitted, if it does not stop they are not remitted? But Rebbi Yose does not hold with Rebbi Jehudah; while “Rebbi Jehudah says that it is not the way of a banker to give an as unless he has received a denar,” he agrees that the wages of the hired man are due only at the end.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, where do Rebbi Meïr and the rabbis disagree? If the produce is not worth a silver coin. But for produce worth a silver coin also the rabbis agree. Half a denar in money and half a denar’s worth of produce is permitted. A denar in money and a denar’s worth of produce is forbidden, and so much more two denars in money and two denar’s worth of produce is forbidden.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, where do Rebbi Meïr and the rabbis disagree? If the produce is not worth a silver coin. But for produce worth a silver coin also the rabbis agree. Half a denar in money and half a denar’s worth of produce is permitted. A denar in money and a denar’s worth of produce is forbidden, and so much more two denars in money and two denar’s worth of produce is forbidden.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, where do Rebbi Meïr and the rabbis disagree? If the produce is not worth a silver coin. But for produce worth a silver coin also the rabbis agree. Half a denar in money and half a denar’s worth of produce is permitted. A denar in money and a denar’s worth of produce is forbidden, and so much more two denars in money and two denar’s worth of produce is forbidden.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, where do Rebbi Meïr and the rabbis disagree? If the produce is not worth a silver coin. But for produce worth a silver coin also the rabbis agree. Half a denar in money and half a denar’s worth of produce is permitted. A denar in money and a denar’s worth of produce is forbidden, and so much more two denars in money and two denar’s worth of produce is forbidden.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, where do Rebbi Meïr and the rabbis disagree? If the produce is not worth a silver coin. But for produce worth a silver coin also the rabbis agree. Half a denar in money and half a denar’s worth of produce is permitted. A denar in money and a denar’s worth of produce is forbidden, and so much more two denars in money and two denar’s worth of produce is forbidden.

It was stated: A person may earn up to a šeqel, a person may earn up to a quarter. How is this done? A denar here is worth 2000, but in Arbel 2000 and a laqan. He wants to give 50 myriads and brings it up, here by 2000 and in Arbel by 2[000] and laqan.

HALAKHAH: Mishnah: “A tailor should not leave with his needle close to sundown lest he forget and leave,” etc. It was stated: “A tailor should not leave with a needle in his garment, nor a scribe with the pen behind his ear, nor a dyer with a sample behind his ear, nor a money-changer with a denar behind his ear. If one of these left they are not liable, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Jehudah says, a craftsman in the ways of his craft is liable, therefore everybody else may leave with one of these.”The argument of Rebbi Meïr seems inverted, as we have stated there: “If she left she is liable, the words of Rebbi Meïr,” and here he says so? Rebbi Mana said it without attribution, Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: There women usually do it, but here only children leave with this. The argument of the rabbis seems inverted, as we have stated there: “But the Sages declare not liable with a plate of make-up or a flask of perfume.” Therefore with a needle with ear she is liable. Is that a craftsman who is liable in the way of his craft? Rebbi Yose ben Abun said, explain it for a woman hairdresser.

HALAKHAH: It was stated: “A tailor should not leave with a needle in his garment, nor a scribe with the pen behind his ear, nor a dyer with a sample behind his ear, nor a money-changer with a denar behind his ear. If any of these left they are not liable, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, a craftsman in the ways of his craft is liable, therefore everybody else may leave with one of these.” The argument of Rebbi Meïr seems inverted, as we have stated there: “If she left she is liable, the words of Rebbi Meïr,” and here he says so? Rebbi Mana said it without attribution, Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: There women usually do it, but here only children leave with this. The argument of the rabbis seems inverted, as we have stated there: “But the Sages declare not liable with a plate of make-up or a flask of perfume.” Therefore with a needle without ear one is liable. Is that a craftsman who is liable in the way of his craft? Rebbi Abun said, explain it for a woman hairdresser.

He shall write, not engrave. And he shall write, not dropping points. He shall write, not pouring. He shall write, not engrave; some Tannaïm state, he even may engrave. Rab Ḥisda said, he who says not to engrave, if the writing stands out as on a denar. He who says even to engrave, as on a writing tablet. And he shall write, not dropping points; Rebbi Yudan ben Rebbi Shalom and Rebbi Mattaniah: One said, if he did not connect the points; the other said, even if he connected the points. And he shall write, not pouring. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, those Orientals are very sophisticated. If one of them wants to write a secret letter to another, he writes with juice of gall-nuts. The recipient pours ink without gall over it, which is absorbed at the place of writing. If one did that on the Sabbath, what? Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both said, only if he wrote ink on ink and vermilion on vermilion. But if he wrote ink on vermilion or vermilion on ink, he is liable. Rebbi Isaac bar Mesharshia in the name of the rabbis there: He is liable twice, for erasing and for writing.

“If a Jew and a Gentile were travelling by ship and leavened matter was in the Jew’s hand, he sells it to the Gentile or gives it to him as a gift; then he reverts and buys it from him after Passover, on condition that it was an unconditional gift. The Jew may say to the Gentile, instead of buying it for a mina, come and buy it for 200 [denar]. Instead that you buy from a Gentile, come and buy it from a Jew, maybe I shall have need, then I shall buy from you after Passover.”

MISHNAH: They brought him to the Parwa house, which was in the sacred domain. They spread a byssus sheet between him and the people; he sanctified hands and legs and undressed; Rebbi Meïr says, he undressed and sanctified hands and legs. He stepped down, and immersed himself, came up and dried himself with a towel. They brought him the white garments, he dressed and sanctified hands and legs. In the morning he was wearing Pelusian worth twelve mina, and in the evening Indian of 800 denar, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, in the morning he was wearing Pelusian worth eighteen mina and in the evening of twelve mina, all together thirty mina. This he takes from Temple property; if he wants to add, he adds from his own.

Pure gold, which one brings into the fire and nothing is missing. (As) [It comes as] it was stated: It happened that the golden candelabrum which Moses made in the desert was in excess of one denar, and they returned it to the fire eighty times and it did not lose anything. This is correct. Before it is refined it loses a lot, once it is refined it will not miss anything.

Drawn gold. It could be drawn like wax. Hadrian had the weight of an egg of it. Diocletian had the weight of a Gordian denar of it.

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

Solomon made ten candelabra, [as it is said], he made the ten candelabra according to its rules. If you would say, five to the North and five to the South, but the candelabrum is only qualified in the South, as it is said, and the candelabrum opposite the table on the South side. Why does the verse say, five to the right and five to the left? Five to the right of Moses’s candelabrum, and five to its left. Nevertheless, only Moses’s alone was kindled, as it is said, and the golden candelabrum and its lights to kindle evening by evening. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah says, all of them were kindled, for it is said, the candelabra and their lights, to kindle them regularly in the Temple Hall, closed gold, and the flower, and the lights, and the pincers of gold, this uses up the gold. These used up Solomon’s gold. Rav Jehudah in the name of Assi: Solomon took 1’000 talents of silver, put them repeatedly into the (fire) [smelting furnace] until they were reduced to one, to fulfill what is written, from one talent of pure gold he made it. It was stated, Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah said, it happened that the golden candelabrum which Moses made in the desert was in excess of one gold denar, and they returned it to the fire eighty times and it did not lose anything. This is correct. Before it is refined it loses a lot, once it is refined it will not miss anything.

MISHNAH: Thirteen horns were in the Temple, and it was written on them: New sheqalim, and old sheqalim, nests, young birds for elevation sacrifices, wood, and incense, gold for the cover, and six for voluntary gifts. New sheqalim for the current year, and old ones, one who did not bring the past year, gives it for the next one. “Nests” are turtle doves and “young birds as elevation offerings” are pigeons, all for elevation offerings, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. But the Sages say, of “nests” one is a purification offering and one an elevation offering; “young birds as elevation offerings” are all elevation offerings. If one says, “I am obligated for wood logs”, he may not give less than for two logs; “incense”, he may not give less than for a fistful; “gold”, he may not give less than for a gold denar. “Six for voluntary gifts.” What did they do with this? One buys with it elevation offerings; the flesh is for the Eternal and the skins are for the Cohanim. This explanation did Jehoyada the High Priest explain: It is a reparation offering, repairing, a reparation offering for the Eternal; this is the principle: Elevation offerings should be bought from anything coming because of sin or reparation; the flesh is for the Eternal and the skins are for the Cohanim. It turns out that both parts of the verse are fulfilled, a reparation offering for the Eternal and reparation for the Cohanim. And it says, money for reparation offerings and money for purification offerings are not to be brought to the Eternal’s House, it shall be for the Cohanim.

“Gold”, he may not give less than for a gold denar. Rebbi Eleazar said, only if he mentioned minting. But if he did not mention a coin he even may bring a hook.

MISHNAH: If a gobelin became impure by derivative impurity, one immersed it inside and brought it back immediately. But if by original impurity, one immersed it outside and spread it out in the ante-court because it requires sundown. If it was new, one spreads it out on the roof of the stoa so the people could see its workmanship, which was beautiful. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says in the name of Rebbi Simeon, the son of the Executive Officer of the Temple: The thickness of a gobelin was a hand-width. It was woven on 72 strings and each string was composed of 24 threads. Its length 40 cubits and its width 20 cubits; it was made for 820’000 {denar}. Two were made every year and 300 Cohanim were immersing it.

(It was stated:) “It was made for 820’000 {denar}.” Rebbi Isaac bar Bisna in the name of Samuel: exaggerated. There, we have stated: “Sometimes there was on it about 300 kor.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Samuel: exaggerated.

Did sheqalim therefore become holy? Rebbi Simeon ben Jehudah in the name of Rebbi Simeon: Both these and those did not become holy. It was stated: A proselyte today has to bring for his nest a quarter of a silver {denar}. Rebbi Simeon said, Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai already disestablished this because of the mishap. What is “because of the mishap”? As was stated, today one does neither dedicate as sacrifice, nor dedicate one’s value, nor dedicate as ḥerem, nor does one collect [heave and tithes]. If somebody dedicates as sacrifice, or dedicated one’s value, or dedicated as ḥerem, or collected, cloth must be burned, an animal castrated. [How? One locks it in and it dies by itself.] Monies shall go to the Dead Sea. If he transgressed and dedicated, since Rebbi Simeon said, Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai already disestablished this because of the mishap, this implies if he transgressed and dedicated, it became sanctified. Rebbi Yudan from Antodria asked before Rebbi Yose: here you are saying it became sanctified, and there you are saying, it did not become sanctified. He said to him, there [because of the following one may not dedicate from the start because it is an obligation to bring from the new contribution, and this would be from the old one. Here, what can you say? That one is old. But in respect to other dedications, the proselyte’s nest does not have to be from new money; if he dedicated it is holy;] maybe the Temple will be built like earlier and the heave of the lodge will be lifted on time on the first of Nisan. But here, what do you have? Rav Ada and Rav Hamnuna, Rav Ada bar Aḥawa in the name of Rav: Practice follows Rebbi Simeon.

What spoiling was there? Because they were saying, Pentecost is after the Sabbath; one always was going out in the evening on the presumption that it would be sanctified. Then for Nisan they should not accept, for the other months they should accept. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, the main spoiling was in Adar. Then if it conforms with ours they should accept, if it does not conform with ours they should not accept. One because of the other. “It happened that the Boethusian hired two false witnesses to testify on the new moon that it be sanctified. The first came, delivered his testimony, and left. The other one said, I was climbing Maaleh Adumim when I saw it lying down between two rocks, its head resembling a calf, its ears resembling a kid goat. Is saw it, was taken aback, and stepped backward, and there were 200 denar tied in my money belt. They told him, the 200 denar are given to you as a gift, but those who sent you should come and be flogged. Why did you put yourself in this questionable situation? He said to them, I saw them trying to trip up the Sages. I said, it is better that I should go and inform the Sages.”

What spoiling was there? Because they were saying, Pentecost is after the Sabbath; one always was going out in the evening on the presumption that it would be sanctified. Then for Nisan they should not accept, for the other months they should accept. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, the main spoiling was in Adar. Then if it conforms with ours they should accept, if it does not conform with ours they should not accept. One because of the other. “It happened that the Boethusian hired two false witnesses to testify on the new moon that it be sanctified. The first came, delivered his testimony, and left. The other one said, I was climbing Maaleh Adumim when I saw it lying down between two rocks, its head resembling a calf, its ears resembling a kid goat. Is saw it, was taken aback, and stepped backward, and there were 200 denar tied in my money belt. They told him, the 200 denar are given to you as a gift, but those who sent you should come and be flogged. Why did you put yourself in this questionable situation? He said to them, I saw them trying to trip up the Sages. I said, it is better that I should go and inform the Sages.”

MISHNAH: One does not sharpen the knife but he cleanses it on another. A person may not say to the butcher, weigh me meat for a denar, but he slaughters and they distribute among themselves.

Rebbi Shiloh from Kefar-Tamarta in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The reason of Rebbi Eliezer: And you shall cover it with pure gold, etc. The Torah called it real estate. So far the golden altar. From where the altar of the elevation sacrifices? It is a logical argument. Since the golden altar which is one cubit square is called real estate, the altar of elevation sacrifices which is five cubits square not so much more? Some want to say, square, square. Since here it is real estate, also there it is real estate. Rebbi Hila said, the reason of the rabbis, the altar is of wood, three cubits its height, etc. The Torah called it movable. So far the altar of the elevation sacrifices. From where the golden altar? It is a logical argument. Since the the altar of the elevation sacrifices which is five cubit square is called soil, the golden altar which is one cubit square not so much more? Some want to say, square, square. Since here it is movable, also there it is movable. “But the Sages say, because they are covered.” But is it not cover which stands because of it? Did not Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish say in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Its thickness was that of a Gordian denar Rebbi La said, for its purpose it does not stand because of it. This parallels what Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, you shall make an altar for incense smoke is not written here but burning incense; the altar was burning the incense. But is it not like a table made to be moved and deposited? Does not Rebbi Immi say in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: why is the table impure? Not because one was removing it and showing it to the pilgrims? But this one remains in its place. It also served as a vessel in the Sanctuary. Then it should be pure, why is it impure? Rebbi Mana said, as what we have stated there, “there are three baskets”. Rebbi Ze`ira said, because one uses it for its bales; so also here one uses it for its bales.

“Even though the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel disagreed about co-wives, and sisters, and an old bill of divorce, and a woman doubtfully married, and one who gives qiddushin in the value of a peruṭa, i. e., he who divorces his wife and spends the night with her in a hostelry, and that a woman receives qiddushin for at least a denar or the value of a denar, the House of Shammai did not refrain from marrying women from the House of Hillel or the House of Hillel from the House of Shammai but they behave truthfully and in peace, as it is said: ‘Love truth and peace.’ ” Bastardy is between them and you say so? How is that? If a first man gives her qiddushin for a peruṭa and a second for a denar, in the opinion of the House of Shammai she is betrothed to the second and the child of the first is a bastard. In the opinion of the House of Hillel she is betrothed to the first and the child of the second is a bastard. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The House of Shammai concede to the House of Hillel as a restriction. In that case, the House of Shammai should marry women from the House of Hillel since they concede to them. But the House of Hillel should not marry women from the House of Shammai since they do not concede to them. Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They all followed the same practice. If they followed the same practice, in this case we stated: “The House of Shammai sent and diminished it, since the House of Shammai says unless most of it is missing?” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, the House of Shammai acted before the question came before the House of Hillel. After a question came before the House of Hillel, the House of Shammai were not touching it. Rebbi Abba Mari said, that is correct. Did we not state: “They declared impure all purities from before”, but not in the future. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rav and Samuel, one said both acted according to valid practice; the other said, each party followed its own practice. Bastardy is between them and you say so? The Omnipresent watched and no case ever happened.

“Even though the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel disagreed about co-wives, and sisters, and an old bill of divorce, and a woman doubtfully married, and one who gives qiddushin in the value of a peruṭa, i. e., he who divorces his wife and spends the night with her in a hostelry, and that a woman receives qiddushin for at least a denar or the value of a denar, the House of Shammai did not refrain from marrying women from the House of Hillel or the House of Hillel from the House of Shammai but they behave truthfully and in peace, as it is said: ‘Love truth and peace.’ ” Bastardy is between them and you say so? How is that? If a first man gives her qiddushin for a peruṭa and a second for a denar, in the opinion of the House of Shammai she is betrothed to the second and the child of the first is a bastard. In the opinion of the House of Hillel she is betrothed to the first and the child of the second is a bastard. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The House of Shammai concede to the House of Hillel as a restriction. In that case, the House of Shammai should marry women from the House of Hillel since they concede to them. But the House of Hillel should not marry women from the House of Shammai since they do not concede to them. Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They all followed the same practice. If they followed the same practice, in this case we stated: “The House of Shammai sent and diminished it, since the House of Shammai says unless most of it is missing?” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, the House of Shammai acted before the question came before the House of Hillel. After a question came before the House of Hillel, the House of Shammai were not touching it. Rebbi Abba Mari said, that is correct. Did we not state: “They declared impure all purities from before”, but not in the future. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rav and Samuel, one said both acted according to valid practice; the other said, each party followed its own practice. Bastardy is between them and you say so? The Omnipresent watched and no case ever happened.

“Even though the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel disagreed about co-wives, and sisters, and an old bill of divorce, and a woman doubtfully married, and one who gives qiddushin in the value of a peruṭa, i. e., he who divorces his wife and spends the night with her in a hostelry, and that a woman receives qiddushin for at least a denar or the value of a denar, the House of Shammai did not refrain from marrying women from the House of Hillel or the House of Hillel from the House of Shammai but they behave truthfully and in peace, as it is said: ‘Love truth and peace.’ ” Bastardy is between them and you say so? How is that? If a first man gives her qiddushin for a peruṭa and a second for a denar, in the opinion of the House of Shammai she is betrothed to the second and the child of the first is a bastard. In the opinion of the House of Hillel she is betrothed to the first and the child of the second is a bastard. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The House of Shammai concede to the House of Hillel as a restriction. In that case, the House of Shammai should marry women from the House of Hillel since they concede to them. But the House of Hillel should not marry women from the House of Shammai since they do not concede to them. Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They all followed the same practice. If they followed the same practice, in this case we stated: “The House of Shammai sent and diminished it, since the House of Shammai says unless most of it is missing?” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, the House of Shammai acted before the question came before the House of Hillel. After a question came before the House of Hillel, the House of Shammai were not touching it. Rebbi Abba Mari said, that is correct. Did we not state: “They declared impure all purities from before”, but not in the future. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rav and Samuel, one said both acted according to valid practice; the other said, each party followed its own practice. Bastardy is between them and you say so? The Omnipresent watched and no case ever happened.

A student of Rebbi had 199 denar; Rebbi used to let him receive the tithe of the poor once every three years. His students cast an evil eye on him and completed for him. The next time, when he wanted to let him receive as usual, he said: My teacher, I have the measure. He said, this one was hit by a beast of prey. He gave a hint to his student who took him to a store, made him spend a carat, then he (Rebbi) let him receive as he was used to do.

She has no claim to wine since poor Jewish women do not drink wine. Do rich women drink? Did we not state: It happened that the Sages assigned to Martha bat Boethos two se‘ah of wine every day. How can the court assign wine? Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, because of “Whoring, wine, and cider will destroy the mind.” But did we not state: ”If she was nursing, one reduces the amount of her work and increases her food”? Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said wine, for it increases the milk. Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Also they assigned it for cooking. Nevertheless, she cursed them and said to them, so you should give to your daughters. Rebbi Aḥa said, and we answered her, Amen. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Ẓadoq said, I should not see consolation if I did not see her collecting barley grains between horses’ hooves at Acco. I quoted about her the verse: “The dainty one among you and the pampered, …” “If you have no experience, most beautiful of women, go following the flock …”. But did we not state: It happened that the Sages assigned to Miryam, the daughter of Simeon ben Gorion, a daily supply of perfume for 500 denar, when she was only waiting for her levir. Nevertheless, she cursed them and said to them, so you should give to your daughters. Rebbi Aḥa said, and we answered her, Amen. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Ẓadoq said, I should not see consolation if I did not see her bound with her hair to a horse’s tail at Acco. I quoted about her the verse: “The dainty one among you and the pampered, …”.

MISHNAH: If she decided to bring him 1’000 denars, he decides as equivalent fifteen minas. Corresponding to estimates he decides one-fifth less. If it was appraised for a mina and it is worth a mina, he has only a mina. For the estimate of a mina she gives him 31 [tetradrachmas and one] denar. For 400 she gives 500, for what the groom decides, he decides one-fifth less.

“And all defects which disqualify a priest disqualify a woman. They added to them for women mouth odor, sweat odor, and a hairless mole.” Rebbi Ammi bar Uqba in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: They taught this about the skin of the face. But did we not state: “When was this said? For hidden defects, but he has no claim about visible defects,” and this is of the visible defects! Explain it if she hid it under her headgear. It was stated: “A mole with hairs is a defect, whether it be large or small, whether it be on the body or on the face. Without a hair it is a defect on the face but not on the body. When has this been said? If it is small. But if it is large, it is a defect whether it be on the body or on the face. How big is large? Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, up to an Italic as.” Rebbi Eleazar bar Ḥanina said, for example such a Gordianic denar his measure is half an ubiquitous gold piece. Rebbi Radifa, Rebbi Jonah: Rebbi Jeremiah asked: A bald woman with a row of hair going from one ear to the other? They wanted to understand it from the following: “They added to them for women mouth odor, sweat odor, and a hairless mole.” They did not mention baldness. They wanted to conclude that it is not a defect. There came Rebbi Samuel the son of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun: Rebbi Nasa said, it is a defect. It is listed only if it is ugly for both sexes. But something which is beautiful in one sex but ugly in the other, like a bald pate, even though it is a defect it was not listed. You should know that this is so because a beard is beautiful for a man and a defect for a woman, and we did not state: In addition, for a woman a beard. There are breasts which are beautyiful for a woman and a defect for men, and we did not state: In addtion, for a man women’s breasts.

HALAKHAH: “If she inherited money; real estate should be bought,” etc. Rebbi Jeremiah said, this is Rebbi Meïr’s opinion since Rebbi Meïr considers standing [produce] as if it were cut. Rebbi Yose said, he did not hear that Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, Rebbi Meïr said this only for standing grain ready to be harvested and grapes ready to be harvested; therefore not unripe produce. But here, even unripe produce. Rebbi Jeremiah asked, are not the arguments of Rebbi Meïr contradictory? There, he did not consider standing [produce] as if it were cut, but here he considers standing [produce] as if it were cut. Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Meïr does not consider standing [produce] as if it were cut. But if you see cut grain, you empower the woman; if you see an unseeded field, you empower the man. In case of doubt you estimate how much it is worth unseeded and how much seeded. If before it was seeded it was worth (two denars) and when it was seeded (one denar), with that denar real estate should be bought and he reaps its yield.

HALAKHAH: “If she inherited money; real estate should be bought,” etc. Rebbi Jeremiah said, this is Rebbi Meïr’s opinion since Rebbi Meïr considers standing [produce] as if it were cut. Rebbi Yose said, he did not hear that Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, Rebbi Meïr said this only for standing grain ready to be harvested and grapes ready to be harvested; therefore not unripe produce. But here, even unripe produce. Rebbi Jeremiah asked, are not the arguments of Rebbi Meïr contradictory? There, he did not consider standing [produce] as if it were cut, but here he considers standing [produce] as if it were cut. Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Meïr does not consider standing [produce] as if it were cut. But if you see cut grain, you empower the woman; if you see an unseeded field, you empower the man. In case of doubt you estimate how much it is worth unseeded and how much seeded. If before it was seeded it was worth (two denars) and when it was seeded (one denar), with that denar real estate should be bought and he reaps its yield.

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One does not say “his” but [ ]. In which respect? In case the heir took it, one removes it from his hand. Does one have the same rule for the creditor? Was it not stated: If either the heir or the creditor took it, one takes it from their hands? Rebbi Aḥa bar Ulla said, let us hear from the following: “If he dedicated 90 minas but his debt was 100 minas, [the creditor] adds another denar and redeems these properties.” Not necessarily a denar, but anything, that a dedication should not be seen to be profanated without redemption. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One would be guilty of complete larceny. That is difficult. If one would be guilty of complete larceny, should if not be redeemed for its full value? If it can be redeemed for less than its full value, one should not be guilty of complete larceny! What are we talking about? If it is connected to the ground, can there be larceny about real estate? But we talk about standing grain. Since if the administrator misbehaved and took it, one does not take it from his hand; the administrator and the heir follow the same rule. Also if the heir misbehaved and took it, one does not take it from his hand. Rebbi Samuel, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The same rule holds for an ox. Can you say that an ox is real estate? Rebbi Tanḥum bar Mari in the name of Rebbi Yose: They made the rules for an ox parallel those of dedications that lost their value. Here, you say one takes it from his hand, but there you say, one does not take it from his hand. Since you diminished the woman’s power in that her ketubah is a lien only on the properties of her first husband, you strengthened her power in this matter that if the heir came and took it, one removes it from his hand. It was stated thus: Trees and cutting, old or young, one removes from their hands.

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One does not say “his” but [ ]. In which respect? In case the heir took it, one removes it from his hand. Does one have the same rule for the creditor? Was it not stated: If either the heir or the creditor took it, one takes it from their hands? Rebbi Aḥa bar Ulla said, let us hear from the following: “If he dedicated 90 minas but his debt was 100 minas, [the creditor] adds another denar and redeems these properties.” Not necessarily a denar, but anything, that a dedication should not be seen to be profanated without redemption. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One would be guilty of complete larceny. That is difficult. If one would be guilty of complete larceny, should if not be redeemed for its full value? If it can be redeemed for less than its full value, one should not be guilty of complete larceny! What are we talking about? If it is connected to the ground, can there be larceny about real estate? But we talk about standing grain. Since if the administrator misbehaved and took it, one does not take it from his hand; the administrator and the heir follow the same rule. Also if the heir misbehaved and took it, one does not take it from his hand. Rebbi Samuel, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The same rule holds for an ox. Can you say that an ox is real estate? Rebbi Tanḥum bar Mari in the name of Rebbi Yose: They made the rules for an ox parallel those of dedications that lost their value. Here, you say one takes it from his hand, but there you say, one does not take it from his hand. Since you diminished the woman’s power in that her ketubah is a lien only on the properties of her first husband, you strengthened her power in this matter that if the heir came and took it, one removes it from his hand. It was stated thus: Trees and cutting, old or young, one removes from their hands.

Ben Azay says, the heirs of the first say to the heirs of the second: If you are creditors, take what is yours and leave; otherwise let us split evenly between yourselves and us. Rebbi Aqiba said to him: Biblical inheritance “jumped” on the sons of the second; they take their mother’s ketubah and come back to split. Rebbi Mana said, they disagree if there is an excess denar. But if there is no excess denar, even Rebbi Aqiba will agree with Ben Nanas that both parties split evenly. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said to him, a situation which was stated without disagreement you turn into a disagreement. They must disagree if there is no excess denar. But if there is an excess denar even Ben Nanas agrees with Rebbi Aqiba that biblical inheritance “jumped” on the sons of the second; they take their mother’s ketubah and come back to split.

Ben Azay says, the heirs of the first say to the heirs of the second: If you are creditors, take what is yours and leave; otherwise let us split evenly between yourselves and us. Rebbi Aqiba said to him: Biblical inheritance “jumped” on the sons of the second; they take their mother’s ketubah and come back to split. Rebbi Mana said, they disagree if there is an excess denar. But if there is no excess denar, even Rebbi Aqiba will agree with Ben Nanas that both parties split evenly. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said to him, a situation which was stated without disagreement you turn into a disagreement. They must disagree if there is no excess denar. But if there is an excess denar even Ben Nanas agrees with Rebbi Aqiba that biblical inheritance “jumped” on the sons of the second; they take their mother’s ketubah and come back to split.

Ben Azay says, the heirs of the first say to the heirs of the second: If you are creditors, take what is yours and leave; otherwise let us split evenly between yourselves and us. Rebbi Aqiba said to him: Biblical inheritance “jumped” on the sons of the second; they take their mother’s ketubah and come back to split. Rebbi Mana said, they disagree if there is an excess denar. But if there is no excess denar, even Rebbi Aqiba will agree with Ben Nanas that both parties split evenly. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said to him, a situation which was stated without disagreement you turn into a disagreement. They must disagree if there is no excess denar. But if there is an excess denar even Ben Nanas agrees with Rebbi Aqiba that biblical inheritance “jumped” on the sons of the second; they take their mother’s ketubah and come back to split.

Ben Azay says, the heirs of the first say to the heirs of the second: If you are creditors, take what is yours and leave; otherwise let us split evenly between yourselves and us. Rebbi Aqiba said to him: Biblical inheritance “jumped” on the sons of the second; they take their mother’s ketubah and come back to split. Rebbi Mana said, they disagree if there is an excess denar. But if there is no excess denar, even Rebbi Aqiba will agree with Ben Nanas that both parties split evenly. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said to him, a situation which was stated without disagreement you turn into a disagreement. They must disagree if there is no excess denar. But if there is an excess denar even Ben Nanas agrees with Rebbi Aqiba that biblical inheritance “jumped” on the sons of the second; they take their mother’s ketubah and come back to split.

MISHNAH: If somebody was married to two women who both died, and then he died, and the orphans demand their mothers’ ketubot, if [the estate] is sufficient only for both ketubot they split evenly. If there was an excess denar, these take their mother’s ketubah and those take their mother’s ketubah. If the orphans say, we accept the properties of our father for the value of an extra denar in order to take their mother’s ketubah; one does not listen to them but one appraises the properties in court.

MISHNAH: If somebody was married to two women who both died, and then he died, and the orphans demand their mothers’ ketubot, if [the estate] is sufficient only for both ketubot they split evenly. If there was an excess denar, these take their mother’s ketubah and those take their mother’s ketubah. If the orphans say, we accept the properties of our father for the value of an extra denar in order to take their mother’s ketubah; one does not listen to them but one appraises the properties in court.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody was married to two women,” etc. That refers to what Rebbi Immi said, that a man should be induced to give generously to his daughter. If that is so, then even if there is no excess denar? Rebbi Abun said, in case you can uphold their words with the words of the Torah, you uphold their words with the words of the Torah. But in case you cannot uphold their words with the words of the Torah, you disregard their words and uphold the words of the Torah.

MISHNAH: If the estate contained expected property, it does not have the status of property in actual possession. Rebbi Simeon says, even if there was no mortgageable property, it does not count unless there is mortgageable property in the value of at least a denar more than the two ketubot.

HALAKHAH: “If the estate contained expected property,” etc. Rebbi Mana said, they disagree about the basic claim of the two ketubot. Rebbi Simeon says, real estate, but the rabbis say, movables. But for the excess denar everybody agrees that it is movable. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, everybody agrees about the basic claim of the two ketubot that it must be real estate. Where do they disagree? About the excess denar, where Rebbi Simeon says, real estate, but the rabbis say, movables. Rebbi Abba bar Zavda in the name of Rav: But in Syria they routinely collect from bronze and bedspreads. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Only from bedspreads of that night. Rav Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The people in Arabia routinely collect from camels and spices. Similarly, only from spices of that night? Rebbi Ḥuna’s widow collected from movables following her place’s custom.

HALAKHAH: “If the estate contained expected property,” etc. Rebbi Mana said, they disagree about the basic claim of the two ketubot. Rebbi Simeon says, real estate, but the rabbis say, movables. But for the excess denar everybody agrees that it is movable. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, everybody agrees about the basic claim of the two ketubot that it must be real estate. Where do they disagree? About the excess denar, where Rebbi Simeon says, real estate, but the rabbis say, movables. Rebbi Abba bar Zavda in the name of Rav: But in Syria they routinely collect from bronze and bedspreads. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Only from bedspreads of that night. Rav Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The people in Arabia routinely collect from camels and spices. Similarly, only from spices of that night? Rebbi Ḥuna’s widow collected from movables following her place’s custom.

“Similarly, if three who invested together lost or gained they would split in this manner.” Rebbi Eleazar said: You say that in case the tetradrachma lost or added value. But for earnings or losses they split evenly. That is difficult! One gave 100 denars and the other gave ten, and you say so? The colleagues say, he may say to him, by my contribution the merchandise rose. So far, if they ran after little merchandise. If there was much merchandise? Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, he may say to him, by the time you sold one piece, I am selling ten. That is, at a nearby place. If it was far away? Rebbi Hila said, he may say to him, by the time you go and return once, I am going and returning ten times. There, we have stated: “If [the ox] gored an ox worth 200, the last one takes 100, the one before him 50, and the two first ones a gold denar.” Rebbi Samuel in the name of Rebbi [Ze‘ira]: The same holds for earnings. Rebbi Yose said, the statement of Rebbi Ze‘ira disagrees with Rebbi Eleazar. Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yudan: Does Rebbi Eleazar not agree if they contracted between themselves that each can take according to his contribution? Oxen are as if contracted. He turned around and said, they disagree explicitly: Rebbi Eleazar said, if nothing was said, they split evenly; Rebbi Ze‘ira said, if nothing was said, each takes according to his contribution.

Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Zimra: A widow who lived two or three months without asking for sustenance, loses the sustenance of these three months. That is, if she did not take a loan. But if she took out a loan, she collects. If there is no pledge in her hand. But if she has a pledge in her hand, she collects even if she did not take a loan. Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: That is what they said, at the start one sells for sustenance of twelve months but one gives her sustenance for 30 days. If at the end of thirty days they say, we gave, but she says, I did not receive, it would be similar to what Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If one took a loan of 12’000 for a year in order to repay one gold denar per month. It is obvious that he gave for the first month and did not give for the last. About the days in between they said, not at the start.

MISHNAH: If a widow’s ketubah was 200 and she sold either the worth of a mina for 200 or the worth of 200 for a mina, her ketubah was paid. If her ketubah was for a mina and she sold the worth of a mina and a denar for a mina, her sale is void. Even if she says, I shall return the denar to the heirs, her sale is void.