eliminate

HALAKHAH: Not following the High Priest Joḥanan who abolished the declaration of tithes. He abolished the declaration but one still has to eliminate, i. e., eliminate the sure tithes. But demay one does not have to eliminate.

HALAKHAH: Not following the High Priest Joḥanan who abolished the declaration of tithes. He abolished the declaration but one still has to eliminate, i. e., eliminate the sure tithes. But demay one does not have to eliminate.

HALAKHAH: Not following the High Priest Joḥanan who abolished the declaration of tithes. He abolished the declaration but one still has to eliminate, i. e., eliminate the sure tithes. But demay one does not have to eliminate.

Rebbi Assi said, if it was one-third ripe before the New Year’s Day of the World it is tithed for the past, after the New Year’s Day of the World it is tithed for the future. Rebbi Zeїra objected before Rebbi Assi: Some years are late and dates start to have sap after the New Year’s Day of the World but they are tithed for the past! Rebbi Zeїra said, Rebbi Assi did not say this on his own but following Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Samuel bar Abba: “If it was one-third ripe before the Fifteenth of Ševaṭ it is tithed for the past, after the Fifteenth of Ševaṭ for the future.” Rebbi Zeїra said, that is correct; for an etrog, did one not eliminate its budding but not its year; but here did one eliminate its year but not its budding?

Rebbi Assi said, if it was one-third ripe before the New Year’s Day of the World it is tithed for the past, after the New Year’s Day of the World it is tithed for the future. Rebbi Zeїra objected before Rebbi Assi: Some years are late and dates start to have sap after the New Year’s Day of the World but they are tithed for the past! Rebbi Zeїra said, Rebbi Assi did not say this on his own but following Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Samuel bar Abba: “If it was one-third ripe before the Fifteenth of Ševaṭ it is tithed for the past, after the Fifteenth of Ševaṭ for the future.” Rebbi Zeїra said, that is correct; for an etrog, did one not eliminate its budding but not its year; but here did one eliminate its year but not its budding?

But Rebbi Ismael himself had a problem: from where does one prove it? Rebbi Abbahu, Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Two prohibitions and one extirpation, the prohibitions split the extirpation. What is the reason? It should not be used to be rubbed on anybody’s skin and in its proportions you shall not imitate it, and it is written, a person who would compound similarly, or who would put it on a stranger, will be extirpated from his people, that is two prohibitions and one extirpation. The prohibitions split the extirpation. How does Rebbi Joḥanan treat this? The verse speaks about males. His sister is mentioned to teach about all females. Does Rebbi Eleazar not accept this? He has it from do not come near, equally male or female. How does Rebbi Joḥanan treat this? He explains it but it is not clear, so also from the following: Samuel bar Abba asked before Rebbi Zeˋira, should not well-being sacrifices, being treated separately, split all sancta regarding impurity? He told him, it was necessary that they be treated separately, to eliminate sancta dedicated for the upkeep of the Temple regarding larceny, lest one be liable for them because of mushiness, leftovers, and impurity. But is that not a Mishnah? “All sancta destined for the altar combine with one another with respect to liability for mushiness, leftovers, and impurity,” in contrast to sancta destined for the upkeep of the Temple. Since they do not combine, they do split. Rebbi Ḥanina said, so it is. They split but do not combine.

Rebbi Jehudah ben Shalom, Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazy in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan. They formulated the symphon according to Rebbi Meïr in Qiddušin. Rebbi Jeremiah: Rebbi Ḥananiah, the colleague of the rabbis, asked: Why does it have to follow Rebbi Meïr but not also the rabbis? Did not Rebbi Abbahu say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The following is the contract text: “I, X son of Y, contract a preliminary marriage with you, Z, daughter of U, on condition that I shall give you property A and definitively marry you by day B. If that day should pass without me having taken you in, I shall have no claim on you.” Why can he not say “on condition” but not double his stipulation? If he did not double his stipulation, could this eliminate the preliminary marriage? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, everywhere Rebbi Meïr holds that from “no” you infer “yes”, except here? Rebbi Mattaniah said, one is more restrictive in matters of incest and adultery.

It was stated: Rebbi Jehudah says, leavened matter may only be eliminated by burning. It is an argument de minore ad majus. Since piggul and leftover, which are not under an injunction not to be seen and not to be found, only may be disposed of by burning, for leavened matter which is under an injunction not to be seen and not to be found, it is only logical that it only may be disposed by burning. They told Rebbi Jehudah, any argument de minore ad majus which you argue in the beginning as a restriction but it turns out in the end to be a leniency, is no argument de minore ad majus. It would imply that if he does not find fire he could sit and not dispose of it. The Torah said, eliminate sour dough from your houses.

It was stated: Before the time of its elimination you eliminate it in any way you wish; at the time of its elimination you eliminate it by burning. This follows Rebbi Jehudah. There are Tannaim who state, before the time of its elimination you eliminate it by burning; at the time of its elimination you eliminate it in any way you wish. This follows the rabbis. Rebbi says, remove sour dough from your houses, anything which may not be seen nor found. How is this? By burning. Rebbi Jeremiah asked, if the firstling of a donkey killed, what is the form of his execution? By breaking the neck or by stoning? Rebbi Benjamin bar Levi asked about leftover flat-bread from a thanksgiving sacrifice, should we say that if they were left before the time ofelimination you may eliminate it in any way you wish; at the time of its elimination you have to eliminate it by burning?

It was stated: Before the time of its elimination you eliminate it in any way you wish; at the time of its elimination you eliminate it by burning. This follows Rebbi Jehudah. There are Tannaim who state, before the time of its elimination you eliminate it by burning; at the time of its elimination you eliminate it in any way you wish. This follows the rabbis. Rebbi says, remove sour dough from your houses, anything which may not be seen nor found. How is this? By burning. Rebbi Jeremiah asked, if the firstling of a donkey killed, what is the form of his execution? By breaking the neck or by stoning? Rebbi Benjamin bar Levi asked about leftover flat-bread from a thanksgiving sacrifice, should we say that if they were left before the time ofelimination you may eliminate it in any way you wish; at the time of its elimination you have to eliminate it by burning?

It was stated: Before the time of its elimination you eliminate it in any way you wish; at the time of its elimination you eliminate it by burning. This follows Rebbi Jehudah. There are Tannaim who state, before the time of its elimination you eliminate it by burning; at the time of its elimination you eliminate it in any way you wish. This follows the rabbis. Rebbi says, remove sour dough from your houses, anything which may not be seen nor found. How is this? By burning. Rebbi Jeremiah asked, if the firstling of a donkey killed, what is the form of his execution? By breaking the neck or by stoning? Rebbi Benjamin bar Levi asked about leftover flat-bread from a thanksgiving sacrifice, should we say that if they were left before the time ofelimination you may eliminate it in any way you wish; at the time of its elimination you have to eliminate it by burning?

It was stated: Before the time of its elimination you eliminate it in any way you wish; at the time of its elimination you eliminate it by burning. This follows Rebbi Jehudah. There are Tannaim who state, before the time of its elimination you eliminate it by burning; at the time of its elimination you eliminate it in any way you wish. This follows the rabbis. Rebbi says, remove sour dough from your houses, anything which may not be seen nor found. How is this? By burning. Rebbi Jeremiah asked, if the firstling of a donkey killed, what is the form of his execution? By breaking the neck or by stoning? Rebbi Benjamin bar Levi asked about leftover flat-bread from a thanksgiving sacrifice, should we say that if they were left before the time ofelimination you may eliminate it in any way you wish; at the time of its elimination you have to eliminate it by burning?

It was stated: Before the time of its elimination you eliminate it in any way you wish; at the time of its elimination you eliminate it by burning. This follows Rebbi Jehudah. There are Tannaim who state, before the time of its elimination you eliminate it by burning; at the time of its elimination you eliminate it in any way you wish. This follows the rabbis. Rebbi says, remove sour dough from your houses, anything which may not be seen nor found. How is this? By burning. Rebbi Jeremiah asked, if the firstling of a donkey killed, what is the form of his execution? By breaking the neck or by stoning? Rebbi Benjamin bar Levi asked about leftover flat-bread from a thanksgiving sacrifice, should we say that if they were left before the time ofelimination you may eliminate it in any way you wish; at the time of its elimination you have to eliminate it by burning?

It was stated: Before the time of its elimination you eliminate it in any way you wish; at the time of its elimination you eliminate it by burning. This follows Rebbi Jehudah. There are Tannaim who state, before the time of its elimination you eliminate it by burning; at the time of its elimination you eliminate it in any way you wish. This follows the rabbis. Rebbi says, remove sour dough from your houses, anything which may not be seen nor found. How is this? By burning. Rebbi Jeremiah asked, if the firstling of a donkey killed, what is the form of his execution? By breaking the neck or by stoning? Rebbi Benjamin bar Levi asked about leftover flat-bread from a thanksgiving sacrifice, should we say that if they were left before the time ofelimination you may eliminate it in any way you wish; at the time of its elimination you have to eliminate it by burning?

Rav said, he who affixes leavened matter to his house has to eliminate. It was stated: Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar said, if one turns dough into a clump, it is nullified He explains it, either that one disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar or that this clump is repugnant.

If somebody rents out his house to another, as long as this one does not enter into it, the lessor has to eliminate; after this one entered into it, the lessee has to eliminate. Rebbi Simeon said, when? If he handed him the key, but as long as he did not hand him the key, he does not have to eliminate.

If somebody rents out his house to another, as long as this one does not enter into it, the lessor has to eliminate; after this one entered into it, the lessee has to eliminate. Rebbi Simeon said, when? If he handed him the key, but as long as he did not hand him the key, he does not have to eliminate.

If somebody rents out his house to another, as long as this one does not enter into it, the lessor has to eliminate; after this one entered into it, the lessee has to eliminate. Rebbi Simeon said, when? If he handed him the key, but as long as he did not hand him the key, he does not have to eliminate.

“If a Gentile comes to a Jew with leavened matter in his hand, one does not need to eliminate. If he deposited with him, he has to eliminate. If he gave him a separate room he does not need to eliminate.” If he did not eliminate, what is its status after Passover? Rebbi Jonah said, it is permitted; Rebbi Yose said, it is forbidden. Rebbi Yose said, it is the Gentile’s leavened matter [but] the Jew acted wrongly and did not eliminate.

“If a Gentile comes to a Jew with leavened matter in his hand, one does not need to eliminate. If he deposited with him, he has to eliminate. If he gave him a separate room he does not need to eliminate.” If he did not eliminate, what is its status after Passover? Rebbi Jonah said, it is permitted; Rebbi Yose said, it is forbidden. Rebbi Yose said, it is the Gentile’s leavened matter [but] the Jew acted wrongly and did not eliminate.

“If a Gentile comes to a Jew with leavened matter in his hand, one does not need to eliminate. If he deposited with him, he has to eliminate. If he gave him a separate room he does not need to eliminate.” If he did not eliminate, what is its status after Passover? Rebbi Jonah said, it is permitted; Rebbi Yose said, it is forbidden. Rebbi Yose said, it is the Gentile’s leavened matter [but] the Jew acted wrongly and did not eliminate.

“If a Gentile comes to a Jew with leavened matter in his hand, one does not need to eliminate. If he deposited with him, he has to eliminate. If he gave him a separate room he does not need to eliminate.” If he did not eliminate, what is its status after Passover? Rebbi Jonah said, it is permitted; Rebbi Yose said, it is forbidden. Rebbi Yose said, it is the Gentile’s leavened matter [but] the Jew acted wrongly and did not eliminate.

“If a Gentile comes to a Jew with leavened matter in his hand, one does not need to eliminate. If he deposited with him, he has to eliminate. If he gave him a separate room he does not need to eliminate.” If he did not eliminate, what is its status after Passover? Rebbi Jonah said, it is permitted; Rebbi Yose said, it is forbidden. Rebbi Yose said, it is the Gentile’s leavened matter [but] the Jew acted wrongly and did not eliminate.

If there is any fat in them. Unguent which became putrid, there are Tannaim who state, he is required to eliminate; and there are Tannaim who state, he is not required to eliminate. He who said, he is required to eliminate, if it became leavened before becoming putrid; he who said, he is not required to eliminate, if it became putrid before becoming leavened.

If there is any fat in them. Unguent which became putrid, there are Tannaim who state, he is required to eliminate; and there are Tannaim who state, he is not required to eliminate. He who said, he is required to eliminate, if it became leavened before becoming putrid; he who said, he is not required to eliminate, if it became putrid before becoming leavened.

If there is any fat in them. Unguent which became putrid, there are Tannaim who state, he is required to eliminate; and there are Tannaim who state, he is not required to eliminate. He who said, he is required to eliminate, if it became leavened before becoming putrid; he who said, he is not required to eliminate, if it became putrid before becoming leavened.

If there is any fat in them. Unguent which became putrid, there are Tannaim who state, he is required to eliminate; and there are Tannaim who state, he is not required to eliminate. He who said, he is required to eliminate, if it became leavened before becoming putrid; he who said, he is not required to eliminate, if it became putrid before becoming leavened.

Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac had wine which was getting sour. He added barley to it that it should become vinegar. He asked Rebbi Immi, who told him, you have to eliminate. [Rebbi Ḥanina the son of Rebbi Kihai {Kirai} had honey adulterated with flour. He asked Rebbi Mana who told him, you have to eliminate. One of the people of [the house of] Rebbi Kirai had leather sacks of oil in the storage room of wheat. He asked the rabbis,who told him, go and clean out from under them. Rebbi Immi instructed about those leather sacks of kutah, one fills them with water for three days [and empties them]every24hours.

Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac had wine which was getting sour. He added barley to it that it should become vinegar. He asked Rebbi Immi, who told him, you have to eliminate. [Rebbi Ḥanina the son of Rebbi Kihai {Kirai} had honey adulterated with flour. He asked Rebbi Mana who told him, you have to eliminate. One of the people of [the house of] Rebbi Kirai had leather sacks of oil in the storage room of wheat. He asked the rabbis,who told him, go and clean out from under them. Rebbi Immi instructed about those leather sacks of kutah, one fills them with water for three days [and empties them]every24hours.

MISHNAH: Dough in crannies of the baking trough: if there is the volume of an olive at one place one is obligated to eliminate; less than this becomes insignificant. Similarly in matters of impurity, if he is bothered by it it separates; if he desires its existence it is like the baking trough. Deaf dough is forbidden if a similar kind became sour.

MISHNAH: A person who goes to slaughter his Passover sacrifice, or to circumcise his son, or to eat the betrothal meal at his father-in-law’s house, and remembers that he has leavened matter in his house, if he can return, eliminate it, and return to his meritorious deed, he shall return and eliminate; otherwise, he has to nullify it in his thought. To save from the army, or from a river, or from a conflagration, or from a house collapse, he has to nullify it in his thought. To celebrate the holiday according to his wishes, he has to return immediately.

MISHNAH: A person who goes to slaughter his Passover sacrifice, or to circumcise his son, or to eat the betrothal meal at his father-in-law’s house, and remembers that he has leavened matter in his house, if he can return, eliminate it, and return to his meritorious deed, he shall return and eliminate; otherwise, he has to nullify it in his thought. To save from the army, or from a river, or from a conflagration, or from a house collapse, he has to nullify it in his thought. To celebrate the holiday according to his wishes, he has to return immediately.

Even if he could return and eliminate, or go and save. Even if he could go and acquire rest status, return and (nullify) [eliminate].

Even if he could return and eliminate, or go and save. Even if he could go and acquire rest status, return and (nullify) [eliminate].

MISHNAH: Similarly, he who brings Sabbatical produce from a place where it was exhausted to one where it was not exhausted or from a place where it was not exhausted to one where it was exhausted is obligated to eliminate. Rebbi Jehudah says, go and get it for yourself.

It was stated: The festival offering which comes with the Pesaḥ has to be eliminated with it. Come and see, a festival offering may be eaten for two days but the Pesaḥ only until midnight, and you are saying so? If it comes to the table with it. Dishes who come to the table with it have to be eliminated with it. Rebbi Yose said, this implies that he who ate soft cheese and wants to eat meat must eliminate the bread slices.

“On the fifteenth of this month one reads the Esther scroll in fortified places.” But did not Rebbi Ḥelbo, Rav Ḥuna, Rav in the name of the Elder Rabbi Ḥiyya, say: Everybody may fulfill his obligation on the Fourteenth, which is the time of its reading? It only comes to teach you that (the obligations apply to the Second Adar) [all obligations which apply to the Second Adar apply to the First Adar.] Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Aḥa were sitting together. Rebbi Yose said to Rebbi Aḥa, it only is reasonable for the past, not for the future; as it was stated, at a place where one is used to read it both days one reads it both days. He said to him, I also am of this opinion. Rebbi Mana said, this is correct. If one read it on the Fourteenth and then wants to read it on the Fifteenth, would one not listen to him? If you are saying otherwise, you would eliminate the time of the fortified places with your hands.

“Bilgah always distributes in the South. Because of Miriam from Bilgah who apostasied and went to marry a general of the Greek government. She came and patted on the top of the altar and said to it, Λύκος, you destroyed Israel’s property and did not support them at the time of their distress. But some are saying that its time arrived to serve but it did not appear; so Yeshevav served in its stead in the High Priesthood.” Therefore Bilgah always is with the outgoing and Yeshevav withy the incoming. Should it not have been eliminated from its place? You cannot do this, as Rebbi Simon said in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: It is hard before the Omnipresent to eliminate the chain of descent from its place. Could they not be made twenty-three? You cannot do this, as it is written, these are the foundations of David and Samuel the Seer in their faithfulness. In their professionalism. It was a great feat of professionalism that no watch was taking and repeating in inheritance fields before the other could take. Rebbi Abbahu said, I computed it that no watch was taking and repeating in inheritance fields before the other could take.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, it only said “somebody was passing by.” Therefore if he stood still, the presumption is that he listened purposefully. “If he put one shofar inside another shofar(,we shall say) [and blew], if one heard the sound of the inner one, he has fulfilled his obligation, if one heard the sound of the outer one, he has not fulfilled his obligation.” Rebbi Abinna asked, what if he turned it inside out? Let us hear from the following: “If he scratched it inside it is disqualified, outside it is qualified.” He only said, he scratched; therefore if he turned it inside out it is disqualified. What is the difference between the two? One eliminated the inner space, the other did not eliminate the inner space.

“Rain started to drip..” They said, this happened only to eliminate this one’s vow.

Rebbi Jonah said, what you are saying refers to washing to wear; but washing to mend? So we are saying, this washerman is forbidden to work in his trade? Our Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Jonah, “the week in which the Ninth of Av falls one is forbidden to barber and to launder, but on Thursday one is permitted for the honor of the Sabbath.” Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rav Hamnuna, it was repeated regarding (addition) [barbering.] Rebbi Abba bar Cohen said before Rebbi Yose: Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Abbahu. If the Ninth of Av falls on a Sabbath, both weeks are permitted. What is afterwards? Rebbi Joḥanan said, afterwards is forbidden; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, afterwards is permitted. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba preached it to the Sepphoreans but they did not accept it. Rebbi Immi said to Rebbi [Yasa]. Does not the nephew of the Great Rebbi Ḥiyya disagree with him? He answered, they disagree explicitly: Rebbi Joḥanan said, afterwards is forbidden; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, afterwards is permitted. How does Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish explain it? He explains it if the Ninth of Av falls on a Sabbath, and one cannot infer anything. Rebbi Isaac ben Eleazar announced at the end of the Ninth of Av, the barbers shall open, any who has to eulogize may eulogize. It is written, I shall eliminate all her enjoyment, her holiday, her month, her Sabbath, and all her feast. The Southerners have the custom of ḥer holiday, the Sepphoreans have the custom of her month, the Tiberians have the custom of her week. The Rabbis of Tiberias changed to follow the Rabbis of Sepphoris.

Rebbi Mattania said, this is correct. What is written? “The blood shall be purged for them;” then it is silent. Nevertheless, “but you shall eliminate innocent blood from your midst”.

By a document. Since money which does not send out permits to enter, would it not be logical that a document which sends out should permit to enter? No. If you speak about money which eliminates dedication through redemption, what can you say about a document which does not eliminate dedication through redemption? The argument de minore ad majus is broken and you have to return to Scripture. Therefore, it was necessary to say: “He shall write her a bill of divorce, hand it to her, and send her out of his house. If she left his house and went to be another man’s.” It brackets her being with her leaving. Since her leaving was by a document, so her being is by a document.

Rebbi Jehudah bar Sisin, Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazy in the name of Rebbi Aḥa. They formulated the symphōn according to Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Ḥananiah, the colleague of the rabbis, asked: Why does it have to follow Rebbi Meïr but not also the rabbis? Did not Rebbi Abbahu say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The following is the contract text: “I, X son of Y, contract a preliminary marriage with you, Z, daughter of U, on condition that I shall give you property A and definitively marry you by day B. If that day should pass without me having taken you in, I shall have no claim on you.” Why can he not say “on condition” but not double his stipulation? If he did not double his stipulation, could this eliminate the preliminary marriage? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, everywhere Rebbi Meïr holds that from “no” you infer “yes”, except here? Rebbi Mattaniah said, one is more restrictive in matters of incest and adultery.

They asked Rebbi Eliezer, what is the status of the eleventh generation of a bastard? He said to them, bring to me a third generation and I shall declare him pure, for he would not live. Rebbi Eliezer parallels Rebbi Ḥanina? As Rebbi Ḥanina said, once every sixty to seventy years the Holy One, praise to Him, brings a plague into the world to eliminate the bastards and he takes the qualified ones with them in order not to publicize the sinners. This parallels what Rebbi Levi said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: “In the place where the ascent offering has its throat cut before the Eternal, the purification sacrifice has its throat cut,” in order not to publicize the sinners. “Also He is wise and brings evil;” could one better understand “also He is wise and brings good”? But to teach you that even the evil that the Holy One, praise to Him, brings to the world, He brings in wisdom. “His word He did not remove, He overcomes the house of evildoers and accomplices of workers of iniquity.” Rav Huna said, no bastard lives more than thirty days. When Rebbi Ze‘ira immigrated here, he heard voices call “he-bastard, she-bastard”. He said, what is this? There goes that of Rav Huna, since Rav Huna said, no bastard lives more than thirty days. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said to him, I was with you when Rebbi Abba, Rav Huna said in the name of Rav: No bastard lives more than thirty days, when? If it is unknown. Therefore, if it is known, he lives.

Yose from Maon interpreted in the synagogue of Tiberias: Listen to this, you priests, why do you not study Torah? Did I not give you 24 gifts? They told him, they do not give us anything. And hearken, House of Israel, why do you not give the 24 gifts which I commanded you at Sinai? They told him, the king takes everything. Listen, king’s court, for yours are legal proceedings, for you I did say, these are the priests’ legal rights; in the future I shall sit in judgment over you, to stop them and to eliminate them from the world. Rebbi Jehudah the Prince heard this and became angry. He was afraid and fled. Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish went to appease him. They told him, Rabbi, he is a great man. He asked them, would it be possible that he could answer any question which I would ask him? They told him, yes. He asked him: What is that which is written: For their mother whored? Was our mother Sarah a whore? He answered, like daughter like mother, like mother like daughter, like generation like the prince, like the prince like the generation, like the altar like its priests. Cahana used to say, like the garden like its gardener. He told them, not only did he curse me once in my absence, but he cursed me three times in my presence! He asked him, what is that which is written: Anybody wanting to formulate a simile about you will state as follows: like mother like daughter; was our mother Leah a prostitute since it is written, Dinah went out? He told him, for it is written, Leah went out towards him. One identifies going out with going out.

It is written: At that moment Joshua dedicated them as hewers of wood and drawers of water for the congregation. One understands “for the congregation.” But “for the Eternal’s altar”? But Joshua kept them in limbo. He said, I shall [neither] exclude nor include them. But he who sometime in the future will build the Temple, if he wants to include he may include, if he wants to exclude he may exclude. David came and excluded them as it is said: But the Gibeonites are not part of the Children of Israel. Why did he exclude them? Because there was a famine in David’s time, three years year after year. David said, for three sins the rains are locked away: Foreign worship, incest and adultery, and murder. Foreign worship, as it is written: Beware, lest you be seduced and next to it, He locks the sky up. Incest and adultery, as it is written Rain-showers were withheld, there was no late rain, for you had the forehead of a whoring woman. Murder, as it is written: Because blood will distort the Land. Some say, also those who publicly promise money for welfare but do not pay, as it is written: Clouds and wind but no rain means the man who boasts with lying gifts. David checked on all his ways and did not find any of them. He turned to ask the Urim and Tummim. That is what is written: David asked before the Eternal. Rebbi Eleazar said, it is written: Ask the Eternal, all the meek of the Land, who execute His Law, etc. The Eternal said, because of Saul and the House of blood-guilt, for he had killed the Gibeonites. Because of Saul, whom you did not grant the last favor, and because of the House of blood-guilt, for he had killed the Gibeonites. David sent and called them. He asked them, what is between you and the House of Saul? They told him, because he killed seven of our men, two hewers of wood, two drawers of water, a scribe, a religious leader, and a beadle. He asked them, what do you want now? They said to him, May there be given to us seven men … and we shall hang them before the Eternal in Gibeon. He said to them, what use is it to you that they be killed? Take silver and gold for yourselves! But they answered, there is no silver or gold for us from Saul and his house. He said, maybe they are afraid one of the other; he dealt which each of them separately, trying to mollify him by himself, but nobody accepted it. That is what is written, there is no silver or gold for us, it is written for me. At this moment, David said that the Holy One gave three good gifts to Israel: They are decent, merciful, and charitable. Decent, for it is written: that His fear be on your faces. Merciful, for it is written: He gave you mercy, had mercy on you and increased you. Charitable, for it is written: The Eternal, your God, kept for you covenant and charity. But these, nothing of this is found in them; he excluded them: But the Gibeonites are not of the Children of Israel. And Ezra also excluded them, as it is said: And the dedicated ones dwelt in the Ophel; Ziha and Gishpa were of the dedicated ones. Also in the future, the Holy One, praise to Him, will exclude them as it is written: The city worker will cultivate it, from all tribes of Israel. He will eliminate them from all tribes of Israel.

HALAKHAH: “The order of beheading,” etc. “Rebbi Jehudah agrees that there is no death uglier than this but the Torah said, in their statutes you shall not walk.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, also it was stated thus: One shall murder the murderer, the way he murdered. I could think that if he killed with a sword, one should kill him with a sword, with a rod one should kill him with a rod? Avenging is written here, and there it is written: I shall bring over you a sword which avenges the vengeance of the Covenant. Since avenging mentioned there is by the sword, also avenging mentioned here is by the sword. I could think that he should kill him between the arms? It is said here, you shall eliminate the evil from your midst, and it is said there, you shall eliminate the innocent blood from your midst. Elimination, elimination; breaking the neck, breaking the neck. Since elimination here is at the neck, also there it is at the neck. Since breaking the neck there implies chopping off the head, also here chopping off the head.

HALAKHAH: “The order of beheading,” etc. “Rebbi Jehudah agrees that there is no death uglier than this but the Torah said, in their statutes you shall not walk.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, also it was stated thus: One shall murder the murderer, the way he murdered. I could think that if he killed with a sword, one should kill him with a sword, with a rod one should kill him with a rod? Avenging is written here, and there it is written: I shall bring over you a sword which avenges the vengeance of the Covenant. Since avenging mentioned there is by the sword, also avenging mentioned here is by the sword. I could think that he should kill him between the arms? It is said here, you shall eliminate the evil from your midst, and it is said there, you shall eliminate the innocent blood from your midst. Elimination, elimination; breaking the neck, breaking the neck. Since elimination here is at the neck, also there it is at the neck. Since breaking the neck there implies chopping off the head, also here chopping off the head.

But Rebbi Joḥanan himself had a problem: from where does one prove it? Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Two prohibitions and one extirpation, the prohibitions split the extirpation. For example, it should not be used to be rubbed on anybody’s skin and in its proportions you shall not imitate it, and it is written, a person who would compound similarly, or who would put it on a stranger, will be extirpated from his people, that is two prohibitions and one extirpation. The prohibitions split the extirpation. Also from the following: Samuel bar Abba asked before Rebbi Ze`ura, should not well-being sacrifices, being treated separately, split all sancta regarding impurity? He told him, it was necessary that they be treated separately, to eliminate sancta destined for the upkeep of the Temple [regarding larceny], lest one be liable for them because of mushiness, leftovers, and impurity. But is that not a Mishnah? “All sancta destined for the altar combine with one another with respect to liability for mushiness, leftovers, and impurity,” in contrast to sancta destined for the upkeep of the Temple. Since they do not combine, they do (not) split. Rebbi Ḥanina said, what he really questioned, should they not split but combine ?

MISHNAH: The Elders were asked in Rome, if He does not approve of idol worship, why does He not eliminate it? They answered, if they would worship something which the world does not need, He would eliminate it. But they worship sun and moon, stars and planets, mountains and hills. Should He destroy His world because of the stupid? They told them, if it is so, He should eliminate things which are not needed in the world, and keep things necessary for the world. They answered, then we would strengthen the worshippers of the latter who would say, you should know that these are divinities since those were eliminated and these were not eliminated.

MISHNAH: The Elders were asked in Rome, if He does not approve of idol worship, why does He not eliminate it? They answered, if they would worship something which the world does not need, He would eliminate it. But they worship sun and moon, stars and planets, mountains and hills. Should He destroy His world because of the stupid? They told them, if it is so, He should eliminate things which are not needed in the world, and keep things necessary for the world. They answered, then we would strengthen the worshippers of the latter who would say, you should know that these are divinities since those were eliminated and these were not eliminated.

MISHNAH: The Elders were asked in Rome, if He does not approve of idol worship, why does He not eliminate it? They answered, if they would worship something which the world does not need, He would eliminate it. But they worship sun and moon, stars and planets, mountains and hills. Should He destroy His world because of the stupid? They told them, if it is so, He should eliminate things which are not needed in the world, and keep things necessary for the world. They answered, then we would strengthen the worshippers of the latter who would say, you should know that these are divinities since those were eliminated and these were not eliminated.

HALAKHAH: “If the iron slipped off the handle,” etc. What is Rebbi’s reason? It is said here getting lost and it says there, for your olives will fall off. Since getting lost there means falling off, here also it means falling off. What is the rabbis’ reason? It is said here getting lost and it says there, the Eternal, your God, will eliminate these peoples before you. Since getting lost there means taking a hit, here also taking a hit.

Rebbi Joḥanan explains the Mishnah by instruction from the Court. If the Court ruled to eliminate the entire body, since the Court has to bring a bull a private person does not have to bring a female sheep or goat. If they ruled to confirm part and to eliminate part, since the Court does not bring a bull a private person has to bring a female sheep or goat.

Rebbi Joḥanan explains the Mishnah by instruction from the Court. If the Court ruled to eliminate the entire body, since the Court has to bring a bull a private person does not have to bring a female sheep or goat. If they ruled to confirm part and to eliminate part, since the Court does not bring a bull a private person has to bring a female sheep or goat.

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.

HALAKHAH: “They are only liable for something which when intentional is punishable by extirpation,” etc. The commandments of the Eternal. I could think that this also includes those who eat abominations and crawling things. It says here from the eyes and it says there from the eyes. Just as from the eyes mentioned there means something which is punished by extirpation in case of intentional sin and needs a purification sacrifice for an inadvertent sin, so from the eyes mentioned here means something which is punished by extirpation in case of intentional sin and needs a purification sacrifice for an inadvertent sin. Or since from the eyes mentioned there means something that can lead to the death penalty, so from the eyes mentioned here should mean something that can lead to the death penalty? Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, from a place where all incest prohibitions were taken as one set [of sins] causing extirpation, the (married woman) [father’s wife] came out to tell you about the bastard. Rebbi said over which, over her. Since over her mentioned there refers to something which is punished by extirpation in case of intentional sin and needs a purification sacrifice for an inadvertent sin, so over which mentioned here means something for which one is punished by extirpation in case of intentional sin and needs a purification sacrifice for an inadvertent sin. Why does Rebbi not infer from from the eyes, from the eyes? [Rebbi Zeˋira said: If Rebbi would infer from from the eyes, from the eyes, then from the eyes mentioned there for the Anointed refers to action in error; also from the eyes mentioned here would have to refer to action in error. Therefore, Rebbi will not infer from from the eyes, from the eyes.] Rebbi Yose said: If Rebbi would infer from from the eyes, from the eyes, then since from the eyes mentioned there means something that can lead to the death penalty, so from the eyes mentioned here means something that can lead to the death penalty. Therefore, Rebbi does not infer from from the eyes, from the eyes. (Does Rebbi not have a book) [Will Rebbi not in the end have] to infer from the eyes, from the eyes? For if it is not so, from where would we have the rules for the individual, the chief, and the Anointed? Not from from the eyes, from the eyes? For if it is not so, from where would we have “unless they ruled to eliminate part and to confirm part”? Not from from the eyes, from the eyes? For if it is not so, from where would we have [the difference between] a ruling of the High Court and a ruling of a lower court? Rebbi Ḥanania said before Rebbi Mana: Would not Rebbi in the end have to infer from from the eyes, from the eyes? He told him, what do you want from Rebbi? Rebbi follows his own opinion, since Rebbi said, the Anointed refers to action in error. Intentional error is only written for the Court. It. It specifies about his sacrifice that for the singular commandment its blood should not be brought into the Sanctuary. Does this follow Rebbi, as Rebbi said, the Anointed refers to action in error; if it would follow the rabbis, there must be an instance of forgetting. (Rav) [Rebbi] Huna said, it was needed for the rabbis. Lest you say, because there is extirpation its blood should be brought into the Sanctuary. Therefore, it was necessary to say it, it specifies his sacrifice that for the singular commandment its blood should not be brought into the Sanctuary.

Why is it that the recital of the Hallel (which took place in the Temple during the morning prayer) eliminates the corresponding morning prayer of the Ma'amad, while the Musaf prayer does not eliminate the corresponding Musaf prayer of the Ma'amad? "What!" replied R. 'Ashi, "is it possible that the Musaf prayer which eliminates even a non-corresponding service of the Ma'amad (that of Minḥah) should not eliminate the corresponding Musaf service of the Ma'amad?" Said Mar Ḳashshisha: What I meant to say is this: Let the Musaf prayer eliminate only a Ma'amad service that corresponds to it (the Musaf but not the Minḥah). R. Jose actually agrees with this opinion of yours, replied R. 'Ashi, for we find in a Baraita: R. Jose said, on all days on which a Musaf service is held a Ma'amad service is likewise held. Now, to which Ma'amad service does he refer? To that of Shaḥarit? This (the retention of the Ma'amad's Shaḥarit service on days which have the Musaf prayer) is admitted also by the first authority of the Mishnah (R. 'Aḳiba)! Or does he refer to the Ma'amad service during the Musaf prayer? Does not the Musaf eliminate even its own Ma'amad service? Or does he refer to the Ma'amad's Minḥah service? That service is eliminated by the wood offering! No other alternative, then, is possible than to say that he refers to the Ma'amad's Ne'ilah service, which proves that the Musaf eliminates only that Ma'amad service which is simultaneous (and hence conflicts) with it (namely the Ma'amad's Musaf), but none of the services which are not simultaneous with it (as those of Minḥah and Ne'ilah). It stands proved.

Why is it that the recital of the Hallel (which took place in the Temple during the morning prayer) eliminates the corresponding morning prayer of the Ma'amad, while the Musaf prayer does not eliminate the corresponding Musaf prayer of the Ma'amad? "What!" replied R. 'Ashi, "is it possible that the Musaf prayer which eliminates even a non-corresponding service of the Ma'amad (that of Minḥah) should not eliminate the corresponding Musaf service of the Ma'amad?" Said Mar Ḳashshisha: What I meant to say is this: Let the Musaf prayer eliminate only a Ma'amad service that corresponds to it (the Musaf but not the Minḥah). R. Jose actually agrees with this opinion of yours, replied R. 'Ashi, for we find in a Baraita: R. Jose said, on all days on which a Musaf service is held a Ma'amad service is likewise held. Now, to which Ma'amad service does he refer? To that of Shaḥarit? This (the retention of the Ma'amad's Shaḥarit service on days which have the Musaf prayer) is admitted also by the first authority of the Mishnah (R. 'Aḳiba)! Or does he refer to the Ma'amad service during the Musaf prayer? Does not the Musaf eliminate even its own Ma'amad service? Or does he refer to the Ma'amad's Minḥah service? That service is eliminated by the wood offering! No other alternative, then, is possible than to say that he refers to the Ma'amad's Ne'ilah service, which proves that the Musaf eliminates only that Ma'amad service which is simultaneous (and hence conflicts) with it (namely the Ma'amad's Musaf), but none of the services which are not simultaneous with it (as those of Minḥah and Ne'ilah). It stands proved.

Why is it that the recital of the Hallel (which took place in the Temple during the morning prayer) eliminates the corresponding morning prayer of the Ma'amad, while the Musaf prayer does not eliminate the corresponding Musaf prayer of the Ma'amad? "What!" replied R. 'Ashi, "is it possible that the Musaf prayer which eliminates even a non-corresponding service of the Ma'amad (that of Minḥah) should not eliminate the corresponding Musaf service of the Ma'amad?" Said Mar Ḳashshisha: What I meant to say is this: Let the Musaf prayer eliminate only a Ma'amad service that corresponds to it (the Musaf but not the Minḥah). R. Jose actually agrees with this opinion of yours, replied R. 'Ashi, for we find in a Baraita: R. Jose said, on all days on which a Musaf service is held a Ma'amad service is likewise held. Now, to which Ma'amad service does he refer? To that of Shaḥarit? This (the retention of the Ma'amad's Shaḥarit service on days which have the Musaf prayer) is admitted also by the first authority of the Mishnah (R. 'Aḳiba)! Or does he refer to the Ma'amad service during the Musaf prayer? Does not the Musaf eliminate even its own Ma'amad service? Or does he refer to the Ma'amad's Minḥah service? That service is eliminated by the wood offering! No other alternative, then, is possible than to say that he refers to the Ma'amad's Ne'ilah service, which proves that the Musaf eliminates only that Ma'amad service which is simultaneous (and hence conflicts) with it (namely the Ma'amad's Musaf), but none of the services which are not simultaneous with it (as those of Minḥah and Ne'ilah). It stands proved.

Why is it that the recital of the Hallel (which took place in the Temple during the morning prayer) eliminates the corresponding morning prayer of the Ma'amad, while the Musaf prayer does not eliminate the corresponding Musaf prayer of the Ma'amad? "What!" replied R. 'Ashi, "is it possible that the Musaf prayer which eliminates even a non-corresponding service of the Ma'amad (that of Minḥah) should not eliminate the corresponding Musaf service of the Ma'amad?" Said Mar Ḳashshisha: What I meant to say is this: Let the Musaf prayer eliminate only a Ma'amad service that corresponds to it (the Musaf but not the Minḥah). R. Jose actually agrees with this opinion of yours, replied R. 'Ashi, for we find in a Baraita: R. Jose said, on all days on which a Musaf service is held a Ma'amad service is likewise held. Now, to which Ma'amad service does he refer? To that of Shaḥarit? This (the retention of the Ma'amad's Shaḥarit service on days which have the Musaf prayer) is admitted also by the first authority of the Mishnah (R. 'Aḳiba)! Or does he refer to the Ma'amad service during the Musaf prayer? Does not the Musaf eliminate even its own Ma'amad service? Or does he refer to the Ma'amad's Minḥah service? That service is eliminated by the wood offering! No other alternative, then, is possible than to say that he refers to the Ma'amad's Ne'ilah service, which proves that the Musaf eliminates only that Ma'amad service which is simultaneous (and hence conflicts) with it (namely the Ma'amad's Musaf), but none of the services which are not simultaneous with it (as those of Minḥah and Ne'ilah). It stands proved.