earlier

MISHNAH: Somebody who preliminarily marries two women with the value of a peruṭah, or one woman with the value of half a peruṭah, is not preliminarily married even if afterwards he sent presents, since he sent them based on the earlier preliminary marriage. The same holds for an underage boy who contracted a preliminary marriage.

“If somebody hides a thorn or [a piece of] glass in another person’s wall; if the owner of the wall then tears it down and a third person is hurt, he is liable. The pious people of earlier times used to take them out into their fields, lower than three handbreadths so that the plough would not lift them.”

HALAKHAH: “How long does one have to make it public,” etc. It was stated: In earlier times one made it public during three holidays, and after the last holiday seven days so that one goes home during three days, comes back during three days, and makes it public during one day. After the destruction of the Temple they instituted that one has to make it public during three days. Starting from the danger they instituted that one has to inform his relatives and neighbors; this is sufficient.

MISHNAH: Just as there is cheating in trade so there is cheating by words. One should not say to another: how much for this object, if he is not interested in buying. If somebody was a repentant sinner, one should not say to him: remember your earlier deeds. If somebody was the son of a proselyte, one may not say to him: remember the deeds of your forefathers, for it is written: “A sojourner you may neither cheat nor oppress, for you were sojourners in the Land of Egypt.” One does not mix produce, not even new with new; no need to say new with old. In truth they permitted to mix strong wine with weak since it improves it. One does not mix wine lees with wine but one delivers the lees with the wine. If water became mixed with somebody’s wine, he should not sell it in the store unless he declares it, and not to a trader for that one would only use it to trick people; at a place where they usually put water into the wine they may do so. The trader may buy from five threshing floors and put into one chest, wine from five wine presses and put into one barrel, on condition that he not intend to mix. Rebbi Jehudah says, a store owner should not distribute roasted kernels and nuts to children because he induces them to come to him, but the Sages permit. He should not reduce the price, but the Sages say, may he be remembered as a benefactor. He should not clean the groats following Abba Shaul, but the Sages permit it. However, they agree that he may not clean the upper layer of the chest since that gives a dishonest impression. One may not put makeup on humans, animals, or vessels.

Abba bar Zamina gave a denar to the food merchant and took from him at the cheapest rate of the entire year. Rav did not agree. Rebbi Ḥiyya the Elder had flax. The donkey drivers wanted to buy from him. He told them, it is not my intention to sell this before Purim. They said to him, sell it to us now at the price which you would sell it for at Purim. He went to ask Rebbi, who told him, it is forbidden. He went out, formulated this in a baraita, and stated the following: “If one was owing money and the other wanted to take from him on the threshing floor, when he told him, credit it to my account by the market rate and I shall provide you all twelve months; this is forbidden for it is not as if the assarion came to his hand.” Rav said, my uncle Rebbi Ḥiyya will agree that if they paid him and he immediately acquired, then it is permitted. If he paid beforehand and acquired afterwards, it is permitted; if he acquired earlier and paid afterwards, it is forbidden.

HALAKHAH: “He who leases a dwelling to another person,” etc. Why? If he came to claim at the end of the month, can he collect everything? And if he came to him at the beginning of the month, he can tell him, get out. Samuel says, the Mishnah is so: If he came to claim in the middle of the month. Rav said, a rule to collect. Rebbi La said, this clearly does not follow the rule of Ben Nannas who said, the later language supersedes the earlier one.

One who said, my property should be given to X, if X died to Y, if Y died to Z. The one who was mentioned earlier receives the property earlier. If the second died during the first’s lifetime, the first one has the usufruct; when he dies the property reverts to heirs of the bequeather. If the third died during the second’s lifetime, the first one has the usufruct; when he dies the property reverts to heirs of the bequeather. If both the second and the third die during the first’s lifetime, the first has the usufruct and acquired the real estate, the words of Rebbi. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, he only has the usufruct. Ḥizqiah said, practice follows Rebbi. Rebbi Yannai said, Rebbi agrees that he cannot dispose of it by a death-bed will. Rebbi Joḥanan said, not even as a gift from a healthy person. As in the following: A woman wrote her properties over to a certain man. She needed money and sold it to her husband. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Madia brought the case before Rebbi Yose. Did not Rebbi Yannai say, Rebbi agrees that he cannot dispose of it by a death-bed will? Rebbi Joḥanan said to him, is that not the gift of a healthy person? Since the husband of this woman is obligated to provide for her food, is that not like a death-bed will? So far, he is obligated to provide for her bread and legumes. Maybe eggs? Maybe chicken? Since it was stated that the first has the usufruct and acquired the real estate, that means that she may sell the property even in order to eat delicacies. Rebbi Aḥa bar Jacob said, it was stated there that her burial is part of her upkeep. If she did not have a burial site, since it was stated that the first has the usufruct and acquired the real estate, it means that he may sell the real estate and acquire a burial site.

One who said, my property should be given to X, if X died to Y, if Y died to Z. The one who was mentioned earlier receives the property earlier. If the second died during the first’s lifetime, the first one has the usufruct; when he dies the property reverts to heirs of the bequeather. If the third died during the second’s lifetime, the first one has the usufruct; when he dies the property reverts to heirs of the bequeather. If both the second and the third die during the first’s lifetime, the first has the usufruct and acquired the real estate, the words of Rebbi. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, he only has the usufruct. Ḥizqiah said, practice follows Rebbi. Rebbi Yannai said, Rebbi agrees that he cannot dispose of it by a death-bed will. Rebbi Joḥanan said, not even as a gift from a healthy person. As in the following: A woman wrote her properties over to a certain man. She needed money and sold it to her husband. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Madia brought the case before Rebbi Yose. Did not Rebbi Yannai say, Rebbi agrees that he cannot dispose of it by a death-bed will? Rebbi Joḥanan said to him, is that not the gift of a healthy person? Since the husband of this woman is obligated to provide for her food, is that not like a death-bed will? So far, he is obligated to provide for her bread and legumes. Maybe eggs? Maybe chicken? Since it was stated that the first has the usufruct and acquired the real estate, that means that she may sell the property even in order to eat delicacies. Rebbi Aḥa bar Jacob said, it was stated there that her burial is part of her upkeep. If she did not have a burial site, since it was stated that the first has the usufruct and acquired the real estate, it means that he may sell the real estate and acquire a burial site.

HALAKHAH: “One writes a bill of divorce for a man,” etc. Rebbi Abba said: He has to know both of them. Rebbi La said, he has to know the husband for his bill of divorce and the woman for her receipt. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Abba: “Rabban Gamliel the Elder instituted that one should write Mr. X and all his names, Mrs. Y and all her names, for the public good.” But even with Rebbi [La] it does not disagree: “In earlier times, his name and her name and the names of his and her towns could change.”

Rav said, one has to mention the earlier date in the second document. But Samuel said, one does not have to mention the earlier date in the second document. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, one does not have to mention the earlier date in the second document. Rebbi Joḥanan asked, if one had to mention the earlier date in the second document, would Rebbi Yose have said, “that comes to him rightly, not to impair the other one’s rights”?

Rav said, one has to mention the earlier date in the second document. But Samuel said, one does not have to mention the earlier date in the second document. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, one does not have to mention the earlier date in the second document. Rebbi Joḥanan asked, if one had to mention the earlier date in the second document, would Rebbi Yose have said, “that comes to him rightly, not to impair the other one’s rights”?

Rav said, one has to mention the earlier date in the second document. But Samuel said, one does not have to mention the earlier date in the second document. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, one does not have to mention the earlier date in the second document. Rebbi Joḥanan asked, if one had to mention the earlier date in the second document, would Rebbi Yose have said, “that comes to him rightly, not to impair the other one’s rights”?

Rav said, one has to mention the earlier date in the second document. But Samuel said, one does not have to mention the earlier date in the second document. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, one does not have to mention the earlier date in the second document. Rebbi Joḥanan asked, if one had to mention the earlier date in the second document, would Rebbi Yose have said, “that comes to him rightly, not to impair the other one’s rights”?

Rav said, one has to mention the earlier date in the second document. But Samuel said, one does not have to mention the earlier date in the second document. Rav and Samuel, Rav parallels Rebbi Joḥanan and Samuel parallels Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish.

Rav said, one has to mention the earlier date in the second document. But Samuel said, one does not have to mention the earlier date in the second document. Rav and Samuel, Rav parallels Rebbi Joḥanan and Samuel parallels Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish.

Rebbi Abba said, in earlier times, every one was ordinating his students; for example Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai ordained Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Joshua, Rebbi Joshua Rebbi Aqiba, and Rebbi Aqiba Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon. He said, Rebbi Meïr shall preside; the face of Rebbi Simeon became yellow. Rebbi Aqiba told him, it is enough that I and your Creator recognize your power. They changed and honored this dynasty, saying: If a court ordained without the consent of the Patriarch, their ordination is no ordination, but if the Patriarch ordained without consent of the court, his ordination is ordination. They changed again and instituted that neither shall the Court ordain without consent of the Patriarch, nor the Patriarch without consent of the Court.

It was stated: From earlier times, one was writing documents of ḥalîṣah: Before X and V did Z daughter of U perform ḥalîṣah for V son of W, by coming before us, removing his shoe from his right foot, spitting before us visible spittle on the ground, and saying: So shall be done to the man unwilling to build his brother’s house.

It was stated: From earlier times one was writing documents of repudiation: Before X and Y did Z daughter of U repudiate V son of W, by coming before us: I do not like him, I do not want to stay with him, I do not agree to be married to him.

“From where that one adds another three, etc. It was stated: Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, in earlier times the ketubah of qualified women was signed only by priests, Levites, or Israel whose daughters were qualified to marry into the priesthood. Rebbi Yose said, in earlier times there was no disagreement in Israel but the Synhedrion of 71 members were sitting in the free-stone hall; two courts of three members each were sitting, one in the glacis and one on the Temple Mount; and a court of 23 was sitting in every town of the Land of Israel. If somebody had a question of religious practice, he went and asked it from the court in his town. If they had heard [the answer], they told him; otherwise he and their distinguished member went and asked a court in their neighborhood. If these had heard [the answer], they told him; otherwise he and their distinguished member went and asked from the court on the Temple Mount. If these had heard [the answer], they told him; otherwise he and their distinguished member went and asked from the court on the glacis. If these had heard [the answer], they told him; otherwise they together entered the High Court in the free-stone hall since from there instruction came accepted in all of Israel, as it is said: From this place which the Eternal will choose. Even though the Synhedrion in the free-stone hall had 71 members, those present never numbered less than 23. If one of them had to leave, he was looking around; if 23 others were present, he would leave, otherwise he would not leave. They were in session from the daily morning sacrifice to the daily evening sacrifice. On Sabbaths and holidays, they were sitting in the study hall on the Temple Mount. If a question of practice came up, if they had heard the answer, they told them; otherwise they prepared to vote. If a majority was for acquitting, they acquitted. If a majority was for a guilty verdict, they rendered a verdict of guilty. If a majority was for declaring pure, they declared pure. If a majority was for declaring impure, they declared impure. From the time that there were many students of Shammai and Hillel who did not study enough under their teachers, many disagreements arose and two doctrines developed. From there, they were sending to all towns in the Land of Israel; any time they found a person who was wise, meek, even-tempered, benevolent, pleasing, humble, good-hearted, with good intentions, and well endowed, they were placing him on the court of the Temple Mount, from there to the court on the glacis, and from there to the High Court in the free-stone hall.

“From where that one adds another three, etc. It was stated: Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, in earlier times the ketubah of qualified women was signed only by priests, Levites, or Israel whose daughters were qualified to marry into the priesthood. Rebbi Yose said, in earlier times there was no disagreement in Israel but the Synhedrion of 71 members were sitting in the free-stone hall; two courts of three members each were sitting, one in the glacis and one on the Temple Mount; and a court of 23 was sitting in every town of the Land of Israel. If somebody had a question of religious practice, he went and asked it from the court in his town. If they had heard [the answer], they told him; otherwise he and their distinguished member went and asked a court in their neighborhood. If these had heard [the answer], they told him; otherwise he and their distinguished member went and asked from the court on the Temple Mount. If these had heard [the answer], they told him; otherwise he and their distinguished member went and asked from the court on the glacis. If these had heard [the answer], they told him; otherwise they together entered the High Court in the free-stone hall since from there instruction came accepted in all of Israel, as it is said: From this place which the Eternal will choose. Even though the Synhedrion in the free-stone hall had 71 members, those present never numbered less than 23. If one of them had to leave, he was looking around; if 23 others were present, he would leave, otherwise he would not leave. They were in session from the daily morning sacrifice to the daily evening sacrifice. On Sabbaths and holidays, they were sitting in the study hall on the Temple Mount. If a question of practice came up, if they had heard the answer, they told them; otherwise they prepared to vote. If a majority was for acquitting, they acquitted. If a majority was for a guilty verdict, they rendered a verdict of guilty. If a majority was for declaring pure, they declared pure. If a majority was for declaring impure, they declared impure. From the time that there were many students of Shammai and Hillel who did not study enough under their teachers, many disagreements arose and two doctrines developed. From there, they were sending to all towns in the Land of Israel; any time they found a person who was wise, meek, even-tempered, benevolent, pleasing, humble, good-hearted, with good intentions, and well endowed, they were placing him on the court of the Temple Mount, from there to the court on the glacis, and from there to the High Court in the free-stone hall.

MISHNAH: The following are disqualified: The dice-player, the lender on interest, participants in pigeon contests, dealers in sabbatical produce, and slaves. Rebbi Simeon said, earlier they were listing harvesters of sabbatical produce; but since the increase of oppressors they returned to list only dealers in sabbatical produce. Rebbi Jehudah said, when? If he has no profession but this; but if he has another profession, he is qualified.

“Rebbi Simeon says, earlier they were listing harvesters of sabbatical produce; but since the increase of oppressors they returned to list only dealers in sabbatical produce. Rebbi Jehudah said, when? If he has no profession but this; but if he has another profession, he is qualified.” How is this implemented? If he was sitting idle all the years of the sabbatical cycle but when the Sabbatical began he became active and traded in sabbatical produce. If at the same time he is engaged in another occupation, he is qualified; otherwise he is disqualified. But if he was working in his profession all the years of the sabbatical cycle and when the Sabbatical began he became active and traded in sabbatical produce, even if he has no other profession on the side he is qualified. Rebbi Abba bar Zavda, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Practice follows Rebbi Jehudah of our Mishnah. Rebbi Abba bar Zavda was praised for formulating the tradition in the name of a person younger than himself.

HALAKHAH: “If the flesh has rotted away,” etc. It was stated: In earlier times, they were collecting the bones after burying them in ditches. When the flesh had rotted away, they collected them and buried them in cedar wood. On the day itself he was mourning, the day after he was happy, implying that his parents were at rest from judgment.

Samuel said. the detailed statement for Rebbi Meїr is the general statement for Rebbi Jehudah; the detailed statement for Rebbi Jehudah is the general statement for Rebbi Meїr. Rebbi Samuel said in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira, the words of the rabbis show that the detailed statement for Rebbi Meïr is not the general statement for Rebbi Jehudah and the detailed statement for Rebbi Jehudah is not the general statement for Rebbi Meïr, as Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: “And I am greeting X,” one can assume that he signed concerning everything; “I am greeting X,” he only signed for the greeting. If you would say that the detailed statement for Rebbi Meїr is the general statement for Rebbi Jehudah, even if he said “I am greeting X,” can one assume that he signed everything? Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah implies that the detailed statement for Rebbi Jehudah is not the general statement for Rebbi Meїr, as we have stated: “Rebbi Meїr says, even if he says, ‘wheat, and barley, and spelt,’ he is liable for each single one;” and nobody says “even” unless he agrees to an earlier statement. Rebbi Ḥinena said, in Rebbi Meïr’s opinion, whether he said, “wheat, and barley, and spelt,” or “wheat, barley, spelt,” it is a general statement and details. In Rebbi Jehudah’s opinion, if he said, “wheat, and barley, and spelt,” it is a general statement and details. If he said “wheat, barley, spelt,” it is a general statement without details.

HALAKHAH: “You are holding for me a pound of gold,” etc. “Eight of gold I have in the wallet and one finds there eight gold denarii; or fifty tetradrachmas and one finds 200 denar; or 200 denar and one finds 50 tetradrachmas; these are profane. Eight gold denarii I have in the wallet and one finds fifty tetradrachmas; or 200 denar and one finds 50 tetradrachmas, these are Second [Tithe].” “ ‘You are holding for me a pound of gold,’ ‘I am holding for you only a pound of silver;’ he is not liable. ‘You are holding for me a gold denar,’ ‘I am holding for you only a silver denar.’” Rebbi Jacob bar Abinna said, earlier, we were saying, “a gold denar” is a detail; “gold denarii” are not detail. If he had said, “a gold denar, a gold coin” it would have been correct. It was found stated, “a gold coin of a denar,” he is not liable.

“Birthday, and the day of death.” The preceding was for the public, from here on private. But it is written: You shall die in peace, and what was burned for your earlier forefathers … So is the Mishnah: “Any death where there is smoke and burning is idolatrous; if there is not smoke and burning it is not idolatrous.

לֹא תְחָנֵּֽם do not give them free gifts. But was it not stated: “It happened that Rabban Gamliel was walking on the road and saw a loaf of bread thrown on the road. He said to his slave Tabi, pick up this loaf. He saw a Gentile coming towards him and said to him, Mabgai, take this loaf. Rebbi Illai ran after him and asked him, what is your name? He told him, Mabgai. From where are you? He told him, from the guard-tower villages. Did Rabban Gamliel ever come to know you?, He told him, no. Rabban Gamliel had it right by the Holy Spirit. We learned from him three things. We learned that one does not pass over food. And that leavened matter of a Gentile is permitted immediately after Passover. And that one follows the majority of travelers.” Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: That is, in earlier times. But today we pass over edibles because of sorcery.

What is Rebbi Aqiba’s reason? You should treat it as an abomination, like a menstruating woman. What is the rabbis’ reason? You should detest it, like vermin. How do the rabbis uphold Rebbi Aqiba’s reason, you should treat it as abomination? Treat it as excrement, make it vile. What means “make it vile” for the rabbis? Rebbi Samuel, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: you shall call it excrement. What is called God’s. Face is called Dog’s Face. Spring of the Cup is called Spring of the Thorn. The Place of Fortune is called the Place of Undress. Rebbi Tanḥuma (asked) [in the name of] Rebbi Huna: It is written, The Ai which is near Bet-Awen East of Bethel. Earlier it was called Bethel but now one calls it Bet-Awen. It was stated in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: If one does not want to call it ‘Omda one calls it ‘Amida since the flow of urine is called ‘amida. How (do the rabbis) [does Rebbi Aqiba] interpret you shall call it excrement? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abin, Rebbi Huna in the name of Rav Josef: from (where) [here] that one does not tell anybody to leave unless he entered with his head and most of his body.

HALAKHAH: “One may stamp with a Non-Jew in the wine press,” etc. Rebbi Jonah said, that is, you say only if they walked over it crosswise. But if they did not walk over it crosswise, it does not apply. Rebbi Yose asked, if they walked over it crosswise, even following the earlier teaching? As it was stated: “Originally they were saying that one harvests grapes with the Non-Jew and stamps with a Jew who works in impurity. They changed and said, one does not harvest grapes with the Non-Jew nor stamp with a Jew who works in impurity, but one stamps with a Gentile and helps him as long as it did not disappear from sight. Once it disappeared from sight it became libation wine”.

Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi in the name of Rebbi Immi: A roasted egg of Samaritans is permitted. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Samaritans’ dishes are permitted. This is what you say about a dish usually made without wine or vinegar. Therefore if it is certain that he put some in, it is forbidden even for usufruct. As what had been stated: In earlier times they used to say, why is the wine of Ogdor forbidden? Because of Kefar-Pagesh, and of Burgata because of the Saracen tower, and of the Kushit spring because of Kefar Shalem. They changed to say, open it is everywhere forbidden, sealed it is permitted. Perforated and repaired it is like sealed, Rebbi Isaac ben Ḥaqula said, it is like open. Rebbi Ḥanina said, I can confirm. If it has a cavity on it it was not opened, otherwise it was opened. As the following: Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar went to the city of Samaria. The scribe came to him. He told him, bring me a closed jug. He answered him, there is a spring in front of you, drink. He importuned him; he said, there is a spring in front of you, drink. When he saw that he was going to importune him, he told him, if you are master of yourself, there is a spring in front of you, drink. But if your soul brings you to rebellion, you are going to swallow a knife if you are too covetous. The Samaritans already are degenerate.

“If any of them collapsed, one rebuilds it from the same tribe. And from where also from other tribes? The verse says, six. That they should be parallel and receiving like the earlier ones.”

MISHNAH: They were paying rent to the Levites, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Meïr said, they were not paying rent. He returns to the office he held earlier, the words of Rebbi Meïr; Rebbi Jehudah says, he does not return to the office he held earlier.

MISHNAH: They were paying rent to the Levites, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Meïr said, they were not paying rent. He returns to the office he held earlier, the words of Rebbi Meïr; Rebbi Jehudah says, he does not return to the office he held earlier.

I could think that the one anointed for war should (not) bring his tenth of an ephah. The verse says, in his stead, of his sons. One whose son will stand in his stead brings a tenth of an ephah. But one whose sons will not stand in his stead does not bring a tenth of an ephah. From where the anointed’s for war son will not stand in his stead? The verse says, seven days shall the priest wear them, etc. If one officiates in the Tent of Meeting, his son will stand in his stead. But one who does not officiate in the Tent of Meeting, his son will not stand in his stead. From where that he can be appointed as High Priest? [As is written,] Phineas the son of Eleazar was leader over them;in earlier times the Eternal was with him. When Rebbi Yose wanted to needle Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose, he said to him, “before, he was with him.” In the days of Zimri, he protested. In the days of the concubine at Gibea, he did not protest.

Which of the two is later? It is more probable that the poor man is later ; for shouldest thou maintain that he is earlier, then R. Hannina and R. Eliezer would hold the same opinion ! Must it not therefore be concluded that the poor man is later? Yes, draw that conclusion.

"And he places it in his right" — R. Hiyya b. Abba said in the name of R. Johanan : The earlier [Rabbis] asked : May the left hand support the right? Rab Ashe said : Since the earlier [Rabbis] raised this question without having it decided,

"And he places it in his right" — R. Hiyya b. Abba said in the name of R. Johanan : The earlier [Rabbis] asked : May the left hand support the right? Rab Ashe said : Since the earlier [Rabbis] raised this question without having it decided,

[But are they not able] to acquire it through a change of name? For earlier, they were "Asa", and now,

In earlier times the lulav was taken for seven days in the Temple, and in the provinces for one day only. When the temple was destroyed, Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai decreed that the lulav should be taken in the provinces for even days in memory of the Temple,

But Levi said: The etrog is forbidden even on the eighth day; And the father of Shmuel said The etrog is forbidden on the seventh day, but permitted on the eighth. The father of Shmuel subsequently adopted the view of Levi. R. Zera adopted the [earlier] view of the father of Samuel, for R. Zera ruled:... It is forbidden to eat an etrog [even one] that has become invalid, all the seven days.

But did you not say that the earlier part of our Mishnah is not in agreement with R. Judah? Is it not possible that our Tanna agrees with R. Judah on one point though he disagrees with him on another point?

Another Baraita reads: Yoreh is the rain that falls in Marḥeshwan and malḳosh the one that falls in Nisan; this is the view of R. Meir, but the other Sages say, yoreh is the rain of Kislew. Who are the other Sages? Said R. Ḥisda, they are R. Jose, for we read (Tosefta, Ta'anit, ch. 1): When is the time of the fructification-rainfall? The earlier one on the third of Marḥeshwan, the intermediate on the seventh thereof, and the late on the seventeenth thereof; this is the view of R. Meir; R. Judah says, on the seventh, the seventeenth, and the twenty-third thereof; R. Jose says, on the seventeenth and the twenty-third of Marḥeshwan and on the first of Kislew. In accordance with this R. Jose also said that individuals should not fast for rain before the first of Kislew has come. Said R. Ḥisda, the law follows R. Judah.

Raba said to Rafrem b. Papa, tell me some of the noble deeds performed by R. Huna. Said Rafrem, of his earlier days I remember nothing; as to his later years I remember that after cloudy (stormy) days he used to be taken out in a gilt carriage, in which he inspected the whole city, and wherever there was a damaged wall, he ordered it to be torn down. If the owner was in a position to build a new wall, he had to do so, if not, R. Huna would have it built at his own expense. Every Friday toward evening R. Huna would send a servant to the market who would buy up all the vegetables left over with the gardeners and throw them into the river. Why did he not rather give them to the poor? Because they would sometimes rely on these gifts and fail to provide themselves for the Sabbath. Why did he not throw it to the animals? He was of the opinion that food proper for human beings should not be given to animals. Why did he buy them at all? Because if he had not done so, it would lead the gardeners to sin in the future (by failing to provide the community with vegetables).

The Megillah is read on the eleventh, the twelfth, the thirteenth, the fourteenth, and the fifteenth [of Adar], never earlier and never later. Cities which have been walled since the days of Joshua ben Nun read on the fifteenth; villages and large towns read on the fourteenth, except that villages move the reading up to the day of gathering.

In any case, in places where they do go to town on Monday and Thursday it is read [on the earlier dates] even in these times? He accordingly ascribed the statement in the baraita to R. Yose son of R. Judah.

Although they said that they should be moved up but not postponed, it is permissible to mourn, to fast, and to distribute gifts to the poor [on these earlier days]. Rabbi Judah said: When is this so? In a place where people gather on Mondays and Thursdays, but in places where people do not gather on Mondays and Thursdays, the Megillah is read only on its proper day.

But where the subject is not completed, we do not [read less than twenty-one verses]? Didn't R. Shmuel b. Abba say: Many times I stood before R. Yohanan, and when I had read ten verses he said, Stop! In a place where there is a translator it is different, since R. Tahlifa b. Shmuel has taught: They only taught this in a place where there is no translator, but where there is a translator a stop may be made [earlier].

You may even say it accords with the view of R. Shimon b. Gamaliel. For since a Master has said: On the fifteenth of this month [Adar] tables are set up in the provinces and on the twenty-fifth in the Temple,” on account of the tables we read earlier [on the first of Adar].

Ola said that Resh Lakish said, If a man set apart ten beasts for his Chagigah, he may bring five on the first high holiday, and may again bring five on the second high holiday. R. Jochanan said, When he has finished, he cannot bring again. R. Abba said, But they do not really differ. The one is the case where he keeps silence, the other where he declares his intention. This expression, When he keeps silence—explain it. Perhaps there was not time in the day to bring them. In that case they are not brought, because there was not time in the day. But perhaps he has none to eat with him. In that case they are not brought, because he has none to eat with him. No; this is not such a case; and so far as this goes, it is necessary that he should bring them. For there is time in the day, and he has people to eat with him. Inasmuch as he did not bring them at the earlier time, learn from this that he left them behind intentionally; and this also is the purport of the story, how when Rabbin came, R. Jochanan said, If a man set apart ten beasts for his Chagigah, he may bring five on the first high holiday, and may again bring five on the second high holiday. They are in appearance difficult to reconcile, but in reality not. For learn from this that the one is the case when he keeps silence, the other when he declares his intention. Learn from this that the point has been also distinctly settled. R. Shemen bar Abba said that R. Jochanan said,

And yet there is a Baraitha, viz., Behold, a man's muleteers and his workmen are laden with clean things; although he is distant from them more than a mile, his clean things are still clean; but if he say to them, Go and I will come after you, then when they are out of his sight, his clean things become unclean. How is the inconsistency in this Baraitha to be explained? R. Isaac Naphcha said, The earlier part means, when he cleanses his muleteers and his workmen. Therefore, if so, the latter part should also refer to the same. No; for a common person is not careful as regards touching his neighbour. But, if so, this would hold good for the beginning also. Perhaps it may mean, when he comes to them by some by-way. But, if so, this would hold good for the latter part also. Nay; but the true explanation is, When he said to them, Go and I will come after you, their minds were set completely at rest.

In hallowed things. What is the reason of the prohibition? R. Ela said, Because the weight of the vessel interposes. But seeing that in a later case it is on account of the interposition, the first case cannot be on account of an interposition. For we are taught in the later case, And the manner of the heave-offering is not as the manner of the hallowed things. For in the case of hallowed things one looses a knot and wipes and cleanses and afterwards ties up again, but in the case of a heave-offering he ties up and afterwards cleanses. Nay, but both the earlier and later cases are because of interposition, and it was necessary that they should be separately mentioned, for if he had taught us the first only, I should say, This is the reason for the prohibition with reference to the hallowed things, viz., because of the vessel's weight, which actually exists. But in the latter case, where the vessel's weight is not an element, I should say, In regard to hallowed things also there is in this case no disqualifying interposition. And if he had taught us the latter only, I should say, This is the reason for the prohibition with reference to hallowed things, because

R' Abahu asked R' Yohanan a question: If a person was ascending a ladder and a rung broke under him and it fell and struck someone below and killed him, is this a situation of ascent [where he would be exempt] or descent [where he would be held liable]? He said to him: You've already touched on this [in an earlier baraita]—in a case of descending for the purpose of ascent [here, we mean that the rung is going downward for the purpose of the person ascending].

Gemara: "The father is exiled for his son." But didn't you say (in an earlier Mishnah) that a father who strikes his son is not exiled? But he was learned (which is why he would be exiled, since it was not a hit of a Mitzvah). But you said, even when he is learned, it actually is a Mitzvah that he is doing [so he would not be exiled]. [Here, we're talking about when the father is a carpenter and his son] is a carpenter's apprentice [so he is just teaching him a trade—and he would not be exiled].

They challenged [from a baraita]: "'And for him there is no death penalty' (Deuteronomy 19:6)—about the murderer the verse speaks. You say it's about the murderer or perhaps it's actually about the blood avenger? When it says, 'And he didn't hate him recently' (Deuteronomy 19:4)—thus [you would] say that the verse is speaking about the murderer." [Just as the earlier phrase "he didn't hate him" is clearly referring to the murderer, so too when the phrase appears in verse 6 it is also referring to the murderer. Thus the rest of the verse should also be read as referring to the murderer].