everybody

“One bought wheat from another.” Rebbi Abba bar Cahana said, the rate which is valid for everybody. Less than that, woe to the seller; more than that, woe to the buyer!

HALAKHAH: “One does not contract for produce,” etc. May one contract based on Saracens’ rates? Rebbi Joḥanan says, one may contract; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, one may not contract. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Ze‘ira: Would it not be reasonable that Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish agree with Rebbi Joḥanan about rates of Saracens of Sepphoris, since that is uninterrupted? Rebbi Abun bar Cahana said, I am wondering about what the rabbis disagree? Whether contracting for produce, or contracting for money, or a loan on produce? Rebbi Jeremiah said, they disagree about a loan, but about (a hostelry) [a contract] everybody agrees that it is forbidden. Rebbi Yose said, they disagree about a contract, but about a loan everybody agrees that it is permitted. In the House of Rebbi Yannai they said, one contracts for cattle feed. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, also on honeycombs. Rebbi Joḥanan said, in all villages near Tiberias one contracts once the rate was established at Tiberias.

HALAKHAH: “One does not contract for produce,” etc. May one contract based on Saracens’ rates? Rebbi Joḥanan says, one may contract; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, one may not contract. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Ze‘ira: Would it not be reasonable that Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish agree with Rebbi Joḥanan about rates of Saracens of Sepphoris, since that is uninterrupted? Rebbi Abun bar Cahana said, I am wondering about what the rabbis disagree? Whether contracting for produce, or contracting for money, or a loan on produce? Rebbi Jeremiah said, they disagree about a loan, but about (a hostelry) [a contract] everybody agrees that it is forbidden. Rebbi Yose said, they disagree about a contract, but about a loan everybody agrees that it is permitted. In the House of Rebbi Yannai they said, one contracts for cattle feed. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, also on honeycombs. Rebbi Joḥanan said, in all villages near Tiberias one contracts once the rate was established at Tiberias.

Rebbi Eleazar invested a denar with a person and told him, what it earns between now and Ḥanukkah is mine [and yours], afterwards I do not have any part with you, whether they earn or lose it is yours. He wanted to give to him after Ḥanukkah but he did not accept. Rebbi Eleazar had misgivings because of “close to gain and far from loss,” as it was stated: “Close to gain and far from loss is the way of the wicked. Close to loss and far from gain is the way of the just. Close and far equally to both is the way of everybody.” Rebbi Isaac invested denars with a person. He wanted to stipulate as did Rebbi Eleazar but the other did not accept. Cahana invested 40 denars with a person to buy flax for him. Flax went up in price. He went to ask Rav, who told him to go and collect 40 large kor.

HALAKHAH: “One who contracts with another for a field,” etc. One understands that for barley he may not sow wheat; for wheat, may he not sow barley? It follows Rebbi La or is the opinion of everybody at a place where the yield of barley is not twice that of wheat. But at a place where barley produces twice as much as wheat he may sow barley.

Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Practice follows Rebbi Simeon. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Everybody agrees that practice follows Rebbi Simeon.

There, they said: Admon and Rebbi Aqiba. Rebbi La said, they disagree when nothing was specified. Where do we hold? If it is obvious that access was included, everybody agrees that he does not have to pay for access. If it is obvious that access was not included, everybody agrees that he has to pay for access. But we must hold that nothing was specified. Then Rebbi Aqiba said, he does not have to buy access, but the rabbis say, he does have to buy access.

There, they said: Admon and Rebbi Aqiba. Rebbi La said, they disagree when nothing was specified. Where do we hold? If it is obvious that access was included, everybody agrees that he does not have to pay for access. If it is obvious that access was not included, everybody agrees that he has to pay for access. But we must hold that nothing was specified. Then Rebbi Aqiba said, he does not have to buy access, but the rabbis say, he does have to buy access.

“But if he wrote in terms of gift, whether at the start, or the middle, or the end, his words are upheld.” Rebbi Hoshaia said: “There shall be given to Mr. X the inheritance I want him to inherit.” “X should inherit the gift I want him to inherit.” “X shall inherit the inheritance which I gave to him.” “Write and give field X to person Y.” Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Simeon ben Yaqim brought a case before Rebbi Joḥanan He told them, if it is documentation, then write and deliver. If it is to transfer property, everybody agrees that nobody can transfer property after his death.

“If somebody said that all his property should be given to X, a Cohen, and [the estate] contained slaves, even if [the Cohen] said ‘I cannot have them’ they eat heave. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, since he said ‘I cannot have them’, the heirs acquired them.” Rebbi La said, they disagree if he did not specify. How do we hold? If it is clear that he wants them, everybody agrees that his slaves may eat heave. If it is clear that he does not want them, everybody agrees that the heirs acquired them. But we deal with the case that he did not specify, where the rabbis think that at the start he wanted them and then he changed his mind. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, since he said ‘it is impossible for me’, the heirs acquired them.

“If somebody said that all his property should be given to X, a Cohen, and [the estate] contained slaves, even if [the Cohen] said ‘I cannot have them’ they eat heave. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, since he said ‘I cannot have them’, the heirs acquired them.” Rebbi La said, they disagree if he did not specify. How do we hold? If it is clear that he wants them, everybody agrees that his slaves may eat heave. If it is clear that he does not want them, everybody agrees that the heirs acquired them. But we deal with the case that he did not specify, where the rabbis think that at the start he wanted them and then he changed his mind. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, since he said ‘it is impossible for me’, the heirs acquired them.

Samuel said, one can transfer benefits to the fetus; Rebbi Eleazar said, one cannot transfer benefits to the fetus. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Eleazar. “If a proselyte died and Jews plundered his estate, then it became known that he had a son or that his wife was pregnant, everybody is required to return [what he took]. If they returned everything and then the son died or his wife had a miscarriage, the last one in possession acquires it.” Did the first group acquire or not? Explain it, because of hopelessness and it does not even disagree with Samuel. Or should the last one not have acquired it? Still it is because of hopelessness.

Rebbi Yannai in the name of Rebbi: The holder of documents is disadvantaged. Rebbi Joḥanan said to him, is that not the Mishnah: “If [in the document] it was not written ‘bedridden’ but he says, I was bedridden,” etc. Rebbi Yannai praised him “those who pour out gold from the wallet,” “my son, they should not be removed from your eyes,” etc. A young man was selling his properties. The case came before Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph and Rebbi Joḥanan. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph said, the presumption is that they signed for a mentally capable person. Rebbi Joḥanan said, since he undertook to uproot the properties from the family, he has to bring proof. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the holder of documents is advantaged. Rebbi Yasa asked before Rebbi Joḥanan, how about Rebbi, since Rebbi said, the holder of documents is disadvantaged? He told him, everybody agrees that the holder of documents is advantaged. But how could you say that a case came before Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph who said, the presumption is that they signed for a mentally capable person. And you said, since he undertook to uproot the properties from the family to another family, he has to bring proof! He told him, I never said this. Rebbi Ze‘ira said before Rebbi Yasa, even if Rebbi Joḥanan wants to deny it, did not Rebbi Yannai say in the name of Rebbi: The holder of documents is disadvantaged. Rebbi Joḥanan said to him, is that not the Mishnah? This is the opinion of the Sages who follow Rebbi.

“The rapist and the seducer,” etc. Rebbi Mana said, they disagree about the preliminarily married adolescent female. Rebbi Meïr says, she loses her ketubah in a court of three and is stoned in a court of 23; but the Sages say, at the same place which sentences her to be stoned she loses her ketubah. But in the case of the calumniator, everybody agrees that by the court in which the witnesses are stoned, the husband is flogged and pays 100 tetradrachmas. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said to him, would they differ where it was not stated? But they differ about the calumniator! Rebbi Meïr says, he is flogged and pays 100 tetradrachmas by the judgment of three and the witnesses are stoned by the judgment of 23; but the rabbis say, by the court in which the witnesses are stoned, the husband is flogged and pays 100 tetradrachmas. But in the case of the preliminarily married adolescent female, everybody agrees that at the same place which sentences her to be stoned she loses her ketubah. It turns out that Rebbi Mana follows Rebbi Ze‘ira and Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun follows Rebbi Abbahu.

“The rapist and the seducer,” etc. Rebbi Mana said, they disagree about the preliminarily married adolescent female. Rebbi Meïr says, she loses her ketubah in a court of three and is stoned in a court of 23; but the Sages say, at the same place which sentences her to be stoned she loses her ketubah. But in the case of the calumniator, everybody agrees that by the court in which the witnesses are stoned, the husband is flogged and pays 100 tetradrachmas. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said to him, would they differ where it was not stated? But they differ about the calumniator! Rebbi Meïr says, he is flogged and pays 100 tetradrachmas by the judgment of three and the witnesses are stoned by the judgment of 23; but the rabbis say, by the court in which the witnesses are stoned, the husband is flogged and pays 100 tetradrachmas. But in the case of the preliminarily married adolescent female, everybody agrees that at the same place which sentences her to be stoned she loses her ketubah. It turns out that Rebbi Mana follows Rebbi Ze‘ira and Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun follows Rebbi Abbahu.

“For three indications one intercalates a year: because of fresh grain, the equinox, and tree fruits. One intercalates because of two of them, because of a single one does not intercalate; but if they intercalated, it is intercalated. If fresh grain was one of the reasons, everybody was happy. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, also because of the equinox.”

“For three regions one intercalates a year, because of Judea, Transjordan, and Galilee. One intercalates because of two of them, while because of one of them one does not intercalate; if they did intercalate it is not intercalated. If Judea was one of the reasons, everybody was happy since the ˋOmer was brought from there.

MISHNAH: If he consoles others, common behavior requires the people to come in single file and the executive officer becomes a partition between himself and the people. If he is consoled by others, everybody tells him, we are his atonement; he answers them, may you be blessed by Heaven. If one brings him the first meal, the people sit in a circle on the ground and he sits in their circle on a footstool.

Rav Huna said: Who is the Tanna of “participants in pigeon contests”? Rebbi Eliezer, as we have stated there: “Participants in pigeon contests are disqualified from testimony.” Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose: Is that statement in Sanhedrin Rebbi Eliezer’s? He told him, it is everybody’s opinion. So said Rebbi Yose: We knew that he was disqualified for testimony in money matters. What does he come to testify about? For as he is disqualified in money matters, so he is disqualified to testify in criminal trials. The witnesses for the New Moon are held to the standards of criminal trials, as we have stated: “This is the principle: Any testimony for which a woman is not qualified, they are not qualified for.” Who stated this? The rabbis! Do the rabbis follow Rebbi Eliezer? They agree with him and disagree with him. Rebbi Huna in the name of Rav Huna said: It follows Rebbi Eliezer in everything. It turns out that this disagreement parallels another disagreement, as it was stated: A perjured witness is disqualified for any and all testimony required by the Torah, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Yose said, when has this been said? When he was found perjured in criminal matters. But if he was found perjured in money matters, he is disqualified only from that particular testimony. It turns out that Rebbi Yose parallels the rabbis and Rebbi Meïr Rebbi Eliezer.

Or like the following. “One accepts the witnesses’ testimony only if they saw it together. Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥa says, even if they saw it one after the other.” Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rav: The Sages agree with Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥa with regard to witnesses of firstlings and witnesses of squatters’ rights. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah: the same holds for testimony regarding signs. In that case, it is obvious if one says, I saw two hairs on his back and the other says, I saw two hairs on his side. If one says, I saw one hair on his back and the other says, I saw one hair on his belly, that is nothing; so much more his back and his side. Two are saying, we saw one hair on his back; and two are saying, we saw one hair on his belly. Rav Yose and Rav Hoshaia ben Rav Shammai, one said, it is invalid, but the other said, it is valid. He who says it is invalid considers him as one who testifies to half a sign. He who says it is valid? I say, maybe they were rubbed off. One says, two hairs on his back; and one says, two on his belly. Rebbi Abba said, everybody agrees that this is valid. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, everybody agrees that this is invalid [testimony]. Rebbi Yose said, this is in disagreement. Rebbi [Yose] said to Rebbi Ḥaggai, does not Rebbi Yudan follow my opinion? He answered, I am disagreeing with his teacher, so much more with him. Rebbi Mama said, Rebbi Ḥaggai was correct. If a document was signed by four seals, if one person verified the signature of two [witnesses], and another those of the other two, and the document was attacked, is that worth anything? Does not every single signature need two witnesses? And here, every single hair needs two witnesses. Rebbi Ḥinena learns it (because of) [from the years of] squatting rights. If one [witness] testified that he ate from the property the first, second, and third years and another testified that he ate it the fourth, fifth, and sixth years, is that worth anything? Does not every single year need two witnesses? And here, every single hair needs two witnesses.

Or like the following. “One accepts the witnesses’ testimony only if they saw it together. Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥa says, even if they saw it one after the other.” Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rav: The Sages agree with Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥa with regard to witnesses of firstlings and witnesses of squatters’ rights. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah: the same holds for testimony regarding signs. In that case, it is obvious if one says, I saw two hairs on his back and the other says, I saw two hairs on his side. If one says, I saw one hair on his back and the other says, I saw one hair on his belly, that is nothing; so much more his back and his side. Two are saying, we saw one hair on his back; and two are saying, we saw one hair on his belly. Rav Yose and Rav Hoshaia ben Rav Shammai, one said, it is invalid, but the other said, it is valid. He who says it is invalid considers him as one who testifies to half a sign. He who says it is valid? I say, maybe they were rubbed off. One says, two hairs on his back; and one says, two on his belly. Rebbi Abba said, everybody agrees that this is valid. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, everybody agrees that this is invalid [testimony]. Rebbi Yose said, this is in disagreement. Rebbi [Yose] said to Rebbi Ḥaggai, does not Rebbi Yudan follow my opinion? He answered, I am disagreeing with his teacher, so much more with him. Rebbi Mama said, Rebbi Ḥaggai was correct. If a document was signed by four seals, if one person verified the signature of two [witnesses], and another those of the other two, and the document was attacked, is that worth anything? Does not every single signature need two witnesses? And here, every single hair needs two witnesses. Rebbi Ḥinena learns it (because of) [from the years of] squatting rights. If one [witness] testified that he ate from the property the first, second, and third years and another testified that he ate it the fourth, fifth, and sixth years, is that worth anything? Does not every single year need two witnesses? And here, every single hair needs two witnesses.

MISHNAH: In civil suits, anybody may argue for credit or debit. In criminal suits, anybody may argue for acquittal but not everybody may argue for conviction. In civil suits, one who argued for credit may argue for debit and one who argued for debit may argue for credit; but in criminal suits one who argued for conviction may argue for acquittal but one who argued for acquittal is barred from arguing for conviction.

MISHNAH: In cases of money matters, purity, and impurity, one starts with the greatest. In criminal cases, one starts from the side. Everybody is qualified to judge money matters but not everybody is qualified to judge criminal matters, but only Cohanim, Levites and Israel whose daughters may marry into the priesthood.

MISHNAH: In cases of money matters, purity, and impurity, one starts with the greatest. In criminal cases, one starts from the side. Everybody is qualified to judge money matters but not everybody is qualified to judge criminal matters, but only Cohanim, Levites and Israel whose daughters may marry into the priesthood.

MISHNAH: How does one instill fear in witnesses in criminal cases? One brings them in and instills fear in them. Maybe you would testify by a guess, or by a rumor, or from the mouth of a witness, or you heard it from a trustworthy source, or maybe you do not know that we shall examine you by cross-examination and interrogation. You should know that criminal trials are not like civil trials. In civil trials a person pays money and is forgiven. In criminal trials, his blood and the blood of all his descendants hang in the balance, to the end of all generations. So we find when Cain slew his brother, it is said: The sounds of your brother’s bloods cry to me from the earth. It does not say your brother’s blood but your brother’s bloods, his blood and that of his descendants. Another explanation: Your brother’s bloods, the blood was splashed on trees and stones. Therefore man was created single in the world to teach that for anybody who destroys a single life it is counted as if he destroyed an entire world, and for anybody who preserves a single life it is counted as if he preserved an entire world. And because of peace among men, that nobody could say to another, my father was greater than your father. And that sectarians could not say, there are a plurality of powers in Heaven. And to proclaim the greatness of the King over kings of kings, the Holy One, praise to Him. For a man coins many coins with one die; they are one like the other. But the King over kings of kings, the Holy One, praise to Him, stamps every man with the stamp of the first man, but no one is like any other. Therefore, everybody is required to say, the world was created for me. Maybe you will say, why should we go to all this trouble? There already is written: If he is a witness, or saw, or knew, etc. Maybe you will say, why should we be guilty of this man’s blood? There already is written: In destruction of evildoers is clamor.

There, we have stated: “If two groups of witnesses were testifying against a person, one group say that he vowed nazir twice, the others say that he vowed nazir five times. The House of Shammai say, the testimony is split and there is no nezirut there. But the House of Hillel say, five contains two; he should be a nazir twice.” Rav said, they differ in the overall testimony. But in detail, everybody agrees that the testimony is split. Rebbi Joḥanan said, they differ in counting. But in an overall testimony, everybody agrees that five contains two. What is overall and what is counting? Overall, this one says two, the other one says five. Counting, this one says one, two, the other one says three, four.

There, we have stated: “If two groups of witnesses were testifying against a person, one group say that he vowed nazir twice, the others say that he vowed nazir five times. The House of Shammai say, the testimony is split and there is no nezirut there. But the House of Hillel say, five contains two; he should be a nazir twice.” Rav said, they differ in the overall testimony. But in detail, everybody agrees that the testimony is split. Rebbi Joḥanan said, they differ in counting. But in an overall testimony, everybody agrees that five contains two. What is overall and what is counting? Overall, this one says two, the other one says five. Counting, this one says one, two, the other one says three, four.

Rav said, if testimony was contradictory in its essence, the testimony is not void. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if testimony is contradictory in itself, the testimony is void. In the opinion of everybody, if testimony was contradictory in aspects that belong after the fact, the testimony is not void. The strength of Rebbi Joḥanan is consistent with what Rebbi Abba bar Ḥiyya said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if it was agreed that he counted but one [witness] said, he counted from a wallet, and the other said, he counted from a bundle, that contradicts the essence of the testimony, and Rav will agree that the testimony be void. Where do they disagree? If there were two groups of witnesses, one says he counted from a wallet and the other says he counted from a bundle. That contradicts the essence of the testimony: the testimony is void, but according to Rav, the testimony is not void. One said, he counted into his bosom, but the other said, he counted into his money-belt: everybody agrees that this contradicts the essence of the testimony but the testimony is not void. If one [witness] said, he killed him with a sword, the other [witness] said, he killed him with a mace, that contradicts the essence of the testimony; Rav will agree that the testimony be void. Where do they disagree? If there were two groups of witnesses, one says he killed him with a sword and the other says, he killed him with a mace. That contradicts the essence of the testimony, the testimony is void, but according to Rav, the testimony is not void. One says, he turned to the North and one says, he ran away to the South, everybody agrees that the testimony was contradictory in aspects that belong after the fact, and the testimony is not void. The strength of Rav comes from what we have stated there: “Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Simeon say, since both agree that he is not alive they can be remarried.” He did not hear that Rebbi Eleazar said, Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Simeon concede in the case of witnesses. What is the difference between witnesses and the co-wife? They do not consider the co-wife’s words compared to those of her companion. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if Rebbi Eleazar said this, he said it because he had heard it from me. The Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “Both in investigations and cross-examinations, if they contradict one another their testimony is worthless.” What does Rav do with this? Rebbi Mana said, Rav will explain it as referring to single witness against single witness. Rebbi Abun said, even if you say groups and groups. There is a difference in criminal cases, as it is written: Justice, justice you shall pursue.

Rav said, if testimony was contradictory in its essence, the testimony is not void. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if testimony is contradictory in itself, the testimony is void. In the opinion of everybody, if testimony was contradictory in aspects that belong after the fact, the testimony is not void. The strength of Rebbi Joḥanan is consistent with what Rebbi Abba bar Ḥiyya said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if it was agreed that he counted but one [witness] said, he counted from a wallet, and the other said, he counted from a bundle, that contradicts the essence of the testimony, and Rav will agree that the testimony be void. Where do they disagree? If there were two groups of witnesses, one says he counted from a wallet and the other says he counted from a bundle. That contradicts the essence of the testimony: the testimony is void, but according to Rav, the testimony is not void. One said, he counted into his bosom, but the other said, he counted into his money-belt: everybody agrees that this contradicts the essence of the testimony but the testimony is not void. If one [witness] said, he killed him with a sword, the other [witness] said, he killed him with a mace, that contradicts the essence of the testimony; Rav will agree that the testimony be void. Where do they disagree? If there were two groups of witnesses, one says he killed him with a sword and the other says, he killed him with a mace. That contradicts the essence of the testimony, the testimony is void, but according to Rav, the testimony is not void. One says, he turned to the North and one says, he ran away to the South, everybody agrees that the testimony was contradictory in aspects that belong after the fact, and the testimony is not void. The strength of Rav comes from what we have stated there: “Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Simeon say, since both agree that he is not alive they can be remarried.” He did not hear that Rebbi Eleazar said, Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Simeon concede in the case of witnesses. What is the difference between witnesses and the co-wife? They do not consider the co-wife’s words compared to those of her companion. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if Rebbi Eleazar said this, he said it because he had heard it from me. The Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “Both in investigations and cross-examinations, if they contradict one another their testimony is worthless.” What does Rav do with this? Rebbi Mana said, Rav will explain it as referring to single witness against single witness. Rebbi Abun said, even if you say groups and groups. There is a difference in criminal cases, as it is written: Justice, justice you shall pursue.

Rav said, if testimony was contradictory in its essence, the testimony is not void. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if testimony is contradictory in itself, the testimony is void. In the opinion of everybody, if testimony was contradictory in aspects that belong after the fact, the testimony is not void. The strength of Rebbi Joḥanan is consistent with what Rebbi Abba bar Ḥiyya said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if it was agreed that he counted but one [witness] said, he counted from a wallet, and the other said, he counted from a bundle, that contradicts the essence of the testimony, and Rav will agree that the testimony be void. Where do they disagree? If there were two groups of witnesses, one says he counted from a wallet and the other says he counted from a bundle. That contradicts the essence of the testimony: the testimony is void, but according to Rav, the testimony is not void. One said, he counted into his bosom, but the other said, he counted into his money-belt: everybody agrees that this contradicts the essence of the testimony but the testimony is not void. If one [witness] said, he killed him with a sword, the other [witness] said, he killed him with a mace, that contradicts the essence of the testimony; Rav will agree that the testimony be void. Where do they disagree? If there were two groups of witnesses, one says he killed him with a sword and the other says, he killed him with a mace. That contradicts the essence of the testimony, the testimony is void, but according to Rav, the testimony is not void. One says, he turned to the North and one says, he ran away to the South, everybody agrees that the testimony was contradictory in aspects that belong after the fact, and the testimony is not void. The strength of Rav comes from what we have stated there: “Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Simeon say, since both agree that he is not alive they can be remarried.” He did not hear that Rebbi Eleazar said, Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Simeon concede in the case of witnesses. What is the difference between witnesses and the co-wife? They do not consider the co-wife’s words compared to those of her companion. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if Rebbi Eleazar said this, he said it because he had heard it from me. The Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “Both in investigations and cross-examinations, if they contradict one another their testimony is worthless.” What does Rav do with this? Rebbi Mana said, Rav will explain it as referring to single witness against single witness. Rebbi Abun said, even if you say groups and groups. There is a difference in criminal cases, as it is written: Justice, justice you shall pursue.

MISHNAH: Ten cubits’ distance from the place of stoning one tells him: confess! So is the way of any dying person to confess, since anyone who confesses has part in the World to Come. For so we find about Achan towhom Joshua said, my son, honor the Eternal, the God of Israel, confess to Him, and tell me what you did, do not hide it from me. Achan answered Joshua and said, in fact I sinned against the Eternal, the God of Israel, and such and such I did. From where that his confession atoned for him? For it is said, Joshua said to him, how did you devastate us; may the Eternal devastate you on this day. This day you are devastated; you are not devastated in the Future World. If he does not know how to confess, one tells him, say: “My death shall be atonement for all my sins.” Rebbi Jehudah said, if he knows that he was the victim of perjurers, he says: “My death shall be atonement for all my sins except this one.” They told him, if so, everybody would say so to declare themselves innocent.

Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥmani in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: If one says to it, you are my god, there is disagreement between Rebbi and the Sages. If he (prostrated himself), what is the rule? Rebbi Joḥanan said, everybody agrees that if he lowered his body, he is guilty. What is the difference between raising and lowering his body, and raising and lowering his lips? Rebbi Joḥanan said, following disagreement. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, following the distinction. Rebbi Zeˋira said, a verse supports Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: One rule should be for you, for the one acting in error. This only refers to what represents an action. The one who embraces (and who prostrates himself), which are not action, from where?

From where a warning for the one who curses father or mother? Everybody has to fear his mother and father. From where punishment and extirpation? And he who curses his father or mother shall be made to die the death. And it says, for anybody who would commit any of these abominations will be extirpated.

And like planted nails. Why does he not say, “like fixed nails and planted trees”? They chose and selected the iron and improved the planting of iron rods. Another explanation, and like planted nails. Just as this nail, once it has been fixed, if you then remove it from its place, its place remains visible; so everybody against whom the rabbis stretched out their hand, even if afterwards they took him back, in the end he will take what is coming to him from their hands. Another explanation, and like planted nails; it is written watches. Since there are 24 watches, there should be 24 nails. How many nails should it have? Rebbi Joḥanan said five, corresponding to the five books of the Torah. Rebbi Ḥinena said seven, corresponding to your days are your steps. Rebbi Aḥa explained following Rebbi Ḥanina: nine. Rebbi put eleven on one [shoe] and thirteen on the other, for the number of watches. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, a crooked nail is not counted with the nails. Rebbi Abba bar Zavda asked before Rebbi Zeˋira: may one put all of them on one boot? He told him, it is permitted. May one put all of them on one sandal? He told him, it is permitted. It was stated: One does not scrape old boots or sandals but one may anoint them or dip them in water. Rebbi Crispus in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The students of the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya say that those of first rank said, one may scrape, those of second rank said, one may not scrape. They asked Rebbi, who told them, one does not scrape. Rebbi Zeˋira said, here goes one of the students of the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ashi said, we used to sit before Rav and were anointing and rinsing, but not scraping. It was stated: A person should wear new boots and sandals only if he walked in them during daytime. How far should he walk? The people from the house of Bar Qappara said, from the House of Study of Bar Qappara to the House of Study of Rebbi Hoshaia. The Sepphoreans say, from the Babylonian synagogue to Rebbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina’s house. The Tiberians say, from the Academy to Rebbi Hoshaia’s store. It was stated: Nobody should anoint his foot in a shoe or sandal but he may anoint his foot and step into his shoe or his sandal. One may anoint himself and roll on a tarpaulin without worry. One should not put it on a marble slab to roll himself in it, but Rabban Gamliel permits it. Another explanation, and like planted nails. If words about Torah are spelled out clearly by their authors, they are sweet to their listeners like well-ordered saplings. But if they come out confused, they are as bitter for their listeners as nails.

HALAKHAH: “The kinds of awareness of impurity,” etc. Rebbi Jeremiah asked: It is obvious about the last awareness, until he knows that he is liable to bring a sacrifice for it. Is the same true for the first awareness? Let us hear from the following: Two paths, one impure and one pure. He walked on one of them, entered the Sanctuary, left, sprinkled repeatedly, immersed himself, walked on the second one, and entered the Sanctuary; he is liable and he knows that he is liable to bring a sacrifice for it. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, this is Rebbi Ismael’s who said that he is liable for forgetting impurity and forgetting the Sanctuary. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, we thought that one could say that Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said this if he was certain that he was impure, he had forgotten the impurity and entered the Sanctuary. But not if it was in doubt whether he was impure or pure, he was oblivious of the Sanctuary and entered the Sanctuary. Since Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, this is Rebbi Ismael’s who said that he is liable for forgetting impurity and forgetting the Sanctuary: this implies even if it was in doubt whether he was impure or pure. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is everybody’s opinion since a doubt of awareness is awareness. Since at a time when he does not know whether he was impure or pure you say it is certain knowledge, if he knows for certain that he is impure but does not know whether he is liable for a sacrifice then certainly this should be awareness.

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.

Or like the following. “One accepts the witnesses’ testimony only if they saw it together. Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥa says, even if they saw it one after the other.” Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac in the name of Rav Isaac who said in the name of Rav: The Sages agree with Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥa with regard to witnesses of firstlings and witnesses of squatters’ rights. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah: the same holds for testimony regarding signs. In that case, it is obvious if one says, I saw two hairs on his back and one says, I saw one hair on his back and the other says, I saw one hair on his belly, that is nothing; so much more his back and his back. Two are saying, we saw one hair on his back; and one is saying, I saw one hair on his belly. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun and Rebbi Hoshaia ben Rebbi Shammai, one said, it is invalid, but the other said, it is valid. He who says it is invalid considers him as one who testifies to half a sign. He who says it is valid? I say, maybe it was rubbed off. One says, I saw two hairs on his back; and one says, I saw two on his belly. Rebbi Abba said, everybody agrees that this is valid. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, everybody agrees that this is invalid [testimony]. Rebbi Yose says, this is in disagreement. Rebbi Yudan said, this is in disagreement. Rebbi Yose said to Rebbi Ḥaggai, does not Rebbi Yudan follow my opinion? He answered, I am disagreeing with his teacher, so much more with him. Rebbi Mana said, Rebbi Ḥaggai was correct. If a document was signed by four seals, if one person (permitted) two, and another (questioned) the other two, and the document was attacked, is that worth anything? Does not every single signature need two witnesses? And here, every single sign needs two witnesses. Rebbi Ḥanina learns it from the years of squatting rights. If one [witness] testified that he ate from the property the first, second, and third years and another testified that he ate it the fourth and fifth years, is that worth anything? Does not every single year need two witnesses? And here, every single sign needs two witnesses.

Or like the following. “One accepts the witnesses’ testimony only if they saw it together. Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥa says, even if they saw it one after the other.” Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac in the name of Rav Isaac who said in the name of Rav: The Sages agree with Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥa with regard to witnesses of firstlings and witnesses of squatters’ rights. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah: the same holds for testimony regarding signs. In that case, it is obvious if one says, I saw two hairs on his back and one says, I saw one hair on his back and the other says, I saw one hair on his belly, that is nothing; so much more his back and his back. Two are saying, we saw one hair on his back; and one is saying, I saw one hair on his belly. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun and Rebbi Hoshaia ben Rebbi Shammai, one said, it is invalid, but the other said, it is valid. He who says it is invalid considers him as one who testifies to half a sign. He who says it is valid? I say, maybe it was rubbed off. One says, I saw two hairs on his back; and one says, I saw two on his belly. Rebbi Abba said, everybody agrees that this is valid. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, everybody agrees that this is invalid [testimony]. Rebbi Yose says, this is in disagreement. Rebbi Yudan said, this is in disagreement. Rebbi Yose said to Rebbi Ḥaggai, does not Rebbi Yudan follow my opinion? He answered, I am disagreeing with his teacher, so much more with him. Rebbi Mana said, Rebbi Ḥaggai was correct. If a document was signed by four seals, if one person (permitted) two, and another (questioned) the other two, and the document was attacked, is that worth anything? Does not every single signature need two witnesses? And here, every single sign needs two witnesses. Rebbi Ḥanina learns it from the years of squatting rights. If one [witness] testified that he ate from the property the first, second, and third years and another testified that he ate it the fourth and fifth years, is that worth anything? Does not every single year need two witnesses? And here, every single sign needs two witnesses.

If somebody produced both a document and ḥazaqah. Rebbi says, it should be judged by the document. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, it should be judged by ḥazaqah. Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Rav Jeremiah: A case came before Rebbi Jehudah following Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. Rebbi Jeremiah asked before Rebbi Ze`ira: How? Did Rebbi switch his opinion? There he said, it should be judged by the document. But here he said it should be judged by ḥazaqah. Would we say, before he changed his opinion? Even if you say, after he changed his opinion. Rebbi only wanted to determine the truth of the matter. “If somebody occupied real estate on the basis of a document of sale and it was found invalid, this is not ḥazaqah.” Rebbi Jeremiah said, in dispute. Rebbi Samuel said, Rebbi Ze`ira, Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Abinna: it is everybody’s opinion. Rebbi Yose said, there if one produced both a document and ḥazaqah. Here if he came with a document. Rebbi Yudan said, there if he presented two groups of witnesses; here one who contradicts his own proofs.

HALAKHAH: “You are holding for me a kor of grain;” etc. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Our Mishnah if he sued him for wheat and he admitted barley; but if he sued him for two kinds and he admitted one of them, everybody agrees that he is not liable. Rebbi Abbahu said about that of Rebbi Immi: Why did we state, “Rabban Gamliel declares him liable”? It comes to inform you of the power of Rabban Gamliel, how far he declares liable. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Not only if he claimed wheat and he admitted barley to him, but if he claimed two kinds and he admitted one of them, the words of the Sages are that he is not liable. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it is only if he claimed two kinds and he admitted one of them, but if he sued for wheat and he admitted barley according to everybody he is liable. Following Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: A person went to court before Rav: When he claimed from another wheat, barley, and spelt. Rav told him, wait until he charged you with anything he has to charge, and in the end you will swear one oath about everything. Rebbi Abbahu said, so argued Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish against Rebbi Joḥanan: In your opinion, since you say that if he claimed two kinds and he admitted one of them, according to the Sages he is not liable, did we not state “if he claimed vessels and real estate; if he admitted the vessels and denied the real estate, the real estate and denied the vessels”? For vessels about vessels he is liable, not so much more for vessels and real estate? He answered him, to transfer an oath to him by the following Mishnah, “since guaranteed property obligates non-guaranteed property to be sworn about.” This does not even disagree with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. But did we not state: “Somebody who sued for amphoras of oil and he admitted to vessels”? How do we hold? If he sued him for vessels and oil, and he admitted one of them, everybody agrees that this refers to the claim. But if he sued him for vessels and he did (not) admit oil, everybody agrees that what he admitted did not refer to the claim. Rebbi Ze`ira and Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Samuel: If he sued for vessels full of oil, one said vessels but not oil, the other said oil but not vessels. (Thrown) vessels but not oil. Oil but not vessels? Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Abin formulates it as oil buckets. Can one not ask him? If he was paralyzed.

HALAKHAH: “You are holding for me a kor of grain;” etc. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Our Mishnah if he sued him for wheat and he admitted barley; but if he sued him for two kinds and he admitted one of them, everybody agrees that he is not liable. Rebbi Abbahu said about that of Rebbi Immi: Why did we state, “Rabban Gamliel declares him liable”? It comes to inform you of the power of Rabban Gamliel, how far he declares liable. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Not only if he claimed wheat and he admitted barley to him, but if he claimed two kinds and he admitted one of them, the words of the Sages are that he is not liable. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it is only if he claimed two kinds and he admitted one of them, but if he sued for wheat and he admitted barley according to everybody he is liable. Following Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: A person went to court before Rav: When he claimed from another wheat, barley, and spelt. Rav told him, wait until he charged you with anything he has to charge, and in the end you will swear one oath about everything. Rebbi Abbahu said, so argued Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish against Rebbi Joḥanan: In your opinion, since you say that if he claimed two kinds and he admitted one of them, according to the Sages he is not liable, did we not state “if he claimed vessels and real estate; if he admitted the vessels and denied the real estate, the real estate and denied the vessels”? For vessels about vessels he is liable, not so much more for vessels and real estate? He answered him, to transfer an oath to him by the following Mishnah, “since guaranteed property obligates non-guaranteed property to be sworn about.” This does not even disagree with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. But did we not state: “Somebody who sued for amphoras of oil and he admitted to vessels”? How do we hold? If he sued him for vessels and oil, and he admitted one of them, everybody agrees that this refers to the claim. But if he sued him for vessels and he did (not) admit oil, everybody agrees that what he admitted did not refer to the claim. Rebbi Ze`ira and Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Samuel: If he sued for vessels full of oil, one said vessels but not oil, the other said oil but not vessels. (Thrown) vessels but not oil. Oil but not vessels? Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Abin formulates it as oil buckets. Can one not ask him? If he was paralyzed.

HALAKHAH: “You are holding for me a kor of grain;” etc. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Our Mishnah if he sued him for wheat and he admitted barley; but if he sued him for two kinds and he admitted one of them, everybody agrees that he is not liable. Rebbi Abbahu said about that of Rebbi Immi: Why did we state, “Rabban Gamliel declares him liable”? It comes to inform you of the power of Rabban Gamliel, how far he declares liable. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Not only if he claimed wheat and he admitted barley to him, but if he claimed two kinds and he admitted one of them, the words of the Sages are that he is not liable. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it is only if he claimed two kinds and he admitted one of them, but if he sued for wheat and he admitted barley according to everybody he is liable. Following Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: A person went to court before Rav: When he claimed from another wheat, barley, and spelt. Rav told him, wait until he charged you with anything he has to charge, and in the end you will swear one oath about everything. Rebbi Abbahu said, so argued Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish against Rebbi Joḥanan: In your opinion, since you say that if he claimed two kinds and he admitted one of them, according to the Sages he is not liable, did we not state “if he claimed vessels and real estate; if he admitted the vessels and denied the real estate, the real estate and denied the vessels”? For vessels about vessels he is liable, not so much more for vessels and real estate? He answered him, to transfer an oath to him by the following Mishnah, “since guaranteed property obligates non-guaranteed property to be sworn about.” This does not even disagree with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. But did we not state: “Somebody who sued for amphoras of oil and he admitted to vessels”? How do we hold? If he sued him for vessels and oil, and he admitted one of them, everybody agrees that this refers to the claim. But if he sued him for vessels and he did (not) admit oil, everybody agrees that what he admitted did not refer to the claim. Rebbi Ze`ira and Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Samuel: If he sued for vessels full of oil, one said vessels but not oil, the other said oil but not vessels. (Thrown) vessels but not oil. Oil but not vessels? Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Abin formulates it as oil buckets. Can one not ask him? If he was paralyzed.

HALAKHAH: “You are holding for me a kor of grain;” etc. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Our Mishnah if he sued him for wheat and he admitted barley; but if he sued him for two kinds and he admitted one of them, everybody agrees that he is not liable. Rebbi Abbahu said about that of Rebbi Immi: Why did we state, “Rabban Gamliel declares him liable”? It comes to inform you of the power of Rabban Gamliel, how far he declares liable. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Not only if he claimed wheat and he admitted barley to him, but if he claimed two kinds and he admitted one of them, the words of the Sages are that he is not liable. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it is only if he claimed two kinds and he admitted one of them, but if he sued for wheat and he admitted barley according to everybody he is liable. Following Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: A person went to court before Rav: When he claimed from another wheat, barley, and spelt. Rav told him, wait until he charged you with anything he has to charge, and in the end you will swear one oath about everything. Rebbi Abbahu said, so argued Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish against Rebbi Joḥanan: In your opinion, since you say that if he claimed two kinds and he admitted one of them, according to the Sages he is not liable, did we not state “if he claimed vessels and real estate; if he admitted the vessels and denied the real estate, the real estate and denied the vessels”? For vessels about vessels he is liable, not so much more for vessels and real estate? He answered him, to transfer an oath to him by the following Mishnah, “since guaranteed property obligates non-guaranteed property to be sworn about.” This does not even disagree with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. But did we not state: “Somebody who sued for amphoras of oil and he admitted to vessels”? How do we hold? If he sued him for vessels and oil, and he admitted one of them, everybody agrees that this refers to the claim. But if he sued him for vessels and he did (not) admit oil, everybody agrees that what he admitted did not refer to the claim. Rebbi Ze`ira and Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Samuel: If he sued for vessels full of oil, one said vessels but not oil, the other said oil but not vessels. (Thrown) vessels but not oil. Oil but not vessels? Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Abin formulates it as oil buckets. Can one not ask him? If he was paralyzed.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Joḥanan said, the lender can be believed if he said, I lent to you up to the value of the pledge. The Mishnah says, also the borrower can be believed, as we have stated: “He told him, ‘I loaned you a tetradrachma and it was worth a šeqel,’ but the other one says ‘no, a tetradrachma you loaned me and it was worth a tetradrachma‘; he is not liable.” A person encountered another in the market and said, you owe me two denarii and your pledge is worth two denarii. He answered, I owe you one denar but my pledge is worth two denarii. The case came before the judges of Nahardea. They said, since everybody agrees that it is worth two denarii, he has to bring witnesses on the other [denar]. They had not heard that Rebbi Joḥanan said, the lender can be believed if he said, I lent to you up to the value of the pledge.

HALAKHAH: “All who must swear by Torah standards,” etc. One understands from what is said, an oath before the Eternal shall be between them, would we not know that if he does not swear, he has to pay? Why does the verse say, its owner shall take it, and he does not have to pay? But from the moment the owner accepted his oath, he does not have to pay. Rebbi Ḥaggai asked before Rebbi Yose: Is this only following Rebbi Meїr or even following the rabbis? Did not Rebbi Assi say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi Meїr is the one who says that out of a negative one understands a positive? Its owner shall take it, and he does not have to pay, therefore if he does not swear, he has to pay. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: The unpaid and the paid trustees may stipulate to be like a borrower. Rebbi Ḥanina said, everybody agrees that in the language of the Torah out of a negative one understands a positive; where do they disagree? In everyday speech.

Rav Huna said: Who is the Tanna of “participants in pigeon contests”? Rebbi Eliezer, as we have stated there: “Participants in pigeon contests are disqualified from testimony.” Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose: Is that statement in Sanhedrin Rebbi Eliezer’s? He told him, it is everybody’s opinion. So said Rebbi Yose: We knew that he was disqualified for testimony in money matters. What does he come to testify about? For as he is disqualified in money matters, so he is disqualified to testify in criminal trials. The witnesses for the New Moon are held to the standards of criminal trials, as we have stated: “Any testimony for which a woman is not qualified, they are not qualified for.” Who stated this? The rabbis! Do the rabbis follow Rebbi Eliezer? They agree with him and disagree with him. Rebbi Huna in the name of Rebbi Jonah said: It follows Rebbi Eliezer in everything. It turns out that this disagreement parallels another disagreement, as it was stated: A perjured witness is disqualified for any and all testimony required by the Torah, the words of Rebbi Meїr. Rebbi Yose said, when has this been said? When he was found perjured in criminal matters. But if he was found perjured in money matters, he is disqualified only from that particular testimony. It turns out that Rebbi Yose parallels the rabbis and Rebbi Meїr Rebbi Eliezer.

“Similarly, the orphans can collect only by an oath;” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: One pays from an orphan’s property only if interest is due; Rebbi Nathan says, also a woman’s ketubah. Rebbi Mana said, because of her sustenance. Rebbi Mattania said, who is worried about sustenance? Rebbi Simeon! Since Rebbi Simeon said, all depends on the female. What about it? For attraction, that everybody should jump to marry her. Rebbi Nathan said, also for robbery and torts. Rebbi Yose said, we stated both of these. Robbery from the following: “If it was mortgageable, he has to pay.” For torts from the following: “One pays from minor orphans’ property only from the least valuable.” So is the Mishnah: One pays for torts from minor orphans’ property only from the least valuable. But was it not stated, the son shall stand in the father’s place; one estimates torts from the most valuable land, creditors from average quality, and a woman’s ketubah from the least valuable? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, explain it as everybody’s opinion about testamentary dispositions.

“Similarly, the orphans can collect only by an oath;” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: One pays from an orphan’s property only if interest is due; Rebbi Nathan says, also a woman’s ketubah. Rebbi Mana said, because of her sustenance. Rebbi Mattania said, who is worried about sustenance? Rebbi Simeon! Since Rebbi Simeon said, all depends on the female. What about it? For attraction, that everybody should jump to marry her. Rebbi Nathan said, also for robbery and torts. Rebbi Yose said, we stated both of these. Robbery from the following: “If it was mortgageable, he has to pay.” For torts from the following: “One pays from minor orphans’ property only from the least valuable.” So is the Mishnah: One pays for torts from minor orphans’ property only from the least valuable. But was it not stated, the son shall stand in the father’s place; one estimates torts from the most valuable land, creditors from average quality, and a woman’s ketubah from the least valuable? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, explain it as everybody’s opinion about testamentary dispositions.

Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Rav: A document produced by the creditor in the creditor’s handwriting is invalid, for I am saying that he has practiced writing documents. This implies that in the hand of another it would be valid. Rebbi Abinna in the name of Samuel: It is always invalid unless it be in the creditors’s possession but in the debtor’s handwriting. What about this? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun said, explain it according to everybody about a testamentary gift.

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.

How does Rebbi Yose uphold this verse, bring your sacrifices in the morning, etc? The verse speaks about Jeroboam’s kingdom. When Jeroboam became king over Israel he started seducing Israel and said to them come, let us worship pagan worship. Pagan worship is lenient. This is what is written, let us go against Jehudah, cut it down, break it up, and appoint a king in it, the man from Ṭabeal. Rebbi Abba said, we checked all of Scripture but did not find a place named Ṭabeal. But it treats its worshippers well. The Torah said, selected him from all of the tribes of Israel to be a priest for Me. Pagan worship says, he made priests from the fringes of the people. Rebbi La said, from the thorns of the people, the rubbish of the people. The Torah said, the fat of My sacrifice shall not remain until the morning; but pagan worship said, bring your sacrifices in the morning. The Torah said, it should be eaten on the day of its slaughter and the next day; but pagan worship said, on the third day your tithes. The Torah said, do not sacrifice the blood of My sacrifice on leavened matter; but pagan worship said, and burn your thanksgiving offer of leavened matter. The Torah said, if you are vowing a vow to the Eternal, your God, do not tarry to fulfill it, but pagan worship said, pledge gifts, publicize them. Rebbi Yudan, Rebbi Mattaniah’s father, said, the verse only serves to mention the shame of Israel. The day of our king, the princes are sick from wine’s heat, he draws the mockers by his hand. On the day when Jeroboam became king over Israel, all of Israel came to him late in the evening and told him, come and worship pagan worship. He told them, it is late in the evening; I am drunk and not drunk. Everybody is drinking; but if you wish, go and come in the morning. That is what is written, for their heart is like an oven while they are lying in ambush; all night long their baker is sleeping. All night long their baker did not sleep. In the morning he is burning like fire of a conflagration. In the morning they came to him. He told them, I do understand what you want but I am afraid of your Synhedrion lest they kill me. They told him, we shall kill them; this is what is written, that all are glowing like an oven and eat their judges. Rebbi Levi said, they killed them, as is written, if a corpse is found. Rebbi La said, they deposed them; The day of our king, the princes are profaned from wine’s heat; the day when princes were profaned. From wine’s heat, they were addicted to wine. He draws the mockers by his hand: When he saw a serious person he placed two scoffers next to him who asked him, which generation was preferred over all generations? He told them, the generation of the Exodus. But did they not practice pagan worship? He answered them, because they were beloved they were not punished. But they told him, be quiet for the king wants to do the same. Not only that, but they made one and this one made two. He put the one up at Bethel; the other he gave to Dan.

Rav said, Calendae are forbidden for everybody. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is forbidden only for those worshipping on them. Saturnalia are forbidden for everybody. Rebbi Joḥanan said, both Calendae and Saturnalia are forbidden only for those worshipping on them. The colleagues asked: are wives of worshippers like worshippers? Rebbi Abbahu asked: is the parade of Caesarea like worship, since it is full of Samaritans? The parade of Duqim is questionable. Rebbi Ze‘ira sent Rebbi Bevai that he should buy him a small web from the Saturnalia of Bet-Shean. He came to Rebbi Yose. He thought that he would instruct him following Rebbi Joshua ben Levi who permitted it. But he instructed him following Rebbi Joḥanan that it was forbidden. Rav said, Calends are eight days before the solstice, Saturnalia eight days after the solstice. Rebbi Joḥanan said, prwqṭw is the head of the turning point.

Rav said, Calendae are forbidden for everybody. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is forbidden only for those worshipping on them. Saturnalia are forbidden for everybody. Rebbi Joḥanan said, both Calendae and Saturnalia are forbidden only for those worshipping on them. The colleagues asked: are wives of worshippers like worshippers? Rebbi Abbahu asked: is the parade of Caesarea like worship, since it is full of Samaritans? The parade of Duqim is questionable. Rebbi Ze‘ira sent Rebbi Bevai that he should buy him a small web from the Saturnalia of Bet-Shean. He came to Rebbi Yose. He thought that he would instruct him following Rebbi Joshua ben Levi who permitted it. But he instructed him following Rebbi Joḥanan that it was forbidden. Rav said, Calends are eight days before the solstice, Saturnalia eight days after the solstice. Rebbi Joḥanan said, prwqṭw is the head of the turning point.

HALAKHAH: “One does not put up animals in hostelries of Gentiles,” etc. Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina; Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Jonah: explain it following Rebbi Eliezer, since Rebbi Eliezer said “it may not be bought from Gentiles.” Rebbi Jonah asked, why do we not explain it according to everybody, following what Rebbi Eleazar said in the name of Rav: Even one who says it is permitted to sell [says] it is forbidden to leave alone. If he transgressed and left it alone by everybody’s opinion. Rebbi Jeremiah said, let us hear from the following: “A woman who was jailed by Gentiles.” Rebbi Yose said, it is different for a woman because she usually cries. Think of it if she was mute! She uses sign language. What about it? Explain it following Rebbi Eliezer, since Rebbi Eliezer said “it may not be bought from Gentiles.” They wanted to say, where do Rebbi Eliezer and the rabbis disagree? About the cow, because of “eminence was given to the cow, an adornment was made for the cow.” But since the rabbis answer to Rebbi Eliezer all sheep of Qedar will be assembled for you, this says that Rebbi Eliezer disagrees about everything. Rebbi Hoshaia asked, does one reply with an argument about the future against one about the past? Rebbi Abin asked, does one reply with an argument when evil inclinations will have disappeared against one when evil inclinations exist?

HALAKHAH: “One does not put up animals in hostelries of Gentiles,” etc. Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina; Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Jonah: explain it following Rebbi Eliezer, since Rebbi Eliezer said “it may not be bought from Gentiles.” Rebbi Jonah asked, why do we not explain it according to everybody, following what Rebbi Eleazar said in the name of Rav: Even one who says it is permitted to sell [says] it is forbidden to leave alone. If he transgressed and left it alone by everybody’s opinion. Rebbi Jeremiah said, let us hear from the following: “A woman who was jailed by Gentiles.” Rebbi Yose said, it is different for a woman because she usually cries. Think of it if she was mute! She uses sign language. What about it? Explain it following Rebbi Eliezer, since Rebbi Eliezer said “it may not be bought from Gentiles.” They wanted to say, where do Rebbi Eliezer and the rabbis disagree? About the cow, because of “eminence was given to the cow, an adornment was made for the cow.” But since the rabbis answer to Rebbi Eliezer all sheep of Qedar will be assembled for you, this says that Rebbi Eliezer disagrees about everything. Rebbi Hoshaia asked, does one reply with an argument about the future against one about the past? Rebbi Abin asked, does one reply with an argument when evil inclinations will have disappeared against one when evil inclinations exist?

Rebbi Hoshaia said, why do we not explain it according to everybody, as Rav Huna said in the name of Rav: They weighed for me my (sheqels) [wages], thirty pieces of silver. These are the thirty commandments which the descendants of Noah will take upon themselves in the future. But the rabbis say, there are the 30 just persons which the world never will be lacking, as Rebbi Naḥman said in the name of Rebbi Mana, the world cannot be with less than 30 just men like our father Abraham. What is the reason? Abraham will certainly be, the numerical value of יהיה is 30. Sometimes the majority are in Babylonia and the minority in the Land of Israel; sometimes the majority are in the Land of Israel and the minority in Babylonia. It is a good sign for the world if most of them are in the Land. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Julianus in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: In the future the descendants of Noah will take all commandments upon themselves. What is the reason? Then I shall transform Gentiles’ purified lips. But at the end they will renege on it. What is the reason? Let us break their chains, and throw from us their ropes! That is the commandment of phylacteries; that is the commandment of ṣiṣit.

Rebbi Simeon ben Ḥalfuta, Rebbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan. Lambs for your clothing; the price of a field are rams. It is written “suppressings”. How is this? If the students are young, suppress before them the secrets of the Torah. If they grew and became like rams, reveal to them the secrets of the Torah. This lends support to what Rebbi Simoen ben Ioḥai stated: And these are the laws which you shall put before them. Just as this putting is not revealed to everybody so you do have permission to immerse yourself in words of the Torah only before legitimate people.

Where do we hold? If it is certain that they are of kings, according to everybody they are forbidden. If it is certain that they are of rulers, according to everybody they are permitted. But where we hold is if it is indeterminate. Rebbi Meïr says, indeterminate they are of kings but the rabbis say, indeterminate they are of rulers.

Where do we hold? If it is certain that they are of kings, according to everybody they are forbidden. If it is certain that they are of rulers, according to everybody they are permitted. But where we hold is if it is indeterminate. Rebbi Meïr says, indeterminate they are of kings but the rabbis say, indeterminate they are of rulers.

An idol which was broken, Rebbi Joḥanan said it is forbidden, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said it is permitted. Where do we hold? If in the future he would return it to its vessel, everybody agrees it is forbidden. If in the future he will not return it to its vessel, everybody agrees that it is permitted. But we hold if it is not indicated. Rebbi Joḥanan said, not indicated is as if he would return it to its vessel; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, not indicated is as if he would not return it to its vessel. Rebbi Yudan the father of Rebbi Mattaniah said, if they were lying on their spot it is if he would return it to its vessel. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish objected to Rebbi [Joḥanan]: Is it not written, therefore the priests of Dagon and all visitors to Dagon’s temple will not step on Dagon’s threshold? He told him, this teaches that they honored the threshold more than Dagon. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, the peoples of the world made one threshold; Israel made many thresholds; what is the reason? I shall visit on [any] who skips over the threshold [on that day].

An idol which was broken, Rebbi Joḥanan said it is forbidden, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said it is permitted. Where do we hold? If in the future he would return it to its vessel, everybody agrees it is forbidden. If in the future he will not return it to its vessel, everybody agrees that it is permitted. But we hold if it is not indicated. Rebbi Joḥanan said, not indicated is as if he would return it to its vessel; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, not indicated is as if he would not return it to its vessel. Rebbi Yudan the father of Rebbi Mattaniah said, if they were lying on their spot it is if he would return it to its vessel. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish objected to Rebbi [Joḥanan]: Is it not written, therefore the priests of Dagon and all visitors to Dagon’s temple will not step on Dagon’s threshold? He told him, this teaches that they honored the threshold more than Dagon. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, the peoples of the world made one threshold; Israel made many thresholds; what is the reason? I shall visit on [any] who skips over the threshold [on that day].

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.

An object of worship. Some Tannaim state, whether it was his or another person’s, it is forbidden. But some Tannaim state, his is forbidden, another person’s is permitted. He who said, whether it was his or another person’s, it is forbidden, [Rebbi Meïr and] Rebbi Jehudah. But he who said, his is forbidden, another person’s is permitted, Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Simeon. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Ila: It is everybody’s opinion. Just as you say there, anything living while it cannot become forbidden for a private person it becomes forbidden for Heaven, so similarly anything which is not yours even though it cannot become forbidden for a private person it (does not) become forbidden for Heaven.

If somebody worshipped an egg Ḥizqiah said, he did not make it forbidden; Rebbi Joḥanan said, he made it forbidden. Rebbi Zeˋira said, they disagree about an egg. The colleagues say, they disagree about pebbles in a river bed. Rebbi Huna said, a verse supports what the colleagues say:Your part is with river pebbles; these are your destiny. The strength of Ḥizqiah is from the following: “Then why is an Ashera forbidden? Because it was held by human hand, and anything held by human hand is forbidden.” Everybody agrees that wheat is forbidden; as Rebbi Ḥanina bar Yasa said in the name of Rav Jehudah: The roots of wheat split the earth to a depth of 50 cubits; the soft roots of a fig tree split rock. Then what do the roots of the carob and the roots of the sycamore? Rebbi Ḥanina said, once every thirty days the abyss wells up and drenches them. What is the reason? I, the Eternal, am watching over it and water it in moments. It was stated: Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says, this teaches that the earth drinks only according to its hardness.

There exists a baraita which says, idols are like a menstruating woman and its appurtenances are like a menstruating woman. Also there exists a baraita which says, idols are like a menstruating woman and its appurtenances are like crawling animals. The one who says, idols are like a menstruating woman and its appurtenances are like a menstruating woman, is understandable. But the one who says, idols are like a menstruating woman and its appurtenances are like crawling animals, is it not called “unwell” only for its appurtenances? Explain it if they were engraved on its body. As Rebbi Jacob of Kefar Ḥanan said, explain it if one worships the ephod itself, similar to what is written, Gideon made an ephod. Our Mishnah follows him who said, idols are like a menstruating woman and its appurtenances are like a menstruating woman, and we have stated: “its stones, its wood, and its dust make impure like a crawling animal.” Explain it if he worshipped the house itself, as Rebbi Abba, Rab Huna said in the name of Rav: One who worships a house makes it forbidden. Rebbi Zeˋira, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If somebody dedicates a house one does not commit larceny with it. And he who says, one does not commit larceny with it, can he make it forbidden? Rebbi Ḥaggai objected before Rebbi Yose, does not a Mishnah disagree with Rav? “A trough in a rock: one does not fill from it, and one does not sanctify with it, and one does not sprinkle with it, it does not have to be fastened with a tightened cover, and it does not invalidate a miqweh. If it was a vessel and he fixed it with lime, etc., up to it invalidates a miqweh.” Because he excavated it and after that combined it. Then if he fixed it and after that excavated it, what do you do with it? Explain it following Rebbi Joḥanan that the hewing of stones is the completion of work on them. Does this not disagree with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish who said, an idol which was broken is permitted? And so we are thinking to say if in the future he can restore it to its vessel it is forbidden according to everybody. Explain it if he worships every single stone and then builds with them. Does this not disagree with Rebbi Joḥanan, as Rebbi Joḥanan said, an idol which was broken is forbidden? And so we are thinking to say if in the future he cannot restore it to its vessel it is permitted according to everybody. Explain it if he worshipped a vine and afterwards planted it.

There exists a baraita which says, idols are like a menstruating woman and its appurtenances are like a menstruating woman. Also there exists a baraita which says, idols are like a menstruating woman and its appurtenances are like crawling animals. The one who says, idols are like a menstruating woman and its appurtenances are like a menstruating woman, is understandable. But the one who says, idols are like a menstruating woman and its appurtenances are like crawling animals, is it not called “unwell” only for its appurtenances? Explain it if they were engraved on its body. As Rebbi Jacob of Kefar Ḥanan said, explain it if one worships the ephod itself, similar to what is written, Gideon made an ephod. Our Mishnah follows him who said, idols are like a menstruating woman and its appurtenances are like a menstruating woman, and we have stated: “its stones, its wood, and its dust make impure like a crawling animal.” Explain it if he worshipped the house itself, as Rebbi Abba, Rab Huna said in the name of Rav: One who worships a house makes it forbidden. Rebbi Zeˋira, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If somebody dedicates a house one does not commit larceny with it. And he who says, one does not commit larceny with it, can he make it forbidden? Rebbi Ḥaggai objected before Rebbi Yose, does not a Mishnah disagree with Rav? “A trough in a rock: one does not fill from it, and one does not sanctify with it, and one does not sprinkle with it, it does not have to be fastened with a tightened cover, and it does not invalidate a miqweh. If it was a vessel and he fixed it with lime, etc., up to it invalidates a miqweh.” Because he excavated it and after that combined it. Then if he fixed it and after that excavated it, what do you do with it? Explain it following Rebbi Joḥanan that the hewing of stones is the completion of work on them. Does this not disagree with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish who said, an idol which was broken is permitted? And so we are thinking to say if in the future he can restore it to its vessel it is forbidden according to everybody. Explain it if he worships every single stone and then builds with them. Does this not disagree with Rebbi Joḥanan, as Rebbi Joḥanan said, an idol which was broken is forbidden? And so we are thinking to say if in the future he cannot restore it to its vessel it is permitted according to everybody. Explain it if he worshipped a vine and afterwards planted it.

HALAKHAH: What is an Ashera? Rav Ḥisda said, They disagree in the indeterminate case. Where do we hold? If it is certain that they worship both idol and tree, everybody agrees that it is forbidden. But if it is certain that they worship the idol and do not worship the tree, everybody agrees that it is permitted. But where do we hold? If it is indeterminate. Rebbi Simeon says, normally they worship both idol and tree; but the rabbis say, normally they worship the idol but do not worship the tree. And it is difficult. Rebbi Simeon disagrees with the Sages and acts in their sense!

HALAKHAH: What is an Ashera? Rav Ḥisda said, They disagree in the indeterminate case. Where do we hold? If it is certain that they worship both idol and tree, everybody agrees that it is forbidden. But if it is certain that they worship the idol and do not worship the tree, everybody agrees that it is permitted. But where do we hold? If it is indeterminate. Rebbi Simeon says, normally they worship both idol and tree; but the rabbis say, normally they worship the idol but do not worship the tree. And it is difficult. Rebbi Simeon disagrees with the Sages and acts in their sense!

Does this not disagree with Rebbi Joḥanan, since Rebbi Joḥanan said, an idol which was broken is forbidden? And so we are thinking to say if in the future he cannot restore it whole it is permitted according to everybody. Explain it about a Jew’s idol. Does this not disagree with Rav, since Rav said, for its purpose it is forbidden but its shavings are permitted? Again explain it about a Jew’s idol. Why does everybody stay away from it? Because its dropping leaves are bad.

Does this not disagree with Rebbi Joḥanan, since Rebbi Joḥanan said, an idol which was broken is forbidden? And so we are thinking to say if in the future he cannot restore it whole it is permitted according to everybody. Explain it about a Jew’s idol. Does this not disagree with Rav, since Rav said, for its purpose it is forbidden but its shavings are permitted? Again explain it about a Jew’s idol. Why does everybody stay away from it? Because its dropping leaves are bad.

HALAKHAH: “If he took wood from it,” etc. Rav Ḥasdai said, they are disagreeing in the indeterminate case. Where do we hold? If to heat, everybody agrees that it is permitted. If to fumigate, everybody agrees that it is forbidden. Where do we hold? In the indeterminate case.

HALAKHAH: “If he took wood from it,” etc. Rav Ḥasdai said, they are disagreeing in the indeterminate case. Where do we hold? If to heat, everybody agrees that it is permitted. If to fumigate, everybody agrees that it is forbidden. Where do we hold? In the indeterminate case.

“But the Sages say, what is seen with it is forbidden, what is not seen with it is permitted.” (What is seen with it, its body, is forbidden; what is not seen with it is permitted.) What is seen with it is its body, what is not seen with it is not its body. Does this not disagree with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish since Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, an idol which was broken is permitted? And so we are thinking to say if in the future he can restore it whole it is permitted according to everybody. Does this not disagree with Rebbi Joḥanan, as Rebbi Joḥanan said, an idol which was broken is forbidden? And so we are thinking to say if in the future he cannot restore it whole it is permitted according to everybody.

“But the Sages say, what is seen with it is forbidden, what is not seen with it is permitted.” (What is seen with it, its body, is forbidden; what is not seen with it is permitted.) What is seen with it is its body, what is not seen with it is not its body. Does this not disagree with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish since Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, an idol which was broken is permitted? And so we are thinking to say if in the future he can restore it whole it is permitted according to everybody. Does this not disagree with Rebbi Joḥanan, as Rebbi Joḥanan said, an idol which was broken is forbidden? And so we are thinking to say if in the future he cannot restore it whole it is permitted according to everybody.

HALAKHAH: “How does one annul it,” etc? Rebbi Ze`ira said, this is if he sold it in peace. But if he sold it in ill-will, everybody agrees that it is annulled; it happens that he is hungry, falls into a rage, and curses his king etc. Ze`ur bar Ḥinena in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: They disagreed in case he sold it to a goldsmith. But if he sold it to its worshipper, everybody agrees that it is not annulled. Rav Jeremiah in the name of Rav: they disagreed if he sold it to its worshippers. But if he sold it to a goldsmith everybody agrees that it is annulled. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: the opinion of everybody. Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: in dispute. It turns out that Rebbi Ḥanina held with Rebbi Joḥanan and Rav Jeremiah with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. What about it? They disagreed in case he sold it to a goldsmith. But if he sold it to one of its worshippers, everybody agrees that it is not annulled.

HALAKHAH: “How does one annul it,” etc? Rebbi Ze`ira said, this is if he sold it in peace. But if he sold it in ill-will, everybody agrees that it is annulled; it happens that he is hungry, falls into a rage, and curses his king etc. Ze`ur bar Ḥinena in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: They disagreed in case he sold it to a goldsmith. But if he sold it to its worshipper, everybody agrees that it is not annulled. Rav Jeremiah in the name of Rav: they disagreed if he sold it to its worshippers. But if he sold it to a goldsmith everybody agrees that it is annulled. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: the opinion of everybody. Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: in dispute. It turns out that Rebbi Ḥanina held with Rebbi Joḥanan and Rav Jeremiah with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. What about it? They disagreed in case he sold it to a goldsmith. But if he sold it to one of its worshippers, everybody agrees that it is not annulled.

HALAKHAH: “How does one annul it,” etc? Rebbi Ze`ira said, this is if he sold it in peace. But if he sold it in ill-will, everybody agrees that it is annulled; it happens that he is hungry, falls into a rage, and curses his king etc. Ze`ur bar Ḥinena in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: They disagreed in case he sold it to a goldsmith. But if he sold it to its worshipper, everybody agrees that it is not annulled. Rav Jeremiah in the name of Rav: they disagreed if he sold it to its worshippers. But if he sold it to a goldsmith everybody agrees that it is annulled. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: the opinion of everybody. Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: in dispute. It turns out that Rebbi Ḥanina held with Rebbi Joḥanan and Rav Jeremiah with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. What about it? They disagreed in case he sold it to a goldsmith. But if he sold it to one of its worshippers, everybody agrees that it is not annulled.

HALAKHAH: “How does one annul it,” etc? Rebbi Ze`ira said, this is if he sold it in peace. But if he sold it in ill-will, everybody agrees that it is annulled; it happens that he is hungry, falls into a rage, and curses his king etc. Ze`ur bar Ḥinena in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: They disagreed in case he sold it to a goldsmith. But if he sold it to its worshipper, everybody agrees that it is not annulled. Rav Jeremiah in the name of Rav: they disagreed if he sold it to its worshippers. But if he sold it to a goldsmith everybody agrees that it is annulled. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: the opinion of everybody. Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: in dispute. It turns out that Rebbi Ḥanina held with Rebbi Joḥanan and Rav Jeremiah with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. What about it? They disagreed in case he sold it to a goldsmith. But if he sold it to one of its worshippers, everybody agrees that it is not annulled.

HALAKHAH: “How does one annul it,” etc? Rebbi Ze`ira said, this is if he sold it in peace. But if he sold it in ill-will, everybody agrees that it is annulled; it happens that he is hungry, falls into a rage, and curses his king etc. Ze`ur bar Ḥinena in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: They disagreed in case he sold it to a goldsmith. But if he sold it to its worshipper, everybody agrees that it is not annulled. Rav Jeremiah in the name of Rav: they disagreed if he sold it to its worshippers. But if he sold it to a goldsmith everybody agrees that it is annulled. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: the opinion of everybody. Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: in dispute. It turns out that Rebbi Ḥanina held with Rebbi Joḥanan and Rav Jeremiah with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. What about it? They disagreed in case he sold it to a goldsmith. But if he sold it to one of its worshippers, everybody agrees that it is not annulled.

Everybody agrees that substitutes are forbidden. What about substitutes of substitutes? Rebbi Ḥanina said, a disagreement between Rebbi Ismael and the rabbis. Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose said, forbidden. But the rabbis say, permitted. Rebbi Eleazar ben Hoshaia, the reason of the rabbis, you would be banned like itself. Anything which you can keep from it is like itself. What about it? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun said, like itself, like itself two times, because of nothing should cling to your hand from the ban.

How do you treat them? Like wine in wine or wine in a dish? If you treat it like wine in a dish, according to everybody it is forbidden. If you treat it like wine in wine, there is the disagreement between Rebbi Meїr and the Sages.

As we have stated. “Everything that can be smelled is forbidden, whether it improves or spoils, the words of Rebbi Meїr. But the Sages say, if it improves it is forbidden, if it spoils it is permitted,” as for example vinegar which fell into broken beans. Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It is Rebbi Meïr’s, as we have stated there: “If barley grains fell into a cistern of water, even though they made it stink, [the water] is permitted.” About this Mishnah, Rebbi Meïr says it is in dispute, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: everybody’s opinion. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said this tradition so: In the opinion of Rebbi Meïr it is in dispute, in the opinions of Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish it is everybody’s opinion.

As we have stated. “Everything that can be smelled is forbidden, whether it improves or spoils, the words of Rebbi Meїr. But the Sages say, if it improves it is forbidden, if it spoils it is permitted,” as for example vinegar which fell into broken beans. Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It is Rebbi Meïr’s, as we have stated there: “If barley grains fell into a cistern of water, even though they made it stink, [the water] is permitted.” About this Mishnah, Rebbi Meïr says it is in dispute, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: everybody’s opinion. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said this tradition so: In the opinion of Rebbi Meïr it is in dispute, in the opinions of Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish it is everybody’s opinion.

The following is obvious: If the Jew holds the funnel and the Gentile pours, everybody agrees that is it forbidden. If the Gentile holds the funnel and the Jew pours, Rebbi Assi forbids and Rebbi Immi permits. If the Gentile holds the opening of the wineskin and the Jew pours, Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira: this is the disagreement. Rebbi Mana asked before Rebbi Yose, which disagreement? He told him, the disasgreement between Rebbi Assi and Rebbi Immi. If the Jew holds the wineskin and the Gentile pours, they wanted to say that according to everybody it is permitted. Rebbi Samuel: In itself it implies that it is forbidden. For sometimes the Jew will loosen his grip and then the entire pouring is done by the Gentile. If somebody lets down a wineskin from top to bottom this is not pouring from vessel to vessel.

The following is obvious: If the Jew holds the funnel and the Gentile pours, everybody agrees that is it forbidden. If the Gentile holds the funnel and the Jew pours, Rebbi Assi forbids and Rebbi Immi permits. If the Gentile holds the opening of the wineskin and the Jew pours, Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira: this is the disagreement. Rebbi Mana asked before Rebbi Yose, which disagreement? He told him, the disasgreement between Rebbi Assi and Rebbi Immi. If the Jew holds the wineskin and the Gentile pours, they wanted to say that according to everybody it is permitted. Rebbi Samuel: In itself it implies that it is forbidden. For sometimes the Jew will loosen his grip and then the entire pouring is done by the Gentile. If somebody lets down a wineskin from top to bottom this is not pouring from vessel to vessel.

MISHNAH: The father is exiled for his son, and the son for the father. Everybody is exiled for an Israel, and an Israel for everybody except a sojourner. A sojourner is exiled for a sojourner. A blind person is not exiled, the words of Rebbi Jehudah; Rebbi Meïr says, he is exiled. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah says, the hater is executed for he is as if notorious. Rebbi Simeon says, there is a hater who is exiled and one who is not exiled. In any case where one can say that he killed intentionally, he is not exiled; unintentionally, he is exiled.

MISHNAH: The father is exiled for his son, and the son for the father. Everybody is exiled for an Israel, and an Israel for everybody except a sojourner. A sojourner is exiled for a sojourner. A blind person is not exiled, the words of Rebbi Jehudah; Rebbi Meïr says, he is exiled. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah says, the hater is executed for he is as if notorious. Rebbi Simeon says, there is a hater who is exiled and one who is not exiled. In any case where one can say that he killed intentionally, he is not exiled; unintentionally, he is exiled.

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.

“What is the positive commandment about the menstruating woman?” Rebbi Abin said, Keep the Children of Israel away from their impurities. Rebbi Jonathan sent to ask Rebbi Simeon ben Rebbi Yose bar Lakonia, from where a warning for one having sex with an impure woman? He wanted to throw a stone after him; he told him, you are asking me something that children recite every day in the synagogue: To a woman in the separation ofher impurity you shall not come near to uncover her nakedness. He answered him, that is not my problem. My only problem is rather “if he was having sex with an impure woman, he is liable. If he was having sex with a pure one and she said to him, I became impure,” if he separates immediately, is he liable? He told him, I and you have the same problem. Let us go out and learn. They went out and heard the voice of a Tanna who stated following Ḥiskiah: If lying a man will lie with her. Not only that if he was having sex with an impure woman, he is liable. If he was having sex with a pure one and she said to him, I became impure, if he separates immediately, is he liable? The verse says, her secretion shall be, even if her secretion starts with him. What should he do? Rav Hoshaia, Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel, he shall cool down. If he did not cool down? Rebbi Yose said, for him I am reading do not come near as “do not separate”. Closeness is separation. Rav Ḥuna in the name of Rav Abba: Those who say, be close to yourself, do not touch me for I sanctified you. Rebbi Zeˋira said, he should imagine that a sword is cutting into his flesh. Is everybody Rebbi Zeˋira? Rebbi Tanḥuma in the name of Rav Ḥuna: He shall press his fingertips on the wall, then he will cool down.

So is the Mishnah: “but the Anointed is not liable for the impurity of the Temple and its sancta, everybody’s opinion, and neither is the Prince for hearing a sound, the words of Rebbi Simeon.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, and the Sanctuary he shall not leave, nor desecrate. Therefore, if he left, he would not desecrate. Rebbi Ashian, Rebbi Jonah: Rebbi Abun bar Cahana found a difficulty. Is it not written, a widow, or a divorcee, or a desecrated, a harlot, these he shall not marry, therefore if he married he would not desecrate? What about it? Ḥizqiah said, this person would be extirpated from the community. One whose sacrifice is identical to that of the community. This excludes the Anointed whose sacrifice is not equal to that of the community. They objected, is not also the Prince’s sacrifice not equal to that of the community? It is equal on the day of Atonement. But his brothers the priests are not equal on the day of Atonement! They are equal on the other days of the year. Rebbi Yudan bar Shalom said, they are equal in that the blood is given outside.

Everybody agrees that if the first one was still in existence it is pushed aside. What should be done with it? Rebbi Yose said, it is suspended for atonement. Rebbi Zeˋira said, where neither itself nor its blood are usable it dies immediately.

If he ate five times the volume of an olive; the doubt became known to him before he was appointed (and in court) [as the certainty] after he was removed. In the opinion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish he is not liable; in the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan he is liable. Did Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish state to free from liability, not rather to insist on liability? But it must be as follows: He ate five times the volume of an olive. The doubt became known to him before he was appointed; the certainty after he was appointed. Following the opinion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish who said, the knowledge about his doubt determines his kind of transgression, he must say that one is liable. Following the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan who said, the knowledge about his doubt does not determine his kind of transgression, he must say that one is not liable. Everybody agrees that if the first one was still in existence it is pushed aside. What should be done with it? Rebbi Yasa said, it is suspended for atonement. Rebbi Zeˋira said, if neither itself not its blood are usable, it dies immediately.

If he ate five times the volume of an olive; the doubt became known to him before he was appointed, and (in court) after he was appointed. In the opinion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish he is liable; in the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan he is not liable. Did Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish state to insist on liability, not rather to free from liability? But it must be as follows: He ate five times the volume of an olive. The doubt became known to him after he was appointed; (in court) after he was removed. Following the opinion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish who said, if the sin was partially atoned for it was not totally atoned, he must say that he is not liable. Following the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan who said, if the sin was partially atoned for it was totally atoned, he must say that one is liable. Everybody agrees that if the first one was still in existence it is pushed aside. What should be done with it? Rebbi Yasa said, it is suspended for atonement. Rebbi Zeˋira said, if neither it nor its blood are usable it dies immediately.

Who is the teacher who taught him wisdom? The one who taught him first, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Jehudah said, the one from whom he received most of his instruction. Rebbi Yose said, anyone who explained a Mishnah to him.” Rebbi Abbahu came in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Practice follows him who said, the one from whom he received most of his instruction. Why did he not explain that this follows Rebbi Jehudah? There are Tannaïm who state it switched. Rebbi Eleazar tore his garment for his first teacher. Samuel took off [his phylacteries] for one who had explained a Mishnah to him. What Mishnah did he explain to him? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, “for one key he has to go down to his arm-pit and one opens straight.” What means “for one he has to gown to his arm-pit,” he had to lower his hand under his arm-pit until it could be opened. Rebbi Ḥanania was leaning on Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba in Sepphoris, when he saw everybody running. He asked him, why is everybody running? He answered, Rebbi Joḥanan is sitting preaching in Rebbi Banaia’s house of study and everybody is running to hear him. He said, praised be the Merciful Who showed me fruits while I am alive. In Agadah I explained him everything except Proverbs and Ecclesiastes.

Who is the teacher who taught him wisdom? The one who taught him first, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Jehudah said, the one from whom he received most of his instruction. Rebbi Yose said, anyone who explained a Mishnah to him.” Rebbi Abbahu came in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Practice follows him who said, the one from whom he received most of his instruction. Why did he not explain that this follows Rebbi Jehudah? There are Tannaïm who state it switched. Rebbi Eleazar tore his garment for his first teacher. Samuel took off [his phylacteries] for one who had explained a Mishnah to him. What Mishnah did he explain to him? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, “for one key he has to go down to his arm-pit and one opens straight.” What means “for one he has to gown to his arm-pit,” he had to lower his hand under his arm-pit until it could be opened. Rebbi Ḥanania was leaning on Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba in Sepphoris, when he saw everybody running. He asked him, why is everybody running? He answered, Rebbi Joḥanan is sitting preaching in Rebbi Banaia’s house of study and everybody is running to hear him. He said, praised be the Merciful Who showed me fruits while I am alive. In Agadah I explained him everything except Proverbs and Ecclesiastes.

Who is the teacher who taught him wisdom? The one who taught him first, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Jehudah said, the one from whom he received most of his instruction. Rebbi Yose said, anyone who explained a Mishnah to him.” Rebbi Abbahu came in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Practice follows him who said, the one from whom he received most of his instruction. Why did he not explain that this follows Rebbi Jehudah? There are Tannaïm who state it switched. Rebbi Eleazar tore his garment for his first teacher. Samuel took off [his phylacteries] for one who had explained a Mishnah to him. What Mishnah did he explain to him? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, “for one key he has to go down to his arm-pit and one opens straight.” What means “for one he has to gown to his arm-pit,” he had to lower his hand under his arm-pit until it could be opened. Rebbi Ḥanania was leaning on Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba in Sepphoris, when he saw everybody running. He asked him, why is everybody running? He answered, Rebbi Joḥanan is sitting preaching in Rebbi Banaia’s house of study and everybody is running to hear him. He said, praised be the Merciful Who showed me fruits while I am alive. In Agadah I explained him everything except Proverbs and Ecclesiastes.

“A prophet has precedence over the Anointed for War, the Anointed for War has precedence over the head of the watch, the head of the watch has precedence over the head of a clan, the head of a clan has precedence over the executive officer, the executive officer has precedence over the treasurer, the treasurer has precedence over a common priest, a common priest has precedence over a Levite, a Levite over an Israel (an Israel over a bastard).” Is not the Levite equal [to an Israel]? Rebbi Abun said, this was taught in the days of the podium. Rebbi Abun said, a proselyte and an apostate, the apostate has preference because of what had happened. “Why does everybody run after a proselyte woman, but not after a freedwoman? For the proselyte is presumed to have been guarding herself but the freedwoman is presumed to be irresponsible.” And why does everybody (run after a rat) [inquire after a slave]? Because his dealings are bad for people. Rebbi Joḥanan said, do not believe a slave up to sixteen generations. Ismael ben Netaniah ben Elishama of royal descent came and slew Gedaliahu at Miṣpah.

“A prophet has precedence over the Anointed for War, the Anointed for War has precedence over the head of the watch, the head of the watch has precedence over the head of a clan, the head of a clan has precedence over the executive officer, the executive officer has precedence over the treasurer, the treasurer has precedence over a common priest, a common priest has precedence over a Levite, a Levite over an Israel (an Israel over a bastard).” Is not the Levite equal [to an Israel]? Rebbi Abun said, this was taught in the days of the podium. Rebbi Abun said, a proselyte and an apostate, the apostate has preference because of what had happened. “Why does everybody run after a proselyte woman, but not after a freedwoman? For the proselyte is presumed to have been guarding herself but the freedwoman is presumed to be irresponsible.” And why does everybody (run after a rat) [inquire after a slave]? Because his dealings are bad for people. Rebbi Joḥanan said, do not believe a slave up to sixteen generations. Ismael ben Netaniah ben Elishama of royal descent came and slew Gedaliahu at Miṣpah.

Rebbi Yannai said, the first one also is called religious. We have stated “they have to check themselves”, and you say so? Rebbi Ila said, to tell you that everybody who keeps the directives of the rabbis is called religious.