domain

HALAKHAH: “If somebody split [wood] in a private domain,” etc. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, if he was splitting wood in his courtyard when a worker entered to claim his wages, and a splinter ricocheted and damaged him, he is liable. If he died he does not go into exile. But did not Rebbi Ḥiyya state, “he is not liable”? They do not disagree. What Rebbi Yose said, if he had seen him, but what Rebbi Ḥiyya said, if he had not seen him. If he had not seen him, once he said to him: enter, {should he not be liable? But did not Rebbi Ḥiyya state, “he is not liable”? Since he told him: enter, he has to take precautions. Some want to say, since he told him to enter it} becomes like the courtyard of partners, about which Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: Partners acquire from one another in a courtyard and are mutually liable for damages. But did not Rav say: If he filled the entire public domain? And did this fill the entire public domain? They said, since he walks in the entire courtyard, it is as if he had filled the entire courtyard.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody split [wood] in a private domain,” etc. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, if he was splitting wood in his courtyard when a worker entered to claim his wages, and a splinter ricocheted and damaged him, he is liable. If he died he does not go into exile. But did not Rebbi Ḥiyya state, “he is not liable”? They do not disagree. What Rebbi Yose said, if he had seen him, but what Rebbi Ḥiyya said, if he had not seen him. If he had not seen him, once he said to him: enter, {should he not be liable? But did not Rebbi Ḥiyya state, “he is not liable”? Since he told him: enter, he has to take precautions. Some want to say, since he told him to enter it} becomes like the courtyard of partners, about which Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: Partners acquire from one another in a courtyard and are mutually liable for damages. But did not Rav say: If he filled the entire public domain? And did this fill the entire public domain? They said, since he walks in the entire courtyard, it is as if he had filled the entire courtyard.

MISHNAH: One who digs a pit in the public domain is liable if an ox or a donkey fell in and died. Anyone who digs a pit, a ditch, a cave, rectangular excavations, or bases for poles, is liable. Then why is it said “a pit”? Just as a pit to be life-threatening must be ten handbreadths deep, so everything to be life-threatening must be ten handbreadths deep. If it was less than ten handbreadths deep when an ox or a donkey fell in and died, he is not liable, but if they were damaged, he is liable. One who digs a pit in a private domain and opens it to the public domain, in the public domain and opens it to a private domain, in a private domain and opens it to another private domain, is liable.

MISHNAH: One who digs a pit in the public domain is liable if an ox or a donkey fell in and died. Anyone who digs a pit, a ditch, a cave, rectangular excavations, or bases for poles, is liable. Then why is it said “a pit”? Just as a pit to be life-threatening must be ten handbreadths deep, so everything to be life-threatening must be ten handbreadths deep. If it was less than ten handbreadths deep when an ox or a donkey fell in and died, he is not liable, but if they were damaged, he is liable. One who digs a pit in a private domain and opens it to the public domain, in the public domain and opens it to a private domain, in a private domain and opens it to another private domain, is liable.

MISHNAH: One who digs a pit in the public domain is liable if an ox or a donkey fell in and died. Anyone who digs a pit, a ditch, a cave, rectangular excavations, or bases for poles, is liable. Then why is it said “a pit”? Just as a pit to be life-threatening must be ten handbreadths deep, so everything to be life-threatening must be ten handbreadths deep. If it was less than ten handbreadths deep when an ox or a donkey fell in and died, he is not liable, but if they were damaged, he is liable. One who digs a pit in a private domain and opens it to the public domain, in the public domain and opens it to a private domain, in a private domain and opens it to another private domain, is liable.

MISHNAH: One who digs a pit in the public domain is liable if an ox or a donkey fell in and died. Anyone who digs a pit, a ditch, a cave, rectangular excavations, or bases for poles, is liable. Then why is it said “a pit”? Just as a pit to be life-threatening must be ten handbreadths deep, so everything to be life-threatening must be ten handbreadths deep. If it was less than ten handbreadths deep when an ox or a donkey fell in and died, he is not liable, but if they were damaged, he is liable. One who digs a pit in a private domain and opens it to the public domain, in the public domain and opens it to a private domain, in a private domain and opens it to another private domain, is liable.

MISHNAH: One who digs a pit in the public domain is liable if an ox or a donkey fell in and died. Anyone who digs a pit, a ditch, a cave, rectangular excavations, or bases for poles, is liable. Then why is it said “a pit”? Just as a pit to be life-threatening must be ten handbreadths deep, so everything to be life-threatening must be ten handbreadths deep. If it was less than ten handbreadths deep when an ox or a donkey fell in and died, he is not liable, but if they were damaged, he is liable. One who digs a pit in a private domain and opens it to the public domain, in the public domain and opens it to a private domain, in a private domain and opens it to another private domain, is liable.

MISHNAH: One who digs a pit in the public domain is liable if an ox or a donkey fell in and died. Anyone who digs a pit, a ditch, a cave, rectangular excavations, or bases for poles, is liable. Then why is it said “a pit”? Just as a pit to be life-threatening must be ten handbreadths deep, so everything to be life-threatening must be ten handbreadths deep. If it was less than ten handbreadths deep when an ox or a donkey fell in and died, he is not liable, but if they were damaged, he is liable. One who digs a pit in a private domain and opens it to the public domain, in the public domain and opens it to a private domain, in a private domain and opens it to another private domain, is liable.

MISHNAH: One who digs a pit in the public domain is liable if an ox or a donkey fell in and died. Anyone who digs a pit, a ditch, a cave, rectangular excavations, or bases for poles, is liable. Then why is it said “a pit”? Just as a pit to be life-threatening must be ten handbreadths deep, so everything to be life-threatening must be ten handbreadths deep. If it was less than ten handbreadths deep when an ox or a donkey fell in and died, he is not liable, but if they were damaged, he is liable. One who digs a pit in a private domain and opens it to the public domain, in the public domain and opens it to a private domain, in a private domain and opens it to another private domain, is liable.

HALAKHAH: “One who digs a pit in the public domain,” etc. It is written: “If a man open a pit” and “if a man dig a pit.” One pit for damages, the other pit for death. Rebbi Isaac said, both the pit of death and the pit of damages were added from the same verse, but when it comes to the pit of death you say he is not liable for vessels, but when it comes to the pit of damages you say he is liable for vessels! This is not only if he dug, from where if he bought, inherited, or it was given to him as a gift? The verse says, “if a man acquire a pit.” Has one the right to abandon his damages in the public domain? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, explain it following Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah who said, three [handbreadths] close to a domain are like that domain.

HALAKHAH: “One who digs a pit in the public domain,” etc. It is written: “If a man open a pit” and “if a man dig a pit.” One pit for damages, the other pit for death. Rebbi Isaac said, both the pit of death and the pit of damages were added from the same verse, but when it comes to the pit of death you say he is not liable for vessels, but when it comes to the pit of damages you say he is liable for vessels! This is not only if he dug, from where if he bought, inherited, or it was given to him as a gift? The verse says, “if a man acquire a pit.” Has one the right to abandon his damages in the public domain? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, explain it following Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah who said, three [handbreadths] close to a domain are like that domain.

HALAKHAH: “One who digs a pit in the public domain,” etc. It is written: “If a man open a pit” and “if a man dig a pit.” One pit for damages, the other pit for death. Rebbi Isaac said, both the pit of death and the pit of damages were added from the same verse, but when it comes to the pit of death you say he is not liable for vessels, but when it comes to the pit of damages you say he is liable for vessels! This is not only if he dug, from where if he bought, inherited, or it was given to him as a gift? The verse says, “if a man acquire a pit.” Has one the right to abandon his damages in the public domain? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, explain it following Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah who said, three [handbreadths] close to a domain are like that domain.

HALAKHAH: “One who digs a pit in the public domain,” etc. It is written: “If a man open a pit” and “if a man dig a pit.” One pit for damages, the other pit for death. Rebbi Isaac said, both the pit of death and the pit of damages were added from the same verse, but when it comes to the pit of death you say he is not liable for vessels, but when it comes to the pit of damages you say he is liable for vessels! This is not only if he dug, from where if he bought, inherited, or it was given to him as a gift? The verse says, “if a man acquire a pit.” Has one the right to abandon his damages in the public domain? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, explain it following Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah who said, three [handbreadths] close to a domain are like that domain.

“If it entered in due course, he pays for what it damaged.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina said, on that field itself he is not liable, but for another field he is liable. Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both said, even if it grazed on that entire field he is not liable; he only is liable if it left the field for the public domain and from the public domain entered another field. But what is the rule if it fell into a garden and then entered another garden? In the opinion of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina who said, on that field itself he is not liable, here he will be liable. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish who both said, even if it grazed on that entire field he is not liable; he only is liable if it left the field for the public domain and from the public domain entered another field. But if it fell into a place which it could have entered, or it entered a place into which it could have fallen? Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina said, that is the Mishnah; it fell into a place into which it only could have fallen. But if it fell into a place which it could have entered? Each case is problematic for one of them. One needs the first case, that he pays what it profited; the other needs the other case, that he pays what it damaged.

“If it entered in due course, he pays for what it damaged.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina said, on that field itself he is not liable, but for another field he is liable. Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both said, even if it grazed on that entire field he is not liable; he only is liable if it left the field for the public domain and from the public domain entered another field. But what is the rule if it fell into a garden and then entered another garden? In the opinion of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina who said, on that field itself he is not liable, here he will be liable. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish who both said, even if it grazed on that entire field he is not liable; he only is liable if it left the field for the public domain and from the public domain entered another field. But if it fell into a place which it could have entered, or it entered a place into which it could have fallen? Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina said, that is the Mishnah; it fell into a place into which it only could have fallen. But if it fell into a place which it could have entered? Each case is problematic for one of them. One needs the first case, that he pays what it profited; the other needs the other case, that he pays what it damaged.

“If it entered in due course, he pays for what it damaged.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina said, on that field itself he is not liable, but for another field he is liable. Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both said, even if it grazed on that entire field he is not liable; he only is liable if it left the field for the public domain and from the public domain entered another field. But what is the rule if it fell into a garden and then entered another garden? In the opinion of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina who said, on that field itself he is not liable, here he will be liable. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish who both said, even if it grazed on that entire field he is not liable; he only is liable if it left the field for the public domain and from the public domain entered another field. But if it fell into a place which it could have entered, or it entered a place into which it could have fallen? Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina said, that is the Mishnah; it fell into a place into which it only could have fallen. But if it fell into a place which it could have entered? Each case is problematic for one of them. One needs the first case, that he pays what it profited; the other needs the other case, that he pays what it damaged.

“If it entered in due course, he pays for what it damaged.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina said, on that field itself he is not liable, but for another field he is liable. Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both said, even if it grazed on that entire field he is not liable; he only is liable if it left the field for the public domain and from the public domain entered another field. But what is the rule if it fell into a garden and then entered another garden? In the opinion of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina who said, on that field itself he is not liable, here he will be liable. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish who both said, even if it grazed on that entire field he is not liable; he only is liable if it left the field for the public domain and from the public domain entered another field. But if it fell into a place which it could have entered, or it entered a place into which it could have fallen? Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina said, that is the Mishnah; it fell into a place into which it only could have fallen. But if it fell into a place which it could have entered? Each case is problematic for one of them. One needs the first case, that he pays what it profited; the other needs the other case, that he pays what it damaged.

MISHNAH: If a spark came from under a hammer and caused damage, he is liable. If a camel was loaded with flax and while it walked in the public domain the flax entered a store, was lit by the storekeeper’s light, and set the building on fire, the camel’s owner is liable. If the store owner put his light outside, the store owner is liable. Rebbi Jehudah says, in case of a Ḥanukkah light he is not liable.

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

It was stated: “One who found bundles of grain in the public domain does not have to make it public; in a private domain he has to make it public. Sheaves he has to make public, whether in the public or the private domain.”

It was stated: “One who found bundles of grain in the public domain does not have to make it public; in a private domain he has to make it public. Sheaves he has to make public, whether in the public or the private domain.”

It was stated: “One who found bundles of grain in the public domain does not have to make it public; in a private domain he has to make it public. Sheaves he has to make public, whether in the public or the private domain.”

HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Jehudah says, anything out of the ordinary,” etc. It was stated: If it is embedded in it. Here you say, if it is embedded in it. But there you say, if it lies on top of it. When you say, if it is embedded in it, in the public domain. When you say, if it lies on top of it, in a private domain. Maybe even in the public domain? If it lies on top of it, I am saying that if fell there.

HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Jehudah says, anything out of the ordinary,” etc. It was stated: If it is embedded in it. Here you say, if it is embedded in it. But there you say, if it lies on top of it. When you say, if it is embedded in it, in the public domain. When you say, if it lies on top of it, in a private domain. Maybe even in the public domain? If it lies on top of it, I am saying that if fell there.

HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Jehudah says, anything out of the ordinary,” etc. It was stated: If it is embedded in it. Here you say, if it is embedded in it. But there you say, if it lies on top of it. When you say, if it is embedded in it, in the public domain. When you say, if it lies on top of it, in a private domain. Maybe even in the public domain? If it lies on top of it, I am saying that if fell there.

MISHNAH: But the following must be made public: If one found produce in a container or simply a container, coins in a wallet or simply a wallet, heaps of produce, heaps of coins, three coins one on top of the other, bundles of grain in a private domain, home-baked loaves, fleece wool taken from an artisan’s house. Pitchers of wine and pitchers of oil he has to make public.

MISHNAH: What is a lost animal? If he found a donkey or a cow grazing on the road, this is no lost animal. A donkey whose gear is upside-down or a cow running in a vineyard are lost animals. If he returned it but it ran away, returned it but it ran away even four or five times, he is obligated to return it since it is said: “Return it returning.” If he was losing time worth a tetradrachma, he cannot say, give me a tetradrachma but [the owner] may pay him at the rate of an unemployed worker. If there is a court, he can stipulate with him before the court. If there is no court, before whom could he stipulate? His own comes first. If one found it in the cow-shed, he has no obligation; in the public domain he is obligated. But if it was between graves, he may not defile himself. If his father told him to defile himself, or told him not to return it, he should not listen to him. If he unloaded and loaded, unloaded and loaded even four or five times, he is obligated since it is said: “restoring restore”. If he sat down and said, since it is your religious obligation, if you want to unload, unload, he is free since it is said: “with him”. It is a religious obligation to unload, but not to load; Rebbi Simeon says, also to load. Rebbi Yose the Galilean said, if the load was more than the ordinary, he need not do anything since it is said: “under its load,” a load which it can carry.

HALAKHAH: “What is a lost animal,” etc. “If one found it in the cowshed, he has no obligation; in the public domain he is obligated. Between graves, he may not defile himself. If his father told him to defile himself, or told him not to return it, he should not listen to him.” Everywhere you say that a positive commandment has precedence over a prohibition, but here, you say that a positive commandment does not have precedence over a prohibition? There is a difference since both he and his father are required to honor the Omnipresent.

Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: One had a cow and one a donkey. They exchanged one for the other. The donkey’s owner took the cow. When the cow’s owner came to take the donkey and found that it had a fracture, the donkey’s owner had to bring proof that his donkey was well at the moment he took the cow. Anybody who does not agree to this does not know anything about civil law. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, I do not agree, I do not know anything about civil law. There, we have stated: “If she had bodily defects, as long as she was in her father’s house,” etc. Rebbi Ḥuna, Rebbi Phineas, and Rebbi Ḥizqiah went to visit Rebbi Yose to sharpen wits. They quoted the statement and he told them, look at the next statement: “Once she entered the husband’s domain, the husband has to prove.” Would not the father have to prove? But you are saying that the husband has to prove; here also, the owner has to prove.

MISHNAH: And so an olive press built into a rock with a vegetable garden on its top: If it caved in, the garden’s owner may sow on the bottom until he build cupolas on his olive press. If a wall or a tree fell into the public domain and caused damage, he is not liable to pay. If he was given an order to tear down the wall or cut down the tree; within the term he is not liable, after the term he is liable.

MISHNAH: Somebody’s wall bordering on another’s vegetable garden collapsed. That one told him, remove your stones; if he said, they are yours, one does not listen to him. If after the other had accepted, he told him: here are your expenses and I shall take what is mine, one does not listen to him. Somebody hired a worker to work on straw and chaff. When he said to him, pay me my wages, he answered, take what you worked on as your wages, one does not listen to him. If after the other had accepted, he told him: here are your wages and I shall take what is mine, one does not listen to him. If somebody brought his manure into the public domain, he who brings, brings, and he who uses it to manure, manures. One does not soak loam in the public domain nor does one form bricks; one kneads loam in the public domain but not bricks. If somebody builds in the public domain and somebody brings stones; he who brings, brings, and he who builds, builds; but if he caused damage, he pays for what he damaged. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, also he has to prepare his work 30 days in advance.

MISHNAH: Somebody’s wall bordering on another’s vegetable garden collapsed. That one told him, remove your stones; if he said, they are yours, one does not listen to him. If after the other had accepted, he told him: here are your expenses and I shall take what is mine, one does not listen to him. Somebody hired a worker to work on straw and chaff. When he said to him, pay me my wages, he answered, take what you worked on as your wages, one does not listen to him. If after the other had accepted, he told him: here are your wages and I shall take what is mine, one does not listen to him. If somebody brought his manure into the public domain, he who brings, brings, and he who uses it to manure, manures. One does not soak loam in the public domain nor does one form bricks; one kneads loam in the public domain but not bricks. If somebody builds in the public domain and somebody brings stones; he who brings, brings, and he who builds, builds; but if he caused damage, he pays for what he damaged. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, also he has to prepare his work 30 days in advance.

MISHNAH: Somebody’s wall bordering on another’s vegetable garden collapsed. That one told him, remove your stones; if he said, they are yours, one does not listen to him. If after the other had accepted, he told him: here are your expenses and I shall take what is mine, one does not listen to him. Somebody hired a worker to work on straw and chaff. When he said to him, pay me my wages, he answered, take what you worked on as your wages, one does not listen to him. If after the other had accepted, he told him: here are your wages and I shall take what is mine, one does not listen to him. If somebody brought his manure into the public domain, he who brings, brings, and he who uses it to manure, manures. One does not soak loam in the public domain nor does one form bricks; one kneads loam in the public domain but not bricks. If somebody builds in the public domain and somebody brings stones; he who brings, brings, and he who builds, builds; but if he caused damage, he pays for what he damaged. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, also he has to prepare his work 30 days in advance.

MISHNAH: Somebody’s wall bordering on another’s vegetable garden collapsed. That one told him, remove your stones; if he said, they are yours, one does not listen to him. If after the other had accepted, he told him: here are your expenses and I shall take what is mine, one does not listen to him. Somebody hired a worker to work on straw and chaff. When he said to him, pay me my wages, he answered, take what you worked on as your wages, one does not listen to him. If after the other had accepted, he told him: here are your wages and I shall take what is mine, one does not listen to him. If somebody brought his manure into the public domain, he who brings, brings, and he who uses it to manure, manures. One does not soak loam in the public domain nor does one form bricks; one kneads loam in the public domain but not bricks. If somebody builds in the public domain and somebody brings stones; he who brings, brings, and he who builds, builds; but if he caused damage, he pays for what he damaged. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, also he has to prepare his work 30 days in advance.

HALAKHAH: “Somebody who brought his manure,” etc. It was stated: ”A person may unload his manure at his courtyard door in the public domain in order immediately to remove it. But it is forbidden to leave it there. If another person was injured by it, he is liable. Rebbi Jehudah says, at the time of carrying out manure a person may unload his manure at his courtyard door in the public domain for it to be broken down by the feet of people and animals for 30 days, for on this condition did Joshua distribute the Land to Israel.” “A person may unload his dust at his courtyard door in the public domain in order immediately to mix it with water and to bring it to the row of stones; it is forbidden to leave it there. If another person was injured by it, he is liable. He should not knead on one side [and build on the other] but on the side where he is building.” “A person may unload his stones at his courtyard door in the public domain in order immediately to remove them; it is forbidden to leave them there. If another person was injured by them, he is liable. If the quarryman delivered to the camel driver, the camel driver is liable. The camel driver to the stone-mason, the stone-mason is liable. The stone-mason to the porter, the porter is liable. It it was brought up to scaffolding, it was wobbly there and fell, the master-mason is liable. If the (stone-mason) [quarryman] handed it to the (porter) [stone mason] and somebody was injured either by splinters or the stone, the stone-mason is liable. The stone-mason to the porter and he was injured by a splinter, the stone-mason is liable. By the stone, the porter is liable. If it was delivered, settled in the row, and fell, he is not liable.”

HALAKHAH: “Somebody who brought his manure,” etc. It was stated: ”A person may unload his manure at his courtyard door in the public domain in order immediately to remove it. But it is forbidden to leave it there. If another person was injured by it, he is liable. Rebbi Jehudah says, at the time of carrying out manure a person may unload his manure at his courtyard door in the public domain for it to be broken down by the feet of people and animals for 30 days, for on this condition did Joshua distribute the Land to Israel.” “A person may unload his dust at his courtyard door in the public domain in order immediately to mix it with water and to bring it to the row of stones; it is forbidden to leave it there. If another person was injured by it, he is liable. He should not knead on one side [and build on the other] but on the side where he is building.” “A person may unload his stones at his courtyard door in the public domain in order immediately to remove them; it is forbidden to leave them there. If another person was injured by them, he is liable. If the quarryman delivered to the camel driver, the camel driver is liable. The camel driver to the stone-mason, the stone-mason is liable. The stone-mason to the porter, the porter is liable. It it was brought up to scaffolding, it was wobbly there and fell, the master-mason is liable. If the (stone-mason) [quarryman] handed it to the (porter) [stone mason] and somebody was injured either by splinters or the stone, the stone-mason is liable. The stone-mason to the porter and he was injured by a splinter, the stone-mason is liable. By the stone, the porter is liable. If it was delivered, settled in the row, and fell, he is not liable.”

HALAKHAH: “Somebody who brought his manure,” etc. It was stated: ”A person may unload his manure at his courtyard door in the public domain in order immediately to remove it. But it is forbidden to leave it there. If another person was injured by it, he is liable. Rebbi Jehudah says, at the time of carrying out manure a person may unload his manure at his courtyard door in the public domain for it to be broken down by the feet of people and animals for 30 days, for on this condition did Joshua distribute the Land to Israel.” “A person may unload his dust at his courtyard door in the public domain in order immediately to mix it with water and to bring it to the row of stones; it is forbidden to leave it there. If another person was injured by it, he is liable. He should not knead on one side [and build on the other] but on the side where he is building.” “A person may unload his stones at his courtyard door in the public domain in order immediately to remove them; it is forbidden to leave them there. If another person was injured by them, he is liable. If the quarryman delivered to the camel driver, the camel driver is liable. The camel driver to the stone-mason, the stone-mason is liable. The stone-mason to the porter, the porter is liable. It it was brought up to scaffolding, it was wobbly there and fell, the master-mason is liable. If the (stone-mason) [quarryman] handed it to the (porter) [stone mason] and somebody was injured either by splinters or the stone, the stone-mason is liable. The stone-mason to the porter and he was injured by a splinter, the stone-mason is liable. By the stone, the porter is liable. If it was delivered, settled in the row, and fell, he is not liable.”

HALAKHAH: “Somebody who brought his manure,” etc. It was stated: ”A person may unload his manure at his courtyard door in the public domain in order immediately to remove it. But it is forbidden to leave it there. If another person was injured by it, he is liable. Rebbi Jehudah says, at the time of carrying out manure a person may unload his manure at his courtyard door in the public domain for it to be broken down by the feet of people and animals for 30 days, for on this condition did Joshua distribute the Land to Israel.” “A person may unload his dust at his courtyard door in the public domain in order immediately to mix it with water and to bring it to the row of stones; it is forbidden to leave it there. If another person was injured by it, he is liable. He should not knead on one side [and build on the other] but on the side where he is building.” “A person may unload his stones at his courtyard door in the public domain in order immediately to remove them; it is forbidden to leave them there. If another person was injured by them, he is liable. If the quarryman delivered to the camel driver, the camel driver is liable. The camel driver to the stone-mason, the stone-mason is liable. The stone-mason to the porter, the porter is liable. It it was brought up to scaffolding, it was wobbly there and fell, the master-mason is liable. If the (stone-mason) [quarryman] handed it to the (porter) [stone mason] and somebody was injured either by splinters or the stone, the stone-mason is liable. The stone-mason to the porter and he was injured by a splinter, the stone-mason is liable. By the stone, the porter is liable. If it was delivered, settled in the row, and fell, he is not liable.”

Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Banaiah. Everything the co-owners can prevent one another from doing in the courtyard except laundering because of the honor of the daughters of Israel. Rebbi Mattaniah said, this is at a place where women do the laundering, but not at a place where men do the laundering. And what was said, except laundering because of the honor of the daughters of Israel, only that in his own four cubits he may prevent it. And what was said, everything the co-owners can prevent one another from doing in the courtyard, in the entire courtyard except in the other person’s own four cubits where he cannot prevent him. But if the place was at an incline, even in the other person’s own four cubits he can prevent him, since he may tell him: you are pouring out in your domain but it flows down into mine.

MISHNAH: If a tree overhangs another’s field, he may cut it in the height of the plough’s ox-goad; carob tree and sycamore along the plumb line. Over an irrigated field along the plumb line. Abba Shaul says, every non-fruit-bearing tree along the plumb line. If a tree overhangs the public domain, one has to cut it so that a camel with a rider on it may pass; Rebbi Jehudah says, loaded with flax or bundles of vine cuttings. Rebbi Simeon says, any tree [must be cut] along the plumb line because of impurity.

HALAKHAH: “If a tree overhangs another’s field,” etc. “If a tree overhangs the public domain,,” etc. Rebbi Jonathan was careful in judging; there was a Roman there who was his neighbor both in the field and the house. Rebbi Jonathan had a tree overhanging the Roman’s property. A similar case came before him. He told them, go and return next morning. This Roman said, because of me he did not decide the case. Tomorrow I will abandon my work and see how the judgment goes. If he judges all people and does not judge himself, he is not human. At nightfall, Rebbi Jonathan sent for his carpenter and told him, go and cut everything that overhangs the Roman’s. In the morning, the parties appeared before him. He told him, go and cut what overhangs into his property. The Roman said to him, what is with yours? He told him, go and see; what was done with mine do with yours. He went out and looked. He said, praised be the Jews’ God.

“And slaves.” Rebbi Simon the brother of Rebbi Jehudah bar Zavdi in the name of Rav: As long as a baby lies in the public domain, his father or his mother can testify about him. Once he has been collected from the public domain, one needs two witnesses and its father and mother are like two witnesses. Rebbi Abbahu said, can a person be suspected to say about one who is not his son that he is his son? Maybe it was said about the property of a convert? He told him, but all our teachers in the Diaspora testify that in this form we heard it from Rav Ada bar Abuh. Rav Ḥisda said: That is, if the baby is not moving. But [the case of] a baby which is moving refers to what Rebbi Joḥanan said: property rights on jumping calves and lambs which move from place to place cannot be proven by possession.

“And slaves.” Rebbi Simon the brother of Rebbi Jehudah bar Zavdi in the name of Rav: As long as a baby lies in the public domain, his father or his mother can testify about him. Once he has been collected from the public domain, one needs two witnesses and its father and mother are like two witnesses. Rebbi Abbahu said, can a person be suspected to say about one who is not his son that he is his son? Maybe it was said about the property of a convert? He told him, but all our teachers in the Diaspora testify that in this form we heard it from Rav Ada bar Abuh. Rav Ḥisda said: That is, if the baby is not moving. But [the case of] a baby which is moving refers to what Rebbi Joḥanan said: property rights on jumping calves and lambs which move from place to place cannot be proven by possession.

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

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

HALAKHAH: “The drain pipe does not represent a right of possession.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, to lengthen and to widen it. Rebbi Joḥanan said, in all of that direction, as we have stated: the leader has a domain of four cubits. You have to say, in all this direction. Similarly, the drain tube does not represent a right of possession in all of this direction. It was stated thus: “The location of the drain tube does represent a right of possession, the location of its spout does not represent a right of possession.”

MISHNAH: A person may not open windows into the common courtyard. If he bought a house in another courtyard he may not open it into the common courtyard. If he built a second floor on top of his house he may not open it into the common courtyard but he may build a room inside his house or a second floor on top of his house on condition that the access to it be from within his house. In a common courtyard a person may not open a door opposite a door, a window opposite a window. If it was small, he may not enlarge it. If it was one, he may not make it double. But he may open into the public domain a door opposite a door and a window opposite a window. If it was small, he may enlarge it. If it was one, he may make it double.

MISHNAH: One makes no hollow under the public domain, cisterns, ditches, and caves. Rebbi Eliezer permits if a cart filled with stones can pass over it. One does not build protrusions and balconies above the public domain but if he wishes he builds inside his own property and adds them. If somebody bought a courtyard and there are protrusions and balconies, that remains a right of possession.

MISHNAH: One makes no hollow under the public domain, cisterns, ditches, and caves. Rebbi Eliezer permits if a cart filled with stones can pass over it. One does not build protrusions and balconies above the public domain but if he wishes he builds inside his own property and adds them. If somebody bought a courtyard and there are protrusions and balconies, that remains a right of possession.

HALAKHAH: “He who sells a village,” etc. It was stated: “He who sells a village. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, he who sells a village sold the steward but did not sell the administrator. But if he said to him, ‘it and all it contains’? Even if he said to him, ‘it and all it contains’. In neither case did he sell ŝirah and its dependencies, and hard rocks hewn from it, and preserves of wild animals, birds, and fish.” Ŝirah means outlying houses, dependencies are hamlets. Its part in ocean or river, there are Tannaїm who state, it is sold, and there are Tannaїm who state, it is not sold. Rav Ḥisda said, he who says, it is sold, as long as it is within its domain; he who says, it is not sold, if it is not within its domain.

HALAKHAH: “He who sells a village,” etc. It was stated: “He who sells a village. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, he who sells a village sold the steward but did not sell the administrator. But if he said to him, ‘it and all it contains’? Even if he said to him, ‘it and all it contains’. In neither case did he sell ŝirah and its dependencies, and hard rocks hewn from it, and preserves of wild animals, birds, and fish.” Ŝirah means outlying houses, dependencies are hamlets. Its part in ocean or river, there are Tannaїm who state, it is sold, and there are Tannaїm who state, it is not sold. Rav Ḥisda said, he who says, it is sold, as long as it is within its domain; he who says, it is not sold, if it is not within its domain.

MISHNAH: One who prophesies in the name of foreign worship and says, so speaks the foreign worship, even if he stated practice correctly to declare the impure impure and the pure pure. One who copulates with a married woman, from the moment she is in the husband’s domain for definitive marriage even if she did not have intercourse, one who copulates with her is strangled. And the false witnesses of a Cohen’s daughter and her paramour. Therefore all false witnesses are executed by that death except for the false witnesses of a Cohen’s daughter and her paramour.

HALAKHAH: “There are two kinds of oaths which are four kinds,” etc. Two which are four for liability and two which are four for no liability, or four for liability and four for no liability? Let us hear from the following: “There are two kinds of oaths which are four kinds,” etc. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah says so, “there are two kinds of oaths which are four kinds,” not because of liability? And similarly, “there are two kinds of export on the Sabbath which are four kinds,” because there is liability. Rebbi Abba said, there all are about liability, but here we come to state both liability and no liability. This implies four of liability and four of no liability. But did we not state, the doors of the Temple hall were two which are four? Can you say, liability and no liability? Should we state twelve cases of no liability? We come to state cases of no liability which correspond to cases of no liability. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, what is this “no liability” which we stated here? Permitted! Rebbi Yose said, the poor man and the rich man are one but the Sages counted them as two. Exporting or importing are two but the Sages counted them as one. Exporting on the Sabbath does not include importing; if one exports from a domain this does not include importing. If one who exports from one domain to the other, does this not include the one who imports? In addition, from what Rebbi Yasa said in the name if Rebbi Joḥanan: Somebody who imports half the size of a dried fig and exports half the size of a dried fig is liable. And from where that exporting is called work? Rebbi Samuel in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: “Moses ordered, they made a public proclamation in the camp,” etc. The people refrained from taking objects out from their houses to give them to the collectors, who also did not take out anything from them to import into the office. Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Aḥa understood it from the following: “do not bring out any load from your houses on the Sabbath day, and perform no work.”

HALAKHAH: “There are two kinds of oaths which are four kinds,” etc. Two which are four for liability and two which are four for no liability, or four for liability and four for no liability? Let us hear from the following: “There are two kinds of oaths which are four kinds,” etc. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah says so, “there are two kinds of oaths which are four kinds,” not because of liability? And similarly, “there are two kinds of export on the Sabbath which are four kinds,” because there is liability. Rebbi Abba said, there all are about liability, but here we come to state both liability and no liability. This implies four of liability and four of no liability. But did we not state, the doors of the Temple hall were two which are four? Can you say, liability and no liability? Should we state twelve cases of no liability? We come to state cases of no liability which correspond to cases of no liability. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, what is this “no liability” which we stated here? Permitted! Rebbi Yose said, the poor man and the rich man are one but the Sages counted them as two. Exporting or importing are two but the Sages counted them as one. Exporting on the Sabbath does not include importing; if one exports from a domain this does not include importing. If one who exports from one domain to the other, does this not include the one who imports? In addition, from what Rebbi Yasa said in the name if Rebbi Joḥanan: Somebody who imports half the size of a dried fig and exports half the size of a dried fig is liable. And from where that exporting is called work? Rebbi Samuel in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: “Moses ordered, they made a public proclamation in the camp,” etc. The people refrained from taking objects out from their houses to give them to the collectors, who also did not take out anything from them to import into the office. Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Aḥa understood it from the following: “do not bring out any load from your houses on the Sabbath day, and perform no work.”

Rebbi Joḥanan said: In any case of doubt in the public domain, the doubt has to be resolved as pure, but one does not allow to act. But did we not state: “Any case of doubt which was declared pure for heave is pure for sprinkling water, and in any case where it remains unresolved for heave the sprinkling water is poured out.” There is nothing unresolved for the sprinkling water; either it is genuinely pure or genuinely impure. Rebbi Ze`ira said, the Mishnah deals with a situation not caused by a sacrifice; what Rebbi Joḥanan said refers to a situation caused by a sacrifice. Everybody agrees that if the person transgresses and acted, it is pure. The arguments of Rebbi Joḥanan are inverted. There, he says, if he transgresses and acted, it is impure. But here he said, if he transgresses and acted, it is pure. There in a private domain, here in the public domain. But you could even say, there and here in the public domain. The arguments of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish are inverted, the arguments of Rebbi Joḥanan are inverted, since they disagreed: A nazir became impure by a grave in the abyss, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, the nazir does not shave, but Rebbi Joḥanan said, the nazir has to shave. That is since Rebbi Joḥanan said, a doubt of awareness is awareness, even if the first was because of a crawling animal and the second by a corpse. The first before he converted and the second after he converted. The first before he grew two pubic hairs, the second after he grew them.

Rebbi Joḥanan said: In any case of doubt in the public domain, the doubt has to be resolved as pure, but one does not allow to act. But did we not state: “Any case of doubt which was declared pure for heave is pure for sprinkling water, and in any case where it remains unresolved for heave the sprinkling water is poured out.” There is nothing unresolved for the sprinkling water; either it is genuinely pure or genuinely impure. Rebbi Ze`ira said, the Mishnah deals with a situation not caused by a sacrifice; what Rebbi Joḥanan said refers to a situation caused by a sacrifice. Everybody agrees that if the person transgresses and acted, it is pure. The arguments of Rebbi Joḥanan are inverted. There, he says, if he transgresses and acted, it is impure. But here he said, if he transgresses and acted, it is pure. There in a private domain, here in the public domain. But you could even say, there and here in the public domain. The arguments of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish are inverted, the arguments of Rebbi Joḥanan are inverted, since they disagreed: A nazir became impure by a grave in the abyss, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, the nazir does not shave, but Rebbi Joḥanan said, the nazir has to shave. That is since Rebbi Joḥanan said, a doubt of awareness is awareness, even if the first was because of a crawling animal and the second by a corpse. The first before he converted and the second after he converted. The first before he grew two pubic hairs, the second after he grew them.

Rebbi Joḥanan said: In any case of doubt in the public domain, the doubt has to be resolved as pure, but one does not allow to act. But did we not state: “Any case of doubt which was declared pure for heave is pure for sprinkling water, and in any case where it remains unresolved for heave the sprinkling water is poured out.” There is nothing unresolved for the sprinkling water; either it is genuinely pure or genuinely impure. Rebbi Ze`ira said, the Mishnah deals with a situation not caused by a sacrifice; what Rebbi Joḥanan said refers to a situation caused by a sacrifice. Everybody agrees that if the person transgresses and acted, it is pure. The arguments of Rebbi Joḥanan are inverted. There, he says, if he transgresses and acted, it is impure. But here he said, if he transgresses and acted, it is pure. There in a private domain, here in the public domain. But you could even say, there and here in the public domain. The arguments of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish are inverted, the arguments of Rebbi Joḥanan are inverted, since they disagreed: A nazir became impure by a grave in the abyss, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, the nazir does not shave, but Rebbi Joḥanan said, the nazir has to shave. That is since Rebbi Joḥanan said, a doubt of awareness is awareness, even if the first was because of a crawling animal and the second by a corpse. The first before he converted and the second after he converted. The first before he grew two pubic hairs, the second after he grew them.

Rebbi Joḥanan said: In any case of doubt in the public domain, the doubt has to be resolved as pure, but one does not allow to act. But did we not state: “Any case of doubt which was declared pure for heave is pure for sprinkling water, and in any case where it remains unresolved for heave the sprinkling water is poured out.” There is nothing unresolved for the sprinkling water; either it is genuinely pure or genuinely impure. Rebbi Ze`ira said, the Mishnah deals with a situation not caused by a sacrifice; what Rebbi Joḥanan said refers to a situation caused by a sacrifice. Everybody agrees that if the person transgresses and acted, it is pure. The arguments of Rebbi Joḥanan are inverted. There, he says, if he transgresses and acted, it is impure. But here he said, if he transgresses and acted, it is pure. There in a private domain, here in the public domain. But you could even say, there and here in the public domain. The arguments of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish are inverted, the arguments of Rebbi Joḥanan are inverted, since they disagreed: A nazir became impure by a grave in the abyss, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, the nazir does not shave, but Rebbi Joḥanan said, the nazir has to shave. That is since Rebbi Joḥanan said, a doubt of awareness is awareness, even if the first was because of a crawling animal and the second by a corpse. The first before he converted and the second after he converted. The first before he grew two pubic hairs, the second after he grew them.

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

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

MISHNAH: One may be healed from the healing of property but not healing of persons. One may not be shaved from them anywhere, the words of Rebbi Meïr; but the Sages say it is permitted in the public domain but not in private.

MISHNAH: Proclos ben Ploslos asked Rabban Gamliel in Acco when he was taking a bath in the Bath of Aphrodite. He said to him, it is written in your Torah, nothing banned should stick to your hand: why are you bathing in the Bath of Aphrodite? He said to him, one does not answer in the bath. When he left he told him, I did not come into her domain, she came into my domain. One does not say, the bath was built as adornment for Aphrodite but one says, Aphrodite was made as adornment of the bath. Another explanation. If one gave you lots of money, would you enter your temple naked, after an emission, or urinating before it? But this one stands over the sewer and everybody is urinating in its presence. It only says their gods; what is treated as a divinity is forbidden, what is not treated as a divinity is not forbidden.

MISHNAH: Proclos ben Ploslos asked Rabban Gamliel in Acco when he was taking a bath in the Bath of Aphrodite. He said to him, it is written in your Torah, nothing banned should stick to your hand: why are you bathing in the Bath of Aphrodite? He said to him, one does not answer in the bath. When he left he told him, I did not come into her domain, she came into my domain. One does not say, the bath was built as adornment for Aphrodite but one says, Aphrodite was made as adornment of the bath. Another explanation. If one gave you lots of money, would you enter your temple naked, after an emission, or urinating before it? But this one stands over the sewer and everybody is urinating in its presence. It only says their gods; what is treated as a divinity is forbidden, what is not treated as a divinity is not forbidden.

MISHNAH: One who makes a Non-Jew’s wine in purity and leaves it in his domain, in a house open to the public domain in a city where there are Gentiles and Jews it is permitted, in a city where all are Gentiles it is forbidden unless he install there a watchman. But the watchman does not have to sit there and watch; even if he leaves and reenters it is permitted. Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says, all Gentiles’ domains are the same. One who makes a Non-Jew’s wine in purity and leaves it in his domain, if this one writes to him that I received the money, it is permitted. But if the Jew wants to remove it and he does not let him do it before he paid him his money, this was a case in Bet Shean and the Sages forbade.

MISHNAH: One who makes a Non-Jew’s wine in purity and leaves it in his domain, in a house open to the public domain in a city where there are Gentiles and Jews it is permitted, in a city where all are Gentiles it is forbidden unless he install there a watchman. But the watchman does not have to sit there and watch; even if he leaves and reenters it is permitted. Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says, all Gentiles’ domains are the same. One who makes a Non-Jew’s wine in purity and leaves it in his domain, if this one writes to him that I received the money, it is permitted. But if the Jew wants to remove it and he does not let him do it before he paid him his money, this was a case in Bet Shean and the Sages forbade.

MISHNAH: One who makes a Non-Jew’s wine in purity and leaves it in his domain, in a house open to the public domain in a city where there are Gentiles and Jews it is permitted, in a city where all are Gentiles it is forbidden unless he install there a watchman. But the watchman does not have to sit there and watch; even if he leaves and reenters it is permitted. Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says, all Gentiles’ domains are the same. One who makes a Non-Jew’s wine in purity and leaves it in his domain, if this one writes to him that I received the money, it is permitted. But if the Jew wants to remove it and he does not let him do it before he paid him his money, this was a case in Bet Shean and the Sages forbade.

MISHNAH: If one threw a stone into the public domain and it killed someone, he is exiled. Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob says, if after the stone left his hand, the other one stuck out his head and received it, he is not liable.

HALAKHAH: “If one threw a stone,” etc. Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob stated, it found. That he should have been there at the moment he killed him. But is there permission to throw the stone into the public domain? Rebbi Yose ben Abun said, explain it if his wall was inclined.

Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, if he was splitting wood in his courtyard, when a worker entered to collect his wages, and a splinter ricocheted and injured him, he is liable. If he died, he does not go into exile, for it is not like a forest. Rebbi Ḥanina stated, he is not liable. They do not disagree. What Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, when they did not see him. But what Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, when they saw him. When they did not see him, from the moment he told him: enter, should he not be liable? Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, he is not liable. Since he told him: enter, he has to take precautions. Some would say, since he told him to enter, it becomes like the courtyard of partners. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Partners acquire from one another in a courtyard; they object to one another in a courtyard, and are mutually liable for damages. But did not Rav say, if he filled the entire public domain? This did not fill the entire public domain! Since they usually walk in the entire domain, it is as if he had filled the entire domain.

Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, if he was splitting wood in his courtyard, when a worker entered to collect his wages, and a splinter ricocheted and injured him, he is liable. If he died, he does not go into exile, for it is not like a forest. Rebbi Ḥanina stated, he is not liable. They do not disagree. What Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, when they did not see him. But what Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, when they saw him. When they did not see him, from the moment he told him: enter, should he not be liable? Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, he is not liable. Since he told him: enter, he has to take precautions. Some would say, since he told him to enter, it becomes like the courtyard of partners. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Partners acquire from one another in a courtyard; they object to one another in a courtyard, and are mutually liable for damages. But did not Rav say, if he filled the entire public domain? This did not fill the entire public domain! Since they usually walk in the entire domain, it is as if he had filled the entire domain.

Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, if he was splitting wood in his courtyard, when a worker entered to collect his wages, and a splinter ricocheted and injured him, he is liable. If he died, he does not go into exile, for it is not like a forest. Rebbi Ḥanina stated, he is not liable. They do not disagree. What Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, when they did not see him. But what Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, when they saw him. When they did not see him, from the moment he told him: enter, should he not be liable? Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, he is not liable. Since he told him: enter, he has to take precautions. Some would say, since he told him to enter, it becomes like the courtyard of partners. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Partners acquire from one another in a courtyard; they object to one another in a courtyard, and are mutually liable for damages. But did not Rav say, if he filled the entire public domain? This did not fill the entire public domain! Since they usually walk in the entire domain, it is as if he had filled the entire domain.

Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, if he was splitting wood in his courtyard, when a worker entered to collect his wages, and a splinter ricocheted and injured him, he is liable. If he died, he does not go into exile, for it is not like a forest. Rebbi Ḥanina stated, he is not liable. They do not disagree. What Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, when they did not see him. But what Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, when they saw him. When they did not see him, from the moment he told him: enter, should he not be liable? Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, he is not liable. Since he told him: enter, he has to take precautions. Some would say, since he told him to enter, it becomes like the courtyard of partners. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Partners acquire from one another in a courtyard; they object to one another in a courtyard, and are mutually liable for damages. But did not Rav say, if he filled the entire public domain? This did not fill the entire public domain! Since they usually walk in the entire domain, it is as if he had filled the entire domain.

MISHNAH: Where are they exiled to? To the cities of refuge. To the three in Transjordan and the three in the Land of Canaan, as it is said: Three cities you shall designate in Transjordan, etc. As long as those in the Land of Israel had not been selected, those in Transjordan were not receiving, as it is said, there shall be six cities of refuge, not until all six were receiving together. Roads were maintained from one to the other, as it is said: Maintain the road for yourselves, and divide the domain of your Land into three parts. One sends with them two scholars lest he kill him on the road, to argue with him. Rebbi Meïr says, he may argue for himself as it is said, this is the word of the homicide. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah says, at the start both the involuntary and the voluntary [homicide] go to the city of refuge; the court sends and brings them back from there. If one is found guilty by a death sentence, they execute him. If he is found not guilty in a capital case, he is freed. If he is found guilty to be exiled they return him to his place as it is said, the community shall return him to his city of refuge. Not only a [High Priest] anointed with the anointing oil, but also one wearing the many vestments, and one deposed from his office. Rebbi Jehudah says, also the one anointed for war returns the homicide. Therefore, the mothers of the [High] Priests support them with food and clothing, so they should not pray for the death of their sons. If sentence had been passed when the High Priest died, he is not exiled. If sentence had not yet been passed when the High Priest died, and sentence was passed after a successor had been appointed, he returns after the death of the second. If sentence was passed when there was no High Priest, or one who killed a High Priest, or a High Priest who killed, can never leave from there. He cannot leave from there, neither for a testimony of obligation, nor a testimony in a civil suit, nor a testimony in a criminal suit, not even if Israel needs him like Joab ben Ṣeruya, he cannot ever leave from there, as it is said there. There shall be his dwelling, there he shall die, there he shall be buried. Just as the city grants asylum, so does its domain grant asylum. If a murderer left the domain and was found by the avenger of the blood, Rebbi Yose the Galilean says, it is the obligation of the avenger of the blood and the right of everybody. Rebbi Aqiba says, it is the right of the avenger of the blood and nobody would be liable because of him. If a tree stands inside the domain but its crown is outside the domain, or the tree stands outside the domain but its crown is inside the domain, everything follows the crown. If somebody killed in one of these cities, he is exiled from quarter to quarter; but a Levite who killed is exiled from one city to another. Similarly, a homicide exiled to a city of refuge whom the citizens of the town wanted to honor, should say to them, I am a homicide. If they tell him, anyway, he should accept, for it is said, this is the word of a homicide.

MISHNAH: Where are they exiled to? To the cities of refuge. To the three in Transjordan and the three in the Land of Canaan, as it is said: Three cities you shall designate in Transjordan, etc. As long as those in the Land of Israel had not been selected, those in Transjordan were not receiving, as it is said, there shall be six cities of refuge, not until all six were receiving together. Roads were maintained from one to the other, as it is said: Maintain the road for yourselves, and divide the domain of your Land into three parts. One sends with them two scholars lest he kill him on the road, to argue with him. Rebbi Meïr says, he may argue for himself as it is said, this is the word of the homicide. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah says, at the start both the involuntary and the voluntary [homicide] go to the city of refuge; the court sends and brings them back from there. If one is found guilty by a death sentence, they execute him. If he is found not guilty in a capital case, he is freed. If he is found guilty to be exiled they return him to his place as it is said, the community shall return him to his city of refuge. Not only a [High Priest] anointed with the anointing oil, but also one wearing the many vestments, and one deposed from his office. Rebbi Jehudah says, also the one anointed for war returns the homicide. Therefore, the mothers of the [High] Priests support them with food and clothing, so they should not pray for the death of their sons. If sentence had been passed when the High Priest died, he is not exiled. If sentence had not yet been passed when the High Priest died, and sentence was passed after a successor had been appointed, he returns after the death of the second. If sentence was passed when there was no High Priest, or one who killed a High Priest, or a High Priest who killed, can never leave from there. He cannot leave from there, neither for a testimony of obligation, nor a testimony in a civil suit, nor a testimony in a criminal suit, not even if Israel needs him like Joab ben Ṣeruya, he cannot ever leave from there, as it is said there. There shall be his dwelling, there he shall die, there he shall be buried. Just as the city grants asylum, so does its domain grant asylum. If a murderer left the domain and was found by the avenger of the blood, Rebbi Yose the Galilean says, it is the obligation of the avenger of the blood and the right of everybody. Rebbi Aqiba says, it is the right of the avenger of the blood and nobody would be liable because of him. If a tree stands inside the domain but its crown is outside the domain, or the tree stands outside the domain but its crown is inside the domain, everything follows the crown. If somebody killed in one of these cities, he is exiled from quarter to quarter; but a Levite who killed is exiled from one city to another. Similarly, a homicide exiled to a city of refuge whom the citizens of the town wanted to honor, should say to them, I am a homicide. If they tell him, anyway, he should accept, for it is said, this is the word of a homicide.

MISHNAH: Where are they exiled to? To the cities of refuge. To the three in Transjordan and the three in the Land of Canaan, as it is said: Three cities you shall designate in Transjordan, etc. As long as those in the Land of Israel had not been selected, those in Transjordan were not receiving, as it is said, there shall be six cities of refuge, not until all six were receiving together. Roads were maintained from one to the other, as it is said: Maintain the road for yourselves, and divide the domain of your Land into three parts. One sends with them two scholars lest he kill him on the road, to argue with him. Rebbi Meïr says, he may argue for himself as it is said, this is the word of the homicide. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah says, at the start both the involuntary and the voluntary [homicide] go to the city of refuge; the court sends and brings them back from there. If one is found guilty by a death sentence, they execute him. If he is found not guilty in a capital case, he is freed. If he is found guilty to be exiled they return him to his place as it is said, the community shall return him to his city of refuge. Not only a [High Priest] anointed with the anointing oil, but also one wearing the many vestments, and one deposed from his office. Rebbi Jehudah says, also the one anointed for war returns the homicide. Therefore, the mothers of the [High] Priests support them with food and clothing, so they should not pray for the death of their sons. If sentence had been passed when the High Priest died, he is not exiled. If sentence had not yet been passed when the High Priest died, and sentence was passed after a successor had been appointed, he returns after the death of the second. If sentence was passed when there was no High Priest, or one who killed a High Priest, or a High Priest who killed, can never leave from there. He cannot leave from there, neither for a testimony of obligation, nor a testimony in a civil suit, nor a testimony in a criminal suit, not even if Israel needs him like Joab ben Ṣeruya, he cannot ever leave from there, as it is said there. There shall be his dwelling, there he shall die, there he shall be buried. Just as the city grants asylum, so does its domain grant asylum. If a murderer left the domain and was found by the avenger of the blood, Rebbi Yose the Galilean says, it is the obligation of the avenger of the blood and the right of everybody. Rebbi Aqiba says, it is the right of the avenger of the blood and nobody would be liable because of him. If a tree stands inside the domain but its crown is outside the domain, or the tree stands outside the domain but its crown is inside the domain, everything follows the crown. If somebody killed in one of these cities, he is exiled from quarter to quarter; but a Levite who killed is exiled from one city to another. Similarly, a homicide exiled to a city of refuge whom the citizens of the town wanted to honor, should say to them, I am a homicide. If they tell him, anyway, he should accept, for it is said, this is the word of a homicide.

MISHNAH: Where are they exiled to? To the cities of refuge. To the three in Transjordan and the three in the Land of Canaan, as it is said: Three cities you shall designate in Transjordan, etc. As long as those in the Land of Israel had not been selected, those in Transjordan were not receiving, as it is said, there shall be six cities of refuge, not until all six were receiving together. Roads were maintained from one to the other, as it is said: Maintain the road for yourselves, and divide the domain of your Land into three parts. One sends with them two scholars lest he kill him on the road, to argue with him. Rebbi Meïr says, he may argue for himself as it is said, this is the word of the homicide. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah says, at the start both the involuntary and the voluntary [homicide] go to the city of refuge; the court sends and brings them back from there. If one is found guilty by a death sentence, they execute him. If he is found not guilty in a capital case, he is freed. If he is found guilty to be exiled they return him to his place as it is said, the community shall return him to his city of refuge. Not only a [High Priest] anointed with the anointing oil, but also one wearing the many vestments, and one deposed from his office. Rebbi Jehudah says, also the one anointed for war returns the homicide. Therefore, the mothers of the [High] Priests support them with food and clothing, so they should not pray for the death of their sons. If sentence had been passed when the High Priest died, he is not exiled. If sentence had not yet been passed when the High Priest died, and sentence was passed after a successor had been appointed, he returns after the death of the second. If sentence was passed when there was no High Priest, or one who killed a High Priest, or a High Priest who killed, can never leave from there. He cannot leave from there, neither for a testimony of obligation, nor a testimony in a civil suit, nor a testimony in a criminal suit, not even if Israel needs him like Joab ben Ṣeruya, he cannot ever leave from there, as it is said there. There shall be his dwelling, there he shall die, there he shall be buried. Just as the city grants asylum, so does its domain grant asylum. If a murderer left the domain and was found by the avenger of the blood, Rebbi Yose the Galilean says, it is the obligation of the avenger of the blood and the right of everybody. Rebbi Aqiba says, it is the right of the avenger of the blood and nobody would be liable because of him. If a tree stands inside the domain but its crown is outside the domain, or the tree stands outside the domain but its crown is inside the domain, everything follows the crown. If somebody killed in one of these cities, he is exiled from quarter to quarter; but a Levite who killed is exiled from one city to another. Similarly, a homicide exiled to a city of refuge whom the citizens of the town wanted to honor, should say to them, I am a homicide. If they tell him, anyway, he should accept, for it is said, this is the word of a homicide.

MISHNAH: Where are they exiled to? To the cities of refuge. To the three in Transjordan and the three in the Land of Canaan, as it is said: Three cities you shall designate in Transjordan, etc. As long as those in the Land of Israel had not been selected, those in Transjordan were not receiving, as it is said, there shall be six cities of refuge, not until all six were receiving together. Roads were maintained from one to the other, as it is said: Maintain the road for yourselves, and divide the domain of your Land into three parts. One sends with them two scholars lest he kill him on the road, to argue with him. Rebbi Meïr says, he may argue for himself as it is said, this is the word of the homicide. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah says, at the start both the involuntary and the voluntary [homicide] go to the city of refuge; the court sends and brings them back from there. If one is found guilty by a death sentence, they execute him. If he is found not guilty in a capital case, he is freed. If he is found guilty to be exiled they return him to his place as it is said, the community shall return him to his city of refuge. Not only a [High Priest] anointed with the anointing oil, but also one wearing the many vestments, and one deposed from his office. Rebbi Jehudah says, also the one anointed for war returns the homicide. Therefore, the mothers of the [High] Priests support them with food and clothing, so they should not pray for the death of their sons. If sentence had been passed when the High Priest died, he is not exiled. If sentence had not yet been passed when the High Priest died, and sentence was passed after a successor had been appointed, he returns after the death of the second. If sentence was passed when there was no High Priest, or one who killed a High Priest, or a High Priest who killed, can never leave from there. He cannot leave from there, neither for a testimony of obligation, nor a testimony in a civil suit, nor a testimony in a criminal suit, not even if Israel needs him like Joab ben Ṣeruya, he cannot ever leave from there, as it is said there. There shall be his dwelling, there he shall die, there he shall be buried. Just as the city grants asylum, so does its domain grant asylum. If a murderer left the domain and was found by the avenger of the blood, Rebbi Yose the Galilean says, it is the obligation of the avenger of the blood and the right of everybody. Rebbi Aqiba says, it is the right of the avenger of the blood and nobody would be liable because of him. If a tree stands inside the domain but its crown is outside the domain, or the tree stands outside the domain but its crown is inside the domain, everything follows the crown. If somebody killed in one of these cities, he is exiled from quarter to quarter; but a Levite who killed is exiled from one city to another. Similarly, a homicide exiled to a city of refuge whom the citizens of the town wanted to honor, should say to them, I am a homicide. If they tell him, anyway, he should accept, for it is said, this is the word of a homicide.

MISHNAH: Where are they exiled to? To the cities of refuge. To the three in Transjordan and the three in the Land of Canaan, as it is said: Three cities you shall designate in Transjordan, etc. As long as those in the Land of Israel had not been selected, those in Transjordan were not receiving, as it is said, there shall be six cities of refuge, not until all six were receiving together. Roads were maintained from one to the other, as it is said: Maintain the road for yourselves, and divide the domain of your Land into three parts. One sends with them two scholars lest he kill him on the road, to argue with him. Rebbi Meïr says, he may argue for himself as it is said, this is the word of the homicide. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah says, at the start both the involuntary and the voluntary [homicide] go to the city of refuge; the court sends and brings them back from there. If one is found guilty by a death sentence, they execute him. If he is found not guilty in a capital case, he is freed. If he is found guilty to be exiled they return him to his place as it is said, the community shall return him to his city of refuge. Not only a [High Priest] anointed with the anointing oil, but also one wearing the many vestments, and one deposed from his office. Rebbi Jehudah says, also the one anointed for war returns the homicide. Therefore, the mothers of the [High] Priests support them with food and clothing, so they should not pray for the death of their sons. If sentence had been passed when the High Priest died, he is not exiled. If sentence had not yet been passed when the High Priest died, and sentence was passed after a successor had been appointed, he returns after the death of the second. If sentence was passed when there was no High Priest, or one who killed a High Priest, or a High Priest who killed, can never leave from there. He cannot leave from there, neither for a testimony of obligation, nor a testimony in a civil suit, nor a testimony in a criminal suit, not even if Israel needs him like Joab ben Ṣeruya, he cannot ever leave from there, as it is said there. There shall be his dwelling, there he shall die, there he shall be buried. Just as the city grants asylum, so does its domain grant asylum. If a murderer left the domain and was found by the avenger of the blood, Rebbi Yose the Galilean says, it is the obligation of the avenger of the blood and the right of everybody. Rebbi Aqiba says, it is the right of the avenger of the blood and nobody would be liable because of him. If a tree stands inside the domain but its crown is outside the domain, or the tree stands outside the domain but its crown is inside the domain, everything follows the crown. If somebody killed in one of these cities, he is exiled from quarter to quarter; but a Levite who killed is exiled from one city to another. Similarly, a homicide exiled to a city of refuge whom the citizens of the town wanted to honor, should say to them, I am a homicide. If they tell him, anyway, he should accept, for it is said, this is the word of a homicide.

MISHNAH: Where are they exiled to? To the cities of refuge. To the three in Transjordan and the three in the Land of Canaan, as it is said: Three cities you shall designate in Transjordan, etc. As long as those in the Land of Israel had not been selected, those in Transjordan were not receiving, as it is said, there shall be six cities of refuge, not until all six were receiving together. Roads were maintained from one to the other, as it is said: Maintain the road for yourselves, and divide the domain of your Land into three parts. One sends with them two scholars lest he kill him on the road, to argue with him. Rebbi Meïr says, he may argue for himself as it is said, this is the word of the homicide. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah says, at the start both the involuntary and the voluntary [homicide] go to the city of refuge; the court sends and brings them back from there. If one is found guilty by a death sentence, they execute him. If he is found not guilty in a capital case, he is freed. If he is found guilty to be exiled they return him to his place as it is said, the community shall return him to his city of refuge. Not only a [High Priest] anointed with the anointing oil, but also one wearing the many vestments, and one deposed from his office. Rebbi Jehudah says, also the one anointed for war returns the homicide. Therefore, the mothers of the [High] Priests support them with food and clothing, so they should not pray for the death of their sons. If sentence had been passed when the High Priest died, he is not exiled. If sentence had not yet been passed when the High Priest died, and sentence was passed after a successor had been appointed, he returns after the death of the second. If sentence was passed when there was no High Priest, or one who killed a High Priest, or a High Priest who killed, can never leave from there. He cannot leave from there, neither for a testimony of obligation, nor a testimony in a civil suit, nor a testimony in a criminal suit, not even if Israel needs him like Joab ben Ṣeruya, he cannot ever leave from there, as it is said there. There shall be his dwelling, there he shall die, there he shall be buried. Just as the city grants asylum, so does its domain grant asylum. If a murderer left the domain and was found by the avenger of the blood, Rebbi Yose the Galilean says, it is the obligation of the avenger of the blood and the right of everybody. Rebbi Aqiba says, it is the right of the avenger of the blood and nobody would be liable because of him. If a tree stands inside the domain but its crown is outside the domain, or the tree stands outside the domain but its crown is inside the domain, everything follows the crown. If somebody killed in one of these cities, he is exiled from quarter to quarter; but a Levite who killed is exiled from one city to another. Similarly, a homicide exiled to a city of refuge whom the citizens of the town wanted to honor, should say to them, I am a homicide. If they tell him, anyway, he should accept, for it is said, this is the word of a homicide.

[Just as the city grants asylum, so does its domain grants asylum.] “Three cities did Moses designate in Transjordan. When they came to the Land they designated another three. In the future there will be another three, as it is said three, three, three. This makes nine. Abba Shaul says, three. Three of three times three makes nine. Additional makes twelve. Rebbi Nehorai says, three, three, three make nine. Additional makes twelve. To these three makes fifteen.” It is written: Six cities of refuge there shall be for you, that all six of them give asylum simultaneously. And you say so? It follows what Rebbi Samuel [ben Aina] said in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: Five things was the last Temple missing which were in the first Temple, as it is written: Go to the mountain, bring wood, etc., up to I may be honored. It is written I shall be honored, without the letter he. These are the five things which the last Temple was missing which were in the first Temple. They are: The fire, the Ark, Urim and Tummim, anointing oil, and the Holy Spirit.

[If a tree stands inside the domain but its crown is outside the domain.] [Rebbi] Abbai said, a scholar has to make his qualifications known. If he knows one collection and he comes to a place where they honor him as if he knew two, he has to tell them, I know one collection. (Rav Huna said, he says it in a soft voice and his right hand is stretched out to receive.)

[If a tree stands inside the domain but its crown is outside the domain.] [Rebbi] Abbai said, a scholar has to make his qualifications known. If he knows one collection and he comes to a place where they honor him as if he knew two, he has to tell them, I know one collection. (Rav Huna said, he says it in a soft voice and his right hand is stretched out to receive.)

Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Jehudah, Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Mar Uqba: One strip-measures only with a rope of 50 cubits. Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rav Ḥisda: One strip-measures neither for the Levitic cities nor for the place of breaking the calf’s neck. This would be acceptable for him who says, 1000 cubits of open space and 2000 cubits of Sabbath domain. But for him who says, 1000 cubits of open space and 2000 cubits of fields and vineyards, did they not learn the Sabbath domain from the Levitic cities? For the main thing one does not strip-measure; does one strip-measure for the derivative?

Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Jehudah, Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Mar Uqba: One strip-measures only with a rope of 50 cubits. Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rav Ḥisda: One strip-measures neither for the Levitic cities nor for the place of breaking the calf’s neck. This would be acceptable for him who says, 1000 cubits of open space and 2000 cubits of Sabbath domain. But for him who says, 1000 cubits of open space and 2000 cubits of fields and vineyards, did they not learn the Sabbath domain from the Levitic cities? For the main thing one does not strip-measure; does one strip-measure for the derivative?

MISHNAH: If the Court ruled to uproot an entire subject; if they said, the menstruating woman is not mentioned in the Torah, Sabbath is not mentioned in the Torah, idolatry is not mentioned in the Torah, they are not liable. If they ruled to eliminate part and to confirm part, they are liable. How is that? If they said, the menstruating woman is mentioned in the Torah but one who copulates with one who is watching a day to the next day is not liable; Sabbath is mentioned in the Torah but one who brings from a private domain to a public domain is not liable; idolatry is mentioned in the Torah but one who prostrates himself is not liable; these are liable for it is said something was hidden, something but not an entire subject.

MISHNAH: If the Court ruled to uproot an entire subject; if they said, the menstruating woman is not mentioned in the Torah, Sabbath is not mentioned in the Torah, idolatry is not mentioned in the Torah, they are not liable. If they ruled to eliminate part and to confirm part, they are liable. How is that? If they said, the menstruating woman is mentioned in the Torah but one who copulates with one who is watching a day to the next day is not liable; Sabbath is mentioned in the Torah but one who brings from a private domain to a public domain is not liable; idolatry is mentioned in the Torah but one who prostrates himself is not liable; these are liable for it is said something was hidden, something but not an entire subject.

It was stated: For the 24 hours which were stated, one suspends but one does not burn. Rebbi Ze‘ira enjoyed this [because] he found stated: “A woman who detects a stain makes impure retroactively. What does she make impure? Food, and drinks, and seats, and beds; her count is in disorder, and she makes her sex partner impure retroactively. A woman who detects blood makes impure retroactively. What does she make impure? Food, and drinks, and seats, and beds; her count is not in disorder, and she does not make her sex partner impure retroactively. Rebbi Aqiba says, she makes her sex partner impure retroactively. In both cases, one suspends but one does not burn.” There, they say: For the 24 hours which were stated, her bed is like her touch. How? Like one who sleeps with a menstruating woman who does not make impure by moving and does not make clay vessels impure. It was found stated: He makes clay vessels impure by moving. For the 24 hours which were stated, what is the status of what she touches in the public domain? Let us hear from the following: Pregnant and nursing women are pure for their husbands, as is a woman with a regular period. And all other women are pure for sexual relations but impure in their touch. That means, what she certainly touched in the public domain is impure.

It was stated: For the 24 hours which were stated, one suspends but one does not burn. Rebbi Ze‘ira enjoyed this [because] he found stated: “A woman who detects a stain makes impure retroactively. What does she make impure? Food, and drinks, and seats, and beds; her count is in disorder, and she makes her sex partner impure retroactively. A woman who detects blood makes impure retroactively. What does she make impure? Food, and drinks, and seats, and beds; her count is not in disorder, and she does not make her sex partner impure retroactively. Rebbi Aqiba says, she makes her sex partner impure retroactively. In both cases, one suspends but one does not burn.” There, they say: For the 24 hours which were stated, her bed is like her touch. How? Like one who sleeps with a menstruating woman who does not make impure by moving and does not make clay vessels impure. It was found stated: He makes clay vessels impure by moving. For the 24 hours which were stated, what is the status of what she touches in the public domain? Let us hear from the following: Pregnant and nursing women are pure for their husbands, as is a woman with a regular period. And all other women are pure for sexual relations but impure in their touch. That means, what she certainly touched in the public domain is impure.

What is the period that is counted for her? An average period. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Rebbi Yudan Neśia: One gives her 30 days as average period. Can she not have a personal period? Since it cannot be verified by blood, she has no period. Should she [become impure] by stains? Hizqiah said, since you made her a full water pitcher, she has stains. Samuel said, even if the entire bedsheet is full of drops of blood she has no stains. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: Even if she bled a hundred times, she has no stains. How long? Until she reaches the age of puberty. What is the age of puberty? When she grows two pubic hairs. Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya, Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Yoṣadaq: Her spittle is pure, what she sits on is pure, what she touches in the public domain is pure. They interpreted this: no 24 hours.

1) If the first day of the festival falls on Shabbat, all the people bring their lulavim to the synagogue [on Friday]. 2) The next day they arise early [and come to the synagogue] and each one recognizes his own [lulav] and takes it, since the sages said “one cannot fulfill his obligation on the first day of the festival with his friend’s lulav.” 3) But on the other days of the festival one may fulfill his obligation with the lulav of his fellow. 4) Rabbi Yose says: if the first day of the festival fell on Shabbat, and he forgot and carried out his lulav into the public domain, he is not liable, since he brought it out while under the influence [of a religious act].

R. Yose says: If the first day of the festival [fell on Shabbat, and he forgot and carried out his lulav into the public domain, he is not liable, since he brought it out while under the influence of a religious act]. Abaye said:

If [the minor] knows how to take care of his body we may eat food that has been prepared in ritual purity though his body [touched it]; If he knows how to take care of hands, we may eat food that has been prepared in ritual purity even though his hands [touched it]. If he knows how to answer [questions on whether he touched any ritual uncleanliness], a doubtful case on his part that occurs in a private domain is regarded as unclean, but if in a public domain as clean. [If he knows how] to spread out his hands [in priestly benediction] they may give him terumah on the threshingfloors.

If [the minor] knows how to take care of his body we may eat food that has been prepared in ritual purity though his body [touched it]; If he knows how to take care of hands, we may eat food that has been prepared in ritual purity even though his hands [touched it]. If he knows how to answer [questions on whether he touched any ritual uncleanliness], a doubtful case on his part that occurs in a private domain is regarded as unclean, but if in a public domain as clean. [If he knows how] to spread out his hands [in priestly benediction] they may give him terumah on the threshingfloors.

and thereby he will be carrying it for four cubits through a public domain. And the same reason applies to the shofar, and the same reason applies to the megillah.

But at any rate all agree that the Megillah is not to be read on Shabbat. What is the reason? Rabbah said: All are obligated to read the Megillah, but not all are competent to read it, and there is therefore a decree [not to read on Shabbat] lest one take the scroll in his hand and go to an expert to learn and [in doing so] carry it four cubits in a public domain.

Mishnah: The one who throws a stone into the public domain and killed [someone], behold, he is exiled. Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says: If, from when the stone left his hand, another person stuck out their head and received [the stone and was killed], behold, he is exempt [from exile].

Gemara: [The one who throws a stone] into the public domain is an intentional [sinner]! Rav Shmuel bar Yitzchak said: [Rather this is in a case when] he is taking down his wall. He should have been paying attention! [Rather this is in a case when] he is taking down his wall at night. At night also, he should have been paying attention!