exchanged

Girls who had entered the bridal chamber quite lately, to enjoy the partnership of marriage, exchanged pleasure for misery; and with dust scattered upon their myrrh-anointed heads, were hurried along unveiled; and, in the midst of outlandish insults, set up with one accord a lamentable cry instead of the marriage hymn.

Then Jared and they exchanged a greeting and he said to the elder among them, "O my father, explain to me the wonder that is in thee, and tell me who these are, with thee; for they look to me like strange men."

For what then have men lost their life, And for what have those who were on the earth exchanged their soul?

Yet thou desirest that we should say some word against God and that He should be exchanged for the great Pluto [the god of the nether world.]

And He slew death with His pure body, and He rose without corruption, and He hath raised us up with Him to immortality, the throne of divinity, and He hath raised us up to Him, and we have exchanged life in our mortal body and found the life which is immortal.

These disorders increased greatly, and the king's absence abroad had afforded a fit opportunity for that increase; but as soon as Herod was returned, and had made the forementioned speech to the multitude, Pheroras and Salome let fill words immediately as if he were in great danger, and as if the young men openly threatened that they would not spare him any longer, but revenge their mother's death upon him. They also added another circumstance, that their hopes were fixed on Archelaus, the king of Cappadocia, that they should be able by his means to come to Cæsar, and accuse their father. Upon hearing such things, Herod was immediately disturbed; and indeed was the more astonished, because the same things were related to him by some others also. He then called to mind his former calamity, and considered that the disorders in his family had hindered him from enjoying any comfort from those that were dearest to him or from his wife whom he loved so well; and suspecting that his future troubles would soon be heavier and greater than those that were past, he was in great confusion of mind; for Divine Providence had in reality conferred upon him a great many outward advantages for his happiness, even beyond his hopes; but the troubles he had at home were such as he never expected to have met with, and rendered him unfortunate; nay, both sorts came upon him to such a degree as no one could imagine, and made it a doubtful question, whether, upon the comparison of both, he ought to have exchanged so great a success of outward good things for so great misfortunes at home, or whether he ought not to have chosen to avoid the calamities relating to his family, though he had, for a compensation, never been possessed of the admired grandeur of a kingdom.

But as in the words which I quoted from Celsus, which are a paraphrase from the Timœus, certain expressions occur, such as, “God made nothing mortal, but immortal things alone, while mortal things are the works of others, and the soul is a work of God, but the nature of the body is different, and there is no difference between the body of a man and that of a bat, or of a worm, or of a frog; for the matter is the same, and their corruptible part alike,”—let us discuss these points for a little; and let us show that Celsus either does not disclose his Epicurean opinions, or, as might be said by one person, has exchanged them for better, or, as another might say, has nothing in common save the name, with Celsus, the Epicurean. For he ought, in giving expression to such opinions, and in proposing to contradict not only us, but the by no means obscure sect of philosophers who are the adherents of Zeno of Citium, to have proved that the bodies of animals are not the work of God, and that the great skill displayed in their construction did not proceed from the highest intelligence. And he ought also, with regard to the countless diversities of plants, which are regulated by an inherent, incomprehensible nature, and which have been created for the by no means despicable use of man in general, and of the animals which minister to man, whatever other reasons may be adduced for their existence, not only to have stated his opinion, but also to have shown us that it was no perfect intelligence which impressed these qualities upon the matter of plants. And when he had once represented [various] divinities as the creators of all the bodies, the soul alone being the work of God, why did not he, who separated these great acts of creation, and apportioned them among a plurality of creators, next demonstrate by some convincing reason the existence of these diversities among divinities, some of which construct the bodies of men, and others—those, say, of beasts of burden, and others—those of wild animals? And he who saw that some divinities were the creators of dragons, and of asps, and of basilisks, and others of each plant and herb according to its species, ought to have explained the causes of these diversities. For probably, had he given himself carefully to the investigation of each particular point, he would either have observed that it was one God who was the creator of all, and who made each thing with a certain object and for a certain reason; or if he had failed to observe this, he would have discovered the answer which he ought to return to those who assert that corruptibility is a thing indifferent in its nature; and that there was no absurdity in a world which consists of diverse materials, being formed by one architect, who constructed the different kinds of things so as to secure the good of the whole. Or, finally, he ought to have expressed no opinion at all on so important a doctrine, since he did not intend to prove what he professed to demonstrate; unless, indeed, he who censures others for professing a simple faith, would have us to believe his mere assertions, although he gave out that he would not merely assert, but would prove his assertions.

One who buys bread from a baker how should he tithe? He should take sufficient for the terumat maaser and for hallah and say: “A hundredth part of what is here shall be tithe on this side, and what is nearest to it shall be the rest of the tithe. That which I made tithe will become terumat maaser for the rest, the remainder will be hallah, and the second tithe tithe is to the north or to the south of it and that will be exchanged for money.”

One who wishes to separate terumah and the terumat maaser together: He should take one thirty third and say: One hundredth part of what is here, on this side is non-sacred produce (hullin), and the rest shall be terumah for the whole. And the one hundred parts of non-sacred produce which is here on this side shall be tithe, and the rest that is next to it is tithe. That which I made tithe shall become the terumat maaser for it. The remainder will be hallah, and the second tithe tithe is to the north or to the south of it and that will be exchanged for money.”

One who invites his friend [before Shabbat] to eat with him [on Shabbat], and [his friend] does not trust him in respect of tithes, [the friend] may say on the eve of Shabbat, “What I will set apart tomorrow, behold it shall be tithe, and what is nearest to it shall be the rest of the tithe. That which I made tithe will become the terumah of the tithe for the whole, and the second tithe is to the north or to the south and it shall be exchanged for money.”

They pour him a cup [of wine on the sabbath], he says: “What I will leave at the bottom of the cup shall be tithe, and what is nearest to it shall be the rest of the tithe. That which I made tithe shall become terumat maaser for the whole, and second tithe is at the mouth of the cup, and it is exchanged for money.

A worker who does not trust his employer [in respect of tithes], may take one dried fig and say: “This one and the nine which come after it shall become tithe for the ninety which I shall eat. This one shall become the terumat maaser for them, and the last ones shall be second tithe which shall be exchanged for money.” And he must put aside one dried fig. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: he does not put one aside, because this reduces the work for his employer. Rabbi Yose says: he does not put one aside, because this is a court stipulation [imposed upon the employer].

He had figs of tevel in his house, and he is in the house of study or in the field: he may say: “The two figs which I shall set apart shall be terumah, ten figs shall be first tithe, and nine figs second tithe.” If the figs were demai, he may say: “Whatever I shall separate tomorrow will be tithe, and the rest of the tithe is adjacent to it. That which I made tithe will become terumat maaser for the whole, and the second tithe is to the north or to the south and it shall be exchanged for money.”

One may not cook sheviit vegetables in oil of terumah lest they become invalidated. But Rabbi Shimon permits it. The last thing exchanged is always subject to the sabbatical law, and the produce itself remains forbidden.

A sela of maaser sheni which was mixed up with a sela of hullin, one may bring copper coins for the sela and say: “Let the sela of maaser sheni wherever it may be, be exchanged for these coins.” Then he must select the better of the two selas, and change [again] the copper coins for it. For they have said: one may change silver for copper [only] in case of necessity, and not to leave it so but to change it again for silver.

One who changes copper coins of second tithe for a sela: Bet Shammai says: he may change copper coins for a whole sela. But Bet Hillel says: a shekel of silver and a shekel’s worth of copper coins [can be exchanged for the sela]. Rabbi Meir says: one may not exchange silver and produce for silver. But the sages allow it.

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

One who has [second tithe] money in Jerusalem and he needs [to spend] it, and his friend had [non-sacred] produce, he may say to his friend: “Let this money be exchanged for your produce.” It turns out that the one [must] eat his produce in purity and the other may do what he needs with his money. But he may not say thus to an am haaretz except when [the money was] from [second tithe of] demai.

If [one had hullin] produce in Jerusalem and [second tithe money] in the provinces, he may say: “Let that money be exchanged for this produce.” If [he had second tithe] money in Jerusalem and [hullin] produce in the provinces, he may say: “Let this money be exchanged for that produce,” as long as he will carry that produce and eat it in Jerusalem.

If [one had hullin] produce in Jerusalem and [second tithe money] in the provinces, he may say: “Let that money be exchanged for this produce.” If [he had second tithe] money in Jerusalem and [hullin] produce in the provinces, he may say: “Let this money be exchanged for that produce,” as long as he will carry that produce and eat it in Jerusalem.

One who was standing at the threshing-floor and didn’t have any coins may say to his friend: “Behold, this produce is given to you as a gift,” and then he may say again, “Behold, let this produce be exchanged for money which I have in the house.”

A vineyard in its fourth year, they mark it with clods of earth, and of orlah with potter's clay, and graves with lime which is dissolved and poured on. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel said: When does this apply? In the seventh year. The conscientious used to put down money and say: any fruit gathered from this vineyard may be exchanged for this money.

How does one redeem the fruit of a plant in its fourth year? The owner puts down a basket in the presence of three [people] and says: “How many such baskets would a man wish to redeem for himself for a sela on condition that the costs [to produce the fruit] shall be on his house? And then he puts down the money and says: “Whatever shall be picked from this plant may it be exchanged for this money at the price of so many baskets for a sela.”

If two men betrothed two women, and as they were entering into the bridal chamber, they exchanged the one for the other, behold, they are guilty of having relations with a married woman. If they were brothers they are guilty of having relations with a brother’s wife. If they were sisters, they are guilty of having relations with a wife’s sister. If they were menstruants [they are guilty] of having relations with a menstruant. They must be kept apart for three months, lest they are pregnant. If they were minors incapable of bearing children, they may be returned [to their rightful husband] at once. If the women were of priestly families they are disqualified from eating terumah.

[If one says] “Konam be these fruits to me”, “Konam they are for my mouth,” or “Konam they are to my mouth,” he is forbidden [to benefit] from what is exchanged for them or what grows from them. [If one says “Konam] if I eat or taste of them,” he is permitted [to benefit] from what is exchanged for them or what grows of them, if it is a thing of which the seed itself perishes, but if the seed does not perish, even that which grows out of that which [first] grew from it is forbidden.

[If one says] “Konam be these fruits to me”, “Konam they are for my mouth,” or “Konam they are to my mouth,” he is forbidden [to benefit] from what is exchanged for them or what grows from them. [If one says “Konam] if I eat or taste of them,” he is permitted [to benefit] from what is exchanged for them or what grows of them, if it is a thing of which the seed itself perishes, but if the seed does not perish, even that which grows out of that which [first] grew from it is forbidden.

If one says to his wife, “Konam be the work of your hands to me,” or ”Konam be they for my mouth, or “Konam be they to my mouth”, he is forbidden that which is exchanged for them or grown from them. [If he says “Konam] if I eat or taste [of what they produce],” he is permitted [to benefit] from what is exchanged for them or what grows of them, if it is a thing of which the seed itself perishes, but if the seed does not perish, even that which grows out of that which [first] grew from it is forbidden.

If one says to his wife, “Konam be the work of your hands to me,” or ”Konam be they for my mouth, or “Konam be they to my mouth”, he is forbidden that which is exchanged for them or grown from them. [If he says “Konam] if I eat or taste [of what they produce],” he is permitted [to benefit] from what is exchanged for them or what grows of them, if it is a thing of which the seed itself perishes, but if the seed does not perish, even that which grows out of that which [first] grew from it is forbidden.

If a scribe wrote a get for the husband and a receipt for the wife and by mistake gave the get to the wife and the receipt to the husband and the two exchanged them and after some time the get came out of the hands of the man and the receipt out of the hands of the woman, she must leave both husbands and all these things apply to her. Rabbi Eliezer says: if [it comes out of her hands] immediately, it is not a get, but if [it comes out of her hands] after some time, it is a get; it is not in the power of the first to render void the right of the second. If a man wrote a get with which to divorce his wife and then changed his mind, Bet Shammai says that he has disqualified her from marrying a priest. Bet Hillel says that even if he gave it to her with a certain stipulation, if the condition was not fulfilled, he has not disqualified her for marrying a priest.

Rebbi Ḥuna and Simeon Qamateria in the name of Rebbi Samuel ben Naḥman (Jud. 18:30): “Jonathan ben Gershom ben Manasseh,” a hanging נ. If he merits it, ben Mosheh. If he does not merit it, ben Manasseh. The colleagues asked before Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman: He was a priest of idol worship and lived so long? He said to them, because he [Jonathan] was grudging to his idol. How was he grudging to his idol? If a man came to sacrifice an ox, a sheep, or a goat to the idol and told him: Make it favorably inclined towards me, he would say: What use does it have for you? It neither sees, nor hears, nor eats, nor drinks, nor does good or evil, and does not talk. He said to him, by your life, what should we do? He said to him, go, make, and bring me a wooden vessel full of fine flour and put on it ten eggs, then I shall prepare it before that one and it will eat from all that comes and I shall make it favorably inclined towards you! After he left, he would eat it. One day, a son of pashas came and he said that to him. He said to him, if it is of no use, what are you doing here? He said to him, because of my livelihood. When David became king, he sent and brought him. He said to him, you are the grandson of that righteous man and you worship idols? He said to him: I have a tradition from my grandfather’s house: Sell yourself to idol worship rather than need other people. He said to him: Heaven forbid! He did not say so, but sell yourself to work that is strange to you rather than to need other people. When David saw that he loved money, he made him count of his treasuries. That is what is written (1Chr. 26:24): “Shabuel ben Gershom ben Moshe, overseer of the treasuries.” “Shabuel” because he returned to God with all his heart and all his might. “Overseer of the treasuries,” that he made him count of the treasuries. They objected to Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman: (Jud. 18:30): “Until the day the land went into exile.” He said to them, when David died, Shelomo rose and exchanged all his counselors. He returned to his former bad ways. That is what is written: (1K. 13:11) “An old prophet was dwelling at Beth El;” they say that this was he.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If his box was exchanged at the miller’s, if it was established that an am haäreẓ gave to be milled there that day, he has to worry; otherwise, he does not have to worry. Should he not worry? What is the difference between this and the Saracens? Was it not stated: “If a group of Saracens one day provisioned themselves from forbidden supplies, then that day becomes a proof for all days.” It is impossible for Saracens not to supply themselves. But here it was not established that the am haäreẓ was milling there that day.

It was stated: “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, if he exchanged the coin he has to tithe.” Rebbi Yose said, this means that if somebody gives coins to another person to exchange them, when they are lost the recipient is answerable for their alienation.

“ Rebbi Meïr said to them: I am more restrictive with the proceeds than with the main [produce]. For one may light with Sabbatical oil but if one sold it and bought oil with it he may not light with it.” Rebbi Ammi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If one exchanged oil for oil, both of them are forbidden. What can he do? Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah: He barters both for profane [oil]. If he exchanged wine for oil; just as you say that he may not anoint with wine so he may not light with oil. If he exchanged leaves for sprouts, just as you say that leaves are subject to removal so sprouts are subject to removal. If he exchanged human food for animal feed, just as one may not make a wound dressing from human food so he may not make a wound dressing from animal feed. We also have stated: “One may sell human food and animal feed to buy human food with the proceeds,animal feed to buy animal feed and certainly human food (to buy animal feed).”

“ Rebbi Meïr said to them: I am more restrictive with the proceeds than with the main [produce]. For one may light with Sabbatical oil but if one sold it and bought oil with it he may not light with it.” Rebbi Ammi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If one exchanged oil for oil, both of them are forbidden. What can he do? Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah: He barters both for profane [oil]. If he exchanged wine for oil; just as you say that he may not anoint with wine so he may not light with oil. If he exchanged leaves for sprouts, just as you say that leaves are subject to removal so sprouts are subject to removal. If he exchanged human food for animal feed, just as one may not make a wound dressing from human food so he may not make a wound dressing from animal feed. We also have stated: “One may sell human food and animal feed to buy human food with the proceeds,animal feed to buy animal feed and certainly human food (to buy animal feed).”

“ Rebbi Meïr said to them: I am more restrictive with the proceeds than with the main [produce]. For one may light with Sabbatical oil but if one sold it and bought oil with it he may not light with it.” Rebbi Ammi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If one exchanged oil for oil, both of them are forbidden. What can he do? Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah: He barters both for profane [oil]. If he exchanged wine for oil; just as you say that he may not anoint with wine so he may not light with oil. If he exchanged leaves for sprouts, just as you say that leaves are subject to removal so sprouts are subject to removal. If he exchanged human food for animal feed, just as one may not make a wound dressing from human food so he may not make a wound dressing from animal feed. We also have stated: “One may sell human food and animal feed to buy human food with the proceeds,animal feed to buy animal feed and certainly human food (to buy animal feed).”

“ Rebbi Meïr said to them: I am more restrictive with the proceeds than with the main [produce]. For one may light with Sabbatical oil but if one sold it and bought oil with it he may not light with it.” Rebbi Ammi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If one exchanged oil for oil, both of them are forbidden. What can he do? Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah: He barters both for profane [oil]. If he exchanged wine for oil; just as you say that he may not anoint with wine so he may not light with oil. If he exchanged leaves for sprouts, just as you say that leaves are subject to removal so sprouts are subject to removal. If he exchanged human food for animal feed, just as one may not make a wound dressing from human food so he may not make a wound dressing from animal feed. We also have stated: “One may sell human food and animal feed to buy human food with the proceeds,animal feed to buy animal feed and certainly human food (to buy animal feed).”

“Always the last substitute is caught and the fruit remains forbidden”. How is this? If he took meat in exchange for Sabbatical fruits, both are subject to removal in the Sabbatical. If he exchanged the meat for fish, the meat is released and the fish are obligated. If he exchanged fish for oil, the fish are released and the oil enters [into the obligation.] Always the last substitute is obligated and the fruit remains forbidden.

“Always the last substitute is caught and the fruit remains forbidden”. How is this? If he took meat in exchange for Sabbatical fruits, both are subject to removal in the Sabbatical. If he exchanged the meat for fish, the meat is released and the fish are obligated. If he exchanged fish for oil, the fish are released and the oil enters [into the obligation.] Always the last substitute is obligated and the fruit remains forbidden.

Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He who gives a ring as surety and wants to get out of the deal, may get out of the deal. Rebbi Zeïra asked before Rebbi Abbahu: A gold coin? He said to him, a ring. What is the difference between a gold coin and a ring? Gold coins are exchanged, a ring remains as it is.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, they decreed on a blemished female because of her young. They decreed on a blemished male because of the blemished female. They said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, even an unblemished one is a decree. Earlier they said one may buy an animal for meat of desire and hide it from the altar. They turned to say, not even a wild animal, not even birds as it was stated: “Sabbatical [money] and Second Tithe [money] can be exchanged for a blemished female animal or other domestic and wild animals and birds whether alive or slaughtered, the words of Rebbi Meїr. But the Sages say, one exchanges only on slaughtered ones.” Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac: They decreed this that one should not raise them in herds. Rebbi Jeremiah stood next to Rebbi Zeïra who said to him, Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac is still alive and you hang your rags on him! Did not Rebbi Joḥanan say even an unblemished one is a decree! Maybe this was said only for Sabbatical [money]? They found it stated for Sabbatical [money].

MISHNAH: Of profane and Second Tithe coins that were strewn around, what one collected goes to Second Tithe until complete, the remainder is profane. If he mixed them together and took out fists full, it is in proportion. That is the principle: What is picked out is for Second Tithe and what is mixed together by proportion. If a tetradrachma of Second Tithe was mixed up with a profane one, one brings coins in the value of a tetradrachma and says: The tetradrachma of Second Tithe, wherever it may be, is exchanged for these coins. Then he chooses the better of the two and exchanges it for them since they said, one exchanges bronze for silver in an emergency, not that it should stay so but that he should exchange them for silver. The House of Shammai say, a person should not turn his tetradrachmas into gold denars but the House of Hillel permit it. Rebbi Aqiba said, for Rabban Gamliel and Rebbi Joshua I turned their silver coins into gold denars.

Rebbi Ḥaggai said before Rebbi Zeïra, Menaḥem in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: In all cases where they said about demay that it can be exchanged, for certain produce one may exchange it in an emergency. But did we not state: “One exchanges bronze for silver in an emergency”, therefore not silver for silver! Rebbi Abba bar Cohen said before Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: In all cases where they said about demay that it should be exchanged, if he transgressed and exchanged for certain produce it is exchanged. Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi, Rebbi Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: In all cases where they said about demay that it should be exchanged, if he transgressed and exchanged for certain produce they are exchanged.

Rebbi Ḥaggai said before Rebbi Zeïra, Menaḥem in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: In all cases where they said about demay that it can be exchanged, for certain produce one may exchange it in an emergency. But did we not state: “One exchanges bronze for silver in an emergency”, therefore not silver for silver! Rebbi Abba bar Cohen said before Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: In all cases where they said about demay that it should be exchanged, if he transgressed and exchanged for certain produce it is exchanged. Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi, Rebbi Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: In all cases where they said about demay that it should be exchanged, if he transgressed and exchanged for certain produce they are exchanged.

Rebbi Ḥaggai said before Rebbi Zeïra, Menaḥem in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: In all cases where they said about demay that it can be exchanged, for certain produce one may exchange it in an emergency. But did we not state: “One exchanges bronze for silver in an emergency”, therefore not silver for silver! Rebbi Abba bar Cohen said before Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: In all cases where they said about demay that it should be exchanged, if he transgressed and exchanged for certain produce it is exchanged. Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi, Rebbi Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: In all cases where they said about demay that it should be exchanged, if he transgressed and exchanged for certain produce they are exchanged.

Rebbi Ḥaggai said before Rebbi Zeïra, Menaḥem in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: In all cases where they said about demay that it can be exchanged, for certain produce one may exchange it in an emergency. But did we not state: “One exchanges bronze for silver in an emergency”, therefore not silver for silver! Rebbi Abba bar Cohen said before Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: In all cases where they said about demay that it should be exchanged, if he transgressed and exchanged for certain produce it is exchanged. Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi, Rebbi Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: In all cases where they said about demay that it should be exchanged, if he transgressed and exchanged for certain produce they are exchanged.

Rebbi Ḥaggai said before Rebbi Zeïra, Menaḥem in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: In all cases where they said about demay that it can be exchanged, for certain produce one may exchange it in an emergency. But did we not state: “One exchanges bronze for silver in an emergency”, therefore not silver for silver! Rebbi Abba bar Cohen said before Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: In all cases where they said about demay that it should be exchanged, if he transgressed and exchanged for certain produce it is exchanged. Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi, Rebbi Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: In all cases where they said about demay that it should be exchanged, if he transgressed and exchanged for certain produce they are exchanged.

Rebbi Ḥaggai said before Rebbi Zeïra, Menaḥem in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: In all cases where they said about demay that it can be exchanged, for certain produce one may exchange it in an emergency. But did we not state: “One exchanges bronze for silver in an emergency”, therefore not silver for silver! Rebbi Abba bar Cohen said before Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: In all cases where they said about demay that it should be exchanged, if he transgressed and exchanged for certain produce it is exchanged. Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi, Rebbi Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: In all cases where they said about demay that it should be exchanged, if he transgressed and exchanged for certain produce they are exchanged.

Rebbi Ḥaggai said before Rebbi Zeïra, Menaḥem in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: In all cases where they said about demay that it can be exchanged, for certain produce one may exchange it in an emergency. But did we not state: “One exchanges bronze for silver in an emergency”, therefore not silver for silver! Rebbi Abba bar Cohen said before Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: In all cases where they said about demay that it should be exchanged, if he transgressed and exchanged for certain produce it is exchanged. Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi, Rebbi Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: In all cases where they said about demay that it should be exchanged, if he transgressed and exchanged for certain produce they are exchanged.

MISHNAH: He who gives a tetradrachma for change of Second Tithe money, the House of Shammai say small change for the entire tetradrachma but the House of Hillel say one šeqel silver coin and one šeqel small coin. Rebbi Meïr says, one does not exchange silver coin and produce for silver coin, but the Sages permit it. He who gives a tetradrachma for change of Second Tithe money, the House of Shammai say small change for the entire tetradrachma but the House of Hillel say one šeqel silver coin and one šeqel small coin. Rebbi Meïr says, one does not exchange silver coin and produce for silver coin, but the Sages permit it. If part of one’s children were pure and part impure, he puts down the tetradrachma and says, this tetradrachma shall be exchanged for what the pure are drinking. It turns out that the pure and the impure may drink from the same pitcher.

MISHNAH: If somebody had coins in Jerusalem and his friend had produce, he says to his friend, these coins are exchanged for your produce. That one has to eat his produce in purity but he can use his coins for his needs. But one should not say this to a vulgar unless they were from demay. Produce in Jerusalem and coins in the countryside, he says these coins are exchanged for that produce. Coins in Jerusalem and produce in the countryside, he says that produce is exchanged for these coins; then the produce must be brought to and eaten in Jerusalem. [Tithe] money enters Jerusalem and leaves; [tithe] produce enters but does not leave. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, even produce enters and leaves. If fully processed produce was transported through Jerusalem, its Second Tithe should be brought back and eaten in Jerusalem. If the produce was not fully processed, the baskets of grapes are for the wine-press, and baskets of figs for the muqẓeh. The House of Shammai say, the Second Tithe should be brought up and eaten in Jerusalem. But the House of Hillel say, it may be redeemed and eaten anywhere. Rebbi Simeon ben Jehudah said in the name of Rebbi Yose, the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel did not disagree about produce which was not fully processed, that its Second Tithe may be redeemed and eaten anywhere. Where did they disagree? About fully processed produce, where the House of Shammay said, its Second Tithe should be brought back and eaten in Jerusalem, but the House of Hillel said, it may be redeemed and eaten anywhere. Demay enters, leaves, and may be redeemed.

MISHNAH: If somebody had coins in Jerusalem and his friend had produce, he says to his friend, these coins are exchanged for your produce. That one has to eat his produce in purity but he can use his coins for his needs. But one should not say this to a vulgar unless they were from demay. Produce in Jerusalem and coins in the countryside, he says these coins are exchanged for that produce. Coins in Jerusalem and produce in the countryside, he says that produce is exchanged for these coins; then the produce must be brought to and eaten in Jerusalem. [Tithe] money enters Jerusalem and leaves; [tithe] produce enters but does not leave. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, even produce enters and leaves. If fully processed produce was transported through Jerusalem, its Second Tithe should be brought back and eaten in Jerusalem. If the produce was not fully processed, the baskets of grapes are for the wine-press, and baskets of figs for the muqẓeh. The House of Shammai say, the Second Tithe should be brought up and eaten in Jerusalem. But the House of Hillel say, it may be redeemed and eaten anywhere. Rebbi Simeon ben Jehudah said in the name of Rebbi Yose, the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel did not disagree about produce which was not fully processed, that its Second Tithe may be redeemed and eaten anywhere. Where did they disagree? About fully processed produce, where the House of Shammay said, its Second Tithe should be brought back and eaten in Jerusalem, but the House of Hillel said, it may be redeemed and eaten anywhere. Demay enters, leaves, and may be redeemed.

MISHNAH: If somebody had coins in Jerusalem and his friend had produce, he says to his friend, these coins are exchanged for your produce. That one has to eat his produce in purity but he can use his coins for his needs. But one should not say this to a vulgar unless they were from demay. Produce in Jerusalem and coins in the countryside, he says these coins are exchanged for that produce. Coins in Jerusalem and produce in the countryside, he says that produce is exchanged for these coins; then the produce must be brought to and eaten in Jerusalem. [Tithe] money enters Jerusalem and leaves; [tithe] produce enters but does not leave. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, even produce enters and leaves. If fully processed produce was transported through Jerusalem, its Second Tithe should be brought back and eaten in Jerusalem. If the produce was not fully processed, the baskets of grapes are for the wine-press, and baskets of figs for the muqẓeh. The House of Shammai say, the Second Tithe should be brought up and eaten in Jerusalem. But the House of Hillel say, it may be redeemed and eaten anywhere. Rebbi Simeon ben Jehudah said in the name of Rebbi Yose, the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel did not disagree about produce which was not fully processed, that its Second Tithe may be redeemed and eaten anywhere. Where did they disagree? About fully processed produce, where the House of Shammay said, its Second Tithe should be brought back and eaten in Jerusalem, but the House of Hillel said, it may be redeemed and eaten anywhere. Demay enters, leaves, and may be redeemed.

“A tetradrachma and an as is preferred since he adds to the capital”. Rebbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rebbi Simai: One does not add a fifth for any Second Tithe which itself is not worth a peruṭa. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One does not add a fifth for any Second Tithe for which the fifth is not worth a peruṭa. Rebbi Abba bar Mamai objected: Did we not state “there are five peruṭot”, should one not state “six” according to Rebbi Simai, “Second Tithe which is worth a peruṭa!” And “seven” according to Rebbi Joḥanan, “the fifth of Second Tithe worth a peruṭa.” In addition, from what Rebbi Yose said in the name of Rebbi Mana bar Tanḥum, Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Real estate cannot be acquired for less than a peruṭa. In addition, from the following: If the value of Second Tithe is not known, it is enough that one say: it and its fifth shall be exchanged for this tetradrachma. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Crispus, Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Zeïra: this baraita deals with a tetradrachma of tithe money where it is impossible that it not contain some profane.

Were these exchanged? We have stated there: “If he prepared black ones and found white, white and found black, two and found three, they are forbidden, three and found two they are permitted.” Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Assi, this is Rebbi’s, as we have stated: “Two hundred and he found a talent, a talent was taken, the word of Rebbi, but the Sages say, it is profane.” He turned around and said, this is everybody’s opinion since pigeon chicks usually start to fly. But did not Rebbi Ḥalaphta ben Shaul state: The same rule applies to pigeon chicks and to eggs. Therefore, it is Rebbi’s. There, he put it there and he found, here, his father put it there, did his father find it? Rebbi Abun bar Cohen said before Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: Rebbi Abba bar Zavda taught according to Rebbi for Second Tithe.

MISHNAH: One marks a fourth-year vineyard with lumps of earth, one of ‘orlah with potsherds; graves with whitewash which is thinned and poured. Rebbi Simeon ben Gamliel said, when has this been said? In a Sabbatical year. But discreet religious persons set aside some coins and say, what is taken from here is exchanged for these coins.

MISHNAH: How does one redeem a fourth-year orchard? He puts a tetradrachma before three [experts] and asks, how much does a person redeem for himself for a tetradrachma when all expense is on him? Then he puts down the money and says, all that is collected under this is exchanged for this money; so and so many baskets per tetradrachma. In a Sabbatical, he redeems its full value. If all of it was abandoned, he has only the cost of harvesting. He who redeems a fourth-year orchard adds its fifth whether it was his or was given to him as a gift. The removal was on the day before the first day of Passover in the fourth and the seventh year [of the Sabbatical cycle.] What is the removal? One gives heave and heave of the tithe to its recipients, First Tithe to its recipients, tithe of the poor to its recipients. Second Tithe and First Fruits are removed on the spot. Rebbi Simeon says, first fruits one gives to the Cohanim like heave. A cooked dish the House of Shammai say one has to remove, but the House of Hillel say it is as if removed. He who had produce in this time and the year of removal came, the House of Shammai say he has to exchange it for money; the House of Hillel say, either money or produce.

HALAKHAH: “If one had two children,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is Rebbi Meïr’s who said, for something where there is a commandment performed one is not liable, but if no commandment is performed whether he is liable is disputed. Rebbi Simeon says, where there is a commandment performed one is liable, but if no commandment is performed whether he is not liable is disputed. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The word of Rebbi Meïr is, on condition that it be a sheep without blemish, a yearling, and a well-being sacrifice fit to be changed into a Passover sacrifice. One understands from this three consequences. One understands something which is not a fixed number. And which is not usually exchanged. And doing something which fulfills a commandment. What means “something which is not a fixed number”? Rebbi Jeremiah wanted to say that the Torah did not specify how many Passover sacrifices should push the Sabbath aside in any given year. Rebbi Yose wanted to say, where you cannot determine the amount. When Rebbi Yose came to these [“children in doubt” he used to say, Rebbi Jeremiah tought us correctly. Could you say that you cannot determine the amount? But the Torah did not] specify how many Passover sacrifices should push the Sabbath aside in any given year. Rav Ḥisda said, one may explain the words of Rebbi Simeon if a group was there which did not slaughter. Rebbi Zeˋira said, the word of Rebbi Yannai implies that he forgot and circumcised the one for the Sabbath on Friday. It he circumcised him in the morning, Rebbi Zeˋira said that Rebbi Yannai was of the opinion that he is not liable. Rebbi Abba said, he is liable. In relation to what did Rebbi Yannai say it? He comes to tell you in which cases can there be a switching of children. In Rebbi Zeˋira’s opinion following Rebbi Yannai Rav followed Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose, what Rav Ḥisda said follows Rebbi Simeon, and what Rebbi Zeˋira said follows Rebbi Meïr. Can one object anything between Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon? Do we find a difference between Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon about the remainder? How do you treat the babies in doubt? Like something which is a fixed amount or something which is not a fixed amount? If you are treating it like something which is a fixed amount … only if there remains another baby to circumcise. Rebbi Yose said, the words of the rabbis make the case like something which is not a fixed amount: only if there remains another baby to circumcise. Come and see: If he anticipated his time he is not liable, if he delayed his time he is liable? Rav Huna said, the Mishnah is the other way around, as it was stated: Rebbi Simeon said, Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Joshua did not disagree about one which was to be circumcised after the Sabbath if he circumcised him on the Sabbath that he is liable, but one who was to be circumcised before the Sabbath if he circumcised him on the Sabbath where Rebbi Eliezer makes him liable for a purification sacrifice and Rebbi Joshua declares him not liable. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, because of this objection it was difficult for Rebbi Yannai, only if he forgot and circumcised the one of the Sabbath on Friday. Rebbi Ada bar Ahavah said, these are the words of Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon, but the words of Rebbi Yose [are]: Even if no commandment is performed he is not liable since he erred on behalf of a commandment.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is Rebbi Meïr’s, since Rebbi Meïr said, for something where there is a commandment performed one is not liable, but if no commandment is performed whether he is liable is disputed. Rebbi Simeon says, where there is a commandment performed one is liable, but if no commandment is performed whether he is not liable is disputed. Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Joḥanan: The words of Rebbi Meïr are, on condition that it be a sheep without blemish, a yearling, and a well-being sacrifice fit to be changed into a Passover sacrifice. One understands from this three consequences. One understands something which is not a fixed number. And which is not usually exchanged. And doing something which fulfills a commandment. What means “something which is not a fixed number”? Rebbi Jeremiah wanted to say that the Torah did not specify how many Pesaḥ sacrifices should push the Sabbath aside in any given year. Rebbi Yose wanted to say, where you cannot determine the amount. When Rebbi Yose came to these “children in doubt” he used to say, Rebbi Jeremiah taught us correctly. Could you say that you cannot determine the amount? But the Torah did not specify how many Pesaḥ sacrifices should push the Sabbath aside in any given year. Rav Ḥisda said, one may explain the words of Rebbi Simeon if a group was there which did not slaughter. Rebbi Zeˋira said, the word of Rebbi Yannai implies that he forgot and circumcised the one for the Sabbath on Friday. It he circumcised him in the morning, Rebbi Zeˋira said that Rebbi Yannai was of the opinion that he is not liable. Rebbi Abba said, he is liable. In relation to what did Rebbi Yannai say it? He comes to tell you in which cases can there be a switching of children. In Rebbi Zeˋira’s opinion following Rebbi Yannai Rav followed Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose, what Rav Ḥisda said follows Rebbi Simeon, and what Rebbi Yannai said follows Rebbi Meïr. Can one object anything between Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon? Do we find a difference between Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon about the remainder? How do you treat the babies in doubt? Like something which is a fixed amount or something which is not a fixed amount? If you are treating it like something which is a fixed amount, even if there is no (one) [other] baby to circumcise. If you are treating it like something which is not a fixed amount, only if there remains (one) [another] baby to circumcise. Come and see: If he anticipated his time he is not liable, if he delayed his time he is liable? Rav Ḥuna said, the Mishnah is the other way around, as it was stated: Rebbi Simeon said, Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Joshua did not disagree about one which was to be circumcised after the Sabbath if he circumcised him on the Sabbath that he is liable, but one who was to be circumcised before the Sabbath if he circumcised him on the Sabbath where Rebbi Eliezer makes him liable for a purification sacrifice and Rebbi Joshua declares him not liable. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, because of this objection it was difficult for Rebbi Yannai, only if he forgot and circumcised the one of the Sabbath on Friday. Rebbi Ada bar Ahawah said, these are the words of Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon, but the words of Rebbi Yose [are]: Even if no commandment is performed he is not liable since he erred on behalf of a commandment.

Rebbi Hila said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: He cohabited with her inside of Sepphoris. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Yannai: If he was seen coming out of Sepphoris and he cohabited, the presumption is that he disqualifies since he cohabited there. What about a thoroughfare? Rebbi Jeremiah bar Abba, Rebbi Yose says: By a majority. The force of Rebbi Jeremiah comes from the following which Rebbi Ḥiyya had said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If a wall fell in a dead-end street populated by Gentiles, but where one Jew lived, one digs there because of the Jew; but in a thoroughfare one follows the majority. And what is the interpretation of what Rebbi Abba said in the name of Rebbi Yannai, if he was seen coming out of Sepphoris and he cohabited, the presumption is that he is disqualified since he cohabited there? In the opinion of Rebbi Jeremiah, if one saw him coming out of a house. In the opinion of Rebbi Yose, even in a thoroughfare. If Sepphoris was locked. Rebbi Yose says, until there is proof. But here, Rebbi Yose says, by a majority! The force of Rebbi Yose comes from the following, which Rebbi Ze‘ira had said: Rebbi [Ḥiyya] (Yose) in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If his [box] (bread) was exchanged at the miller’s, if it was established that an am haäreẓ gave [grain] to be milled there that day, he has to worry; otherwise, he does not have to worry. Should he not worry? What is the difference between this and the Saracens? Was it not stated: “If a group of Saracens one day provisioned themselves from forbidden supplies, then that day becomes a proof for all days.” It is impossible for Saracens not to supply themselves. But here it was not established that the am haäreẓ was milling there that day. And here, I am saying that the disqualified person went to draw water only that day, and one has to worry. And here, Rebbi Hila said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: He cohabited with her inside of Sepphoris. And here, Rebbi Abba said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: If he was seen coming out of Sepphoris and he cohabited, the presumption is that he is disqualified since he cohabited there.

MISHNAH: ‘These fruits shall be qônām for me, a qônām they shall be for my mouth’, he is forbidden what is exchanged for them or what grows from them. ‘That I shall not eat, that I shall not taste,’ he is permitted what is exchanged for them, or what grows from them if the seed disappears. But if the seed does not disappear, even second generation growth is forbidden.

MISHNAH: ‘These fruits shall be qônām for me, a qônām they shall be for my mouth’, he is forbidden what is exchanged for them or what grows from them. ‘That I shall not eat, that I shall not taste,’ he is permitted what is exchanged for them, or what grows from them if the seed disappears. But if the seed does not disappear, even second generation growth is forbidden.

MISHNAH: If one says to his wife, a qônām shall be anything you work for, a qônām shall it be for my mouth, a qônām shall it be to my mouth; he is forbidden what is exchanged for it or what grows from it. ‘That I shall not eat, that I shall not taste,’ he is permitted what is exchanged for them, or what grows from them if the seed disappears. But if the seed does not disappear, even second generation growth is forbidden. ‘What you prepare I would eat until Passover, what you make I would wear until Passover,’ if she made before Passover, he may eat or wear after Passover.

MISHNAH: If one says to his wife, a qônām shall be anything you work for, a qônām shall it be for my mouth, a qônām shall it be to my mouth; he is forbidden what is exchanged for it or what grows from it. ‘That I shall not eat, that I shall not taste,’ he is permitted what is exchanged for them, or what grows from them if the seed disappears. But if the seed does not disappear, even second generation growth is forbidden. ‘What you prepare I would eat until Passover, what you make I would wear until Passover,’ if she made before Passover, he may eat or wear after Passover.

MISHNAH: If the scribe wrote and then in error handed the bill of divorce to the woman and the receipt to the man and they exchanged them, then later the bill of divorce is found with the man and the receipt with the woman, she shall be divorced from both of them and all the indicated consequences apply to her. Rebbi Eliezer says: If it was found out immediately, this is no bill of divorce. If it was found out later, it is a bill of divorce since the first cannot destroy the rights of the second.

MISHNAH: If anything is given instead of money, if one entered in possession, the other is obligated for its exchange. How is this? If an ox was exchanged for a cow, or a donkey for an ox, if one entered in possession, the other is obligated for its exchange. Possession of Heaven is by money, possession of an individual by taking hold. A promise to Heaven is like delivery to an individual.

HALAKHAH: “If anything is given instead of money,” etc. There, we have stated: “This is the principle: All movables acquire one another.” Rebbi Abba, Rav Ḥuna in the name of Rav: Even heaps among heaps. Rebbi Eleazar said to him, we have stated only: “If anything is given instead of money,” anything that needs estimation. It turns out that Rebbi Abba follows Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Eleazar his own opinion, as we have stated there: “Brothers having common property who are obligated for agio are free from animal tithe, but if they are obligated for animal tithe they are free from agio.” Rebbi Eleazar said, only if they exchanged kid goats against rams and rams against kid goats. But if they exchanged kid goats against kid goats and rams against rams, that was [the recipient’s] part from the first moment. Rebbi Joḥanan said, even if they exchanged kid goats against kid goats and rams against rams, they are buyers. But we have stated there: “The buyer and the recipient of a gift are free from animal tithe. Brothers having common property who are obligated for agio are free from animal tithe.” When they split and then joined again. “But if they are obligated for animal tithe they are free from agio.” If they never split.

HALAKHAH: “If anything is given instead of money,” etc. There, we have stated: “This is the principle: All movables acquire one another.” Rebbi Abba, Rav Ḥuna in the name of Rav: Even heaps among heaps. Rebbi Eleazar said to him, we have stated only: “If anything is given instead of money,” anything that needs estimation. It turns out that Rebbi Abba follows Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Eleazar his own opinion, as we have stated there: “Brothers having common property who are obligated for agio are free from animal tithe, but if they are obligated for animal tithe they are free from agio.” Rebbi Eleazar said, only if they exchanged kid goats against rams and rams against kid goats. But if they exchanged kid goats against kid goats and rams against rams, that was [the recipient’s] part from the first moment. Rebbi Joḥanan said, even if they exchanged kid goats against kid goats and rams against rams, they are buyers. But we have stated there: “The buyer and the recipient of a gift are free from animal tithe. Brothers having common property who are obligated for agio are free from animal tithe.” When they split and then joined again. “But if they are obligated for animal tithe they are free from agio.” If they never split.

HALAKHAH: “If anything is given instead of money,” etc. There, we have stated: “This is the principle: All movables acquire one another.” Rebbi Abba, Rav Ḥuna in the name of Rav: Even heaps among heaps. Rebbi Eleazar said to him, we have stated only: “If anything is given instead of money,” anything that needs estimation. It turns out that Rebbi Abba follows Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Eleazar his own opinion, as we have stated there: “Brothers having common property who are obligated for agio are free from animal tithe, but if they are obligated for animal tithe they are free from agio.” Rebbi Eleazar said, only if they exchanged kid goats against rams and rams against kid goats. But if they exchanged kid goats against kid goats and rams against rams, that was [the recipient’s] part from the first moment. Rebbi Joḥanan said, even if they exchanged kid goats against kid goats and rams against rams, they are buyers. But we have stated there: “The buyer and the recipient of a gift are free from animal tithe. Brothers having common property who are obligated for agio are free from animal tithe.” When they split and then joined again. “But if they are obligated for animal tithe they are free from agio.” If they never split.

Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: One has a cow and one a donkey. They exchanged one for the other. The donkey’s owner took the cow. When the cow’s owner came to take the donkey and found that it had died, the donkey’s owner has to bring proof that his donkey was alive at the moment he took the cow. For the burden of proof is on the claimant except for barter. And anybody who does not agree to this does not know anything about civil law. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, I do not agree. Rebbi Abba said to Rebbi Ze‘ira: A Mishnah disagrees with Samuel. “If she had bodily defects, as long as she is in her father’s house, the father has to prove.” Not the husband has to prove to regain the [money given] for preliminary marriage from the father. The students of Rebbi Jonah said, explain it if little money was involved. An example: Rebbi Ḥuna, Rebbi Phineas, and Rebbi Ḥizqiah went to visit Rebbi Yosef to learn from him. They said to him, the Mishnah supports Samuel: “Once she entered the husband’s domain, the husband has to prove.” Would not the father have to prove, to extract the ketubah from the husband’s possession? He answered them, does not Samuel agree that if the cow’s owner took possession of the donkey, he has to prove that it was defective before it came into his possession? And this one, when he took her in it is as if he drew close.

If he grabbed a tetradrachma from her hands, returned it to her, and at the moment of delivery said to her: “You are preliminarily married to me”, then she is preliminarily married. By what was she preliminarily married? Rebbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rebbi Pedat: She wants to be preliminarily married to him and he would owe her a tetradrachma. Rebbi Yose said, if this had been formulated for a vessel, it would be understandable. A tetradrachma can be exchanged.

There, we have stated: If anything is given instead of money, if one entered in possession, the other is obligated for its exchange. Rebbi Joḥanan said, they stated this only about an ox for a cow, or a donkey for an ox; but heap against heap one did not acquire. Rav Jeremiah in the name of Rav: Even heaps among heaps he did acquire. Rebbi Abba bar Mina in the name of Rav: One who exchanged אברוקלון against אמברוקלון did acquire.

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

(Rebbi Abba, Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: One had a cow and one a donkey. They exchanged them.) The donkey’s owner took the cow; he did not acquire it. Would the donkey be acquired? Rebbi Abba said, he acquired. Rebby Yasa said, he did not acquire. Rebbi Mana said, there is a situation in which Rebbi Yose would agree: A man said to another, I want to sell my cow. He asked him, for how much? He answered, for eight denars. He went and gave him a draft on his banker. In the morning he went and found him open for business. He asked him, what are you doing here? He answered, I want to collect the denars in the draft I have on you. He asked him, what do you want to buy with them? He answered, a donkey. He told him, your donkey is with me. If either of them took possession, the other did not acquire but each animal separately has to be taken in possession.

MISHNAH: Somebody exchanged a cow for a donkey and it gave birth, or he sold his slave girl and she gave birth. If one said, [it happened] before I sold, the other said, after I bought, they shall split. If he had two slaves, one adult and one young, or two fields, one large and one small. The buyer says, I bought the large one, and the seller says, I do not know: he acquired the large one. The seller says, I sold the small and the other party says, I do not know: he has only the small one. If one says the large one and the other says the small, let the seller swear that he sold the small one. If both say, I do not know, they shall split.

HALAKHAH: “If he said to him, lend me,” etc. “Somebody exchanged a cow,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, this contradicts Symmachos who says that in all cases of doubt one splits evenly. Rebbi La said, explain it if both of them say, I am certain. Rebbi Yose explained, if both of them say, I am certain, that is what Rebbi Joḥanan refered to when he said, this contradicts Symmachos’s words.

They objected to Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman: Until the day the Land went into exile. He said to them, when David died, Solomon rose and exchanged all his counselors. He returned to his former bad ways.

Assi said, the proceeds of libation wine in the hands of a Gentile are prohibited. The proceeds of an idol in the hand of a Gentile, Rebbi Jonathan said it is permitted, Rebbi Joḥanan said it is prohibited. A baraita supports one and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “A Gentile who owed money to a Jew should not tell him, wait until I sell libation wine, until I sell an idol, and I shall give it to you. I am saying, maybe he exchanged.” A baraita supports Rebbi Jonathan: “A Gentile who owes money to a Jew may sell libation wine and give to him, an idol and give to him. Because of the bad impression?”

It has been taught in agreement with R. Elazar, and it has also been taught in agreement with R. Yohanan. It has been taught in agreement with R. Elazar: [In the case of produce of] the Sabbatical Year the money [for which it is exchanged] assumes the same sanctity [as the produce itself], for it is said, "For it is a Jubilee, it shall be holy to you" just as with holy objects the money [for which it is redeemed assumes] the sanctity [of the holy object], and becomes forbidden, so with the produce of the Sabbatical Year, the money [for which it is redeemed] assumes the same sanctity [as the produce] and becomes forbidden.

Rather R. Ashi said: The dispute [of R. Elazar and R. Yohanan] is over secondary produce, but with regard to the original produce all agree that [it may be redeemed] only by way of sale, and not by way of exchange. "Both the produce of the Sabbatical Year and of the Second Tithe [may be redeemed by exchange]"— his refers to the money for which the produce is exchanged.

For if you do not say so, then "tithe" also must mean actual tithe. But surely it is written, "You shall bind the money in your hand? (Deuteronomy 14:21). Rather it must mean the money for which tithe [was exchanged], and so here also it means the money for which the produce of the Sabbatical Year [is exchanged].

For if you do not say so, then "tithe" also must mean actual tithe. But surely it is written, "You shall bind the money in your hand? (Deuteronomy 14:21). Rather it must mean the money for which tithe [was exchanged], and so here also it means the money for which the produce of the Sabbatical Year [is exchanged].

Rava said: This synagogue—it may be exchanged or sold [for secular purposes], but may not be rented out or pledged [to secure a loan]. What is the reason? [In the latter case] its holiness remains.

Its bricks also may be exchanged or sold [for secular purposes], but they may not be lent out. This rule applies only to old ones, but in the case of new ones there is no objection.

R. Jonathan ben Amram said, A man's Sabbath clothes have been exchanged for his common clothes, and he has put them on; they are unclean. R. El'azar bar Zadok said, There was the case of two women, companions, whose clothes were exchanged at the baths, and the matter came before R. Eliezer and he pronounced them unclean. R. Oshaia objects to him, But regard it thus. It follows that if a man stretch out his hand to a basket to take a piece of wheaten bread, and there come into his hand a piece of barley bread, in this case also he is made unclean. And if thou sayest, Yes, in this case also; but yet there is a Baraitha, viz., He that guards the cask, presuming that it is wine, and it is found to be a cask of oil—it is clean so far as not to cause uncleanness. But granting that, let me point out the last words. But it is forbidden to be eaten. Wherefore R. Jeremiah said, This is the case of one who says, I have guarded it as regards uncleanness, but not as regards separation. And what is the meaning of this securing in a half and half way? There is such a thing, and yet there is a Baraitha, If a man stretches out his hand into a basket, and the basket is upon his shoulder, and the scraper is inside the basket, and it is in his mind as regards the basket, but is not in his mind as regards the scraper, the basket is clean but the scraper is unclean. The basket is clean, you say. Does not the scraper make the basket unclean? No; for one vessel does not make another vessel unclean, but it may make unclean what is in the basket. Rabena said, This is the case of one who says, I have guarded it as regards its uncleanness, but not as regards its separation.

R. Jonathan ben Amram said, A man's Sabbath clothes have been exchanged for his common clothes, and he has put them on; they are unclean. R. El'azar bar Zadok said, There was the case of two women, companions, whose clothes were exchanged at the baths, and the matter came before R. Eliezer and he pronounced them unclean. R. Oshaia objects to him, But regard it thus. It follows that if a man stretch out his hand to a basket to take a piece of wheaten bread, and there come into his hand a piece of barley bread, in this case also he is made unclean. And if thou sayest, Yes, in this case also; but yet there is a Baraitha, viz., He that guards the cask, presuming that it is wine, and it is found to be a cask of oil—it is clean so far as not to cause uncleanness. But granting that, let me point out the last words. But it is forbidden to be eaten. Wherefore R. Jeremiah said, This is the case of one who says, I have guarded it as regards uncleanness, but not as regards separation. And what is the meaning of this securing in a half and half way? There is such a thing, and yet there is a Baraitha, If a man stretches out his hand into a basket, and the basket is upon his shoulder, and the scraper is inside the basket, and it is in his mind as regards the basket, but is not in his mind as regards the scraper, the basket is clean but the scraper is unclean. The basket is clean, you say. Does not the scraper make the basket unclean? No; for one vessel does not make another vessel unclean, but it may make unclean what is in the basket. Rabena said, This is the case of one who says, I have guarded it as regards its uncleanness, but not as regards its separation.