exempt

If a man who was married to two minors orphans died, intercourse or halitzah with one of them exempts her rival. And the same is true with regard to two deaf women. [If a man was married to] a minor and to a deaf woman [and then died], intercourse with one of them does not exempt her rival. If one was of sound senses and one was deaf, intercourse with the woman of sound senses exempts the deaf woman, but intercourse with the deaf woman does not exempt the woman of sound senses. If one was of age and the other a minor, intercourse with the one of age exempts the minor, but intercourse with the minor does not exempt the one of age.

If a man who was married to two minors orphans died, intercourse or halitzah with one of them exempts her rival. And the same is true with regard to two deaf women. [If a man was married to] a minor and to a deaf woman [and then died], intercourse with one of them does not exempt her rival. If one was of sound senses and one was deaf, intercourse with the woman of sound senses exempts the deaf woman, but intercourse with the deaf woman does not exempt the woman of sound senses. If one was of age and the other a minor, intercourse with the one of age exempts the minor, but intercourse with the minor does not exempt the one of age.

If a man who was married to two minors orphans died, intercourse or halitzah with one of them exempts her rival. And the same is true with regard to two deaf women. [If a man was married to] a minor and to a deaf woman [and then died], intercourse with one of them does not exempt her rival. If one was of sound senses and one was deaf, intercourse with the woman of sound senses exempts the deaf woman, but intercourse with the deaf woman does not exempt the woman of sound senses. If one was of age and the other a minor, intercourse with the one of age exempts the minor, but intercourse with the minor does not exempt the one of age.

If two deaf brothers were married to two deaf sisters, or to two sisters who were of sound senses, or to two sisters one of whom was deaf and the other was of sound senses; And so also if two deaf sisters were married to two brothers who were of sound senses, or to two deaf brothers, or to two brothers one of whom was deaf and the other of sound senses: Behold these [women] are exempt from halitzah and from yibbum. If [the women] were strangers they must marry them, and if they wish to divorce them, they may do so.

If two brothers, one of whom was deaf and the other of sound senses, were married to two sisters who were of sound senses, and the deaf brother, the husband of the sister who was of sound senses, died, what should the brother of sound senses, the husband of the sister of sound senses, do? [Nothing, since she] is exempt, because she is his wife’s sister. If the brother of sound senses, the husband of [the sister who was] of sound senses, died, what should the deaf brother, the husband of [the sister who was] of sound senses, do? He must release his wife with a get, while his brother’s wife is forbidden forever [to marry again].

If two brothers of sound senses were married to two sisters one of whom was deaf and the other of sound senses, and the brother of sound senses, the husband of the deaf sister, died, what should the brother of sound senses, the husband of the sister who was of sound senses, do? [Nothing, since she is] exempt because she is his wife’s sister. If the brother of sound senses, the husband of the sister who was of sound senses, died, what should the brother of sound senses, the husband of the deaf sister, do? He must release his wife with a get and his brother’s wife by halitzah.

If two brothers, one of whom was deaf and the other of sound senses, were married to two sisters, one of whom was deaf and the other of sound senses, and the deaf brother, the husband of the deaf sister, died, what should the brother who was of sound senses, the husband of the sister who was of sound senses, do? [Nothing, since she is] exempt because she is his wife’s sister. If the brother of sound senses, the husband of the sister who was of sound senses, died, what should the deaf brother, the husband of the deaf sister, do? He must release his wife with a get, while his brother’s wife is forever forbidden [to marry again].

An orphan who was betrothed and then divorced Rabbi Elazar says that one who seduces her is exempt but one who rapes her is liable [to pay the fine].

The following do not move from their place: He who built a new house and dedicated it, He who planted a vineyard and used its fruit, He who married his betrothed, Or brought in his yevamah; As it is said, “He shall be exempt one year for the sake of his household [to give happiness to the woman he married]” (Deuteronomy 24:5) “His household,” this refers to his house; “Shall be” refers to his vineyard; “To give happiness to the wife” refers to his wife; “He married” to include his yevamah’s widow. These do not supply water and food and repair the roads [for the army].

If orphans relied on a householder or if their father appointed a guardian for them, he must tithe their produce. A guardian who was appointed by the father of the orphans is required to take an oath. [A guardian who was] appointed by the court does not need to take an oath. Abba Shaul says that the rule is the reverse. One who renders impure [someone else’s pure food] or mixes terumah [with someone else’s non-terumah produce] or makes a libation [with someone else’s wine], if he does so inadvertently, he is exempt, but if intentionally he is liable. Priests who intentionally made someone else’s sacrifice piggul in the Temple are liable.

All obligations of the son upon the father, men are obligated, but women are exempt. But all obligations of the father upon the son, both men and women are obligated. All positive, time-bound commandments, men are obligated and women are exempt. But all positive non-time-bound commandments both men and women are obligated. And all negative commandments, whether time-bound or not time-bound, both men and women are obligated, except for, the prohibition against rounding [the corners of the head], and the prohibition against marring [the corner of the beard], and the prohibition [for a priest] to become impure through contact with the dead.

All obligations of the son upon the father, men are obligated, but women are exempt. But all obligations of the father upon the son, both men and women are obligated. All positive, time-bound commandments, men are obligated and women are exempt. But all positive non-time-bound commandments both men and women are obligated. And all negative commandments, whether time-bound or not time-bound, both men and women are obligated, except for, the prohibition against rounding [the corners of the head], and the prohibition against marring [the corner of the beard], and the prohibition [for a priest] to become impure through contact with the dead.

“An ox which causes damage in the private domain of him that is injured” how is this so? If it gored, pushed, bit, lay down, or kicked in the public domain its owner pays only half damages. But if in the private domain of him that is injured, Rabbi Tarfon says, “He pays full damages.” The Sages says, “Half damages.” Rabbi Tarfon said to them: “Now, in a case in which the law dealt leniently with regards to damages caused by the foot and tooth in the public domain, in which case he is exempt, and stringently in the private domain of him that is injured to pay full damages, then since they have dealt stringently with damage caused by the horn in the public domain, ought we not deal more stringently with damage cause by the horn in the private domain of him that was injured, so that full damages be imposed.” They (the sages) said to him: “It is enough if the inferred law is as strict as that from which it is inferred: if [for damages caused by the horn] in the public domain half damages [are imposed], so also [for like damages] in the private domain of him that was injured, half damages [are imposed]. He said to them: “I shall not derive the law in one case of damage caused by the horn from the law in another case of damage caused by the horn. Rather I will derive the law of damage caused by the horn from the law of damage caused by the foot. Now in a case in which the law dealt leniently with regards to damages caused by the foot or tooth in the public domain, they have dealt strictly with damage caused by the horn, ought we not deal more stringently with damage cause by the horn in the private domain. They (the sages) said to him: “It is enough if the inferred law is as strict as that from which it is inferred: if [for damages caused by the horn] in the public domain half damages [are imposed], so also [for like damages] in the private domain of him that was injured, half damages [are imposed].

If a man left a jug in the public domain and another came and stumbled over it and broke it, he is exempt. And if he was injured by it, the owner of the jug is liable for his injury. If a man’s jug broke in the public domain, and another slipped on the water, or was hurt by the potsherds, he is liable. Rabbi Judah says: “If he [broke the jug] with intention, he is liable, But if he broke it without intention he is not liable.”

This one comes carrying his jar and another one comes carrying his beam: this one’s jar is broken by that one’s beam, [The owner of the beam] is exempt, since this one has the right to walk along and this one has the right to walk along. If the owner of the beam came first and the owner of the jar came after, and the jar was broken by the beam, the owner of the beam is exempt. If the owner of the beam stopped [walking suddenly], he is liable. If [the owner of the beam had said] “Stop” to the owner of the jar, he is exempt. If the owner of the jar came first and owner of the beam came after, and the jar was broken by the beam, [the owner of the beam] is liable. If the owner of the jar stopped [walking suddenly],he is exempt. If [the owner of the jar had said] “Stop” to the owner of the beam, he is liable. So too when one comes with his candle and one with his flax.

This one comes carrying his jar and another one comes carrying his beam: this one’s jar is broken by that one’s beam, [The owner of the beam] is exempt, since this one has the right to walk along and this one has the right to walk along. If the owner of the beam came first and the owner of the jar came after, and the jar was broken by the beam, the owner of the beam is exempt. If the owner of the beam stopped [walking suddenly], he is liable. If [the owner of the beam had said] “Stop” to the owner of the jar, he is exempt. If the owner of the jar came first and owner of the beam came after, and the jar was broken by the beam, [the owner of the beam] is liable. If the owner of the jar stopped [walking suddenly],he is exempt. If [the owner of the jar had said] “Stop” to the owner of the beam, he is liable. So too when one comes with his candle and one with his flax.

This one comes carrying his jar and another one comes carrying his beam: this one’s jar is broken by that one’s beam, [The owner of the beam] is exempt, since this one has the right to walk along and this one has the right to walk along. If the owner of the beam came first and the owner of the jar came after, and the jar was broken by the beam, the owner of the beam is exempt. If the owner of the beam stopped [walking suddenly], he is liable. If [the owner of the beam had said] “Stop” to the owner of the jar, he is exempt. If the owner of the jar came first and owner of the beam came after, and the jar was broken by the beam, [the owner of the beam] is liable. If the owner of the jar stopped [walking suddenly],he is exempt. If [the owner of the jar had said] “Stop” to the owner of the beam, he is liable. So too when one comes with his candle and one with his flax.

This one comes carrying his jar and another one comes carrying his beam: this one’s jar is broken by that one’s beam, [The owner of the beam] is exempt, since this one has the right to walk along and this one has the right to walk along. If the owner of the beam came first and the owner of the jar came after, and the jar was broken by the beam, the owner of the beam is exempt. If the owner of the beam stopped [walking suddenly], he is liable. If [the owner of the beam had said] “Stop” to the owner of the jar, he is exempt. If the owner of the jar came first and owner of the beam came after, and the jar was broken by the beam, [the owner of the beam] is liable. If the owner of the jar stopped [walking suddenly],he is exempt. If [the owner of the jar had said] “Stop” to the owner of the beam, he is liable. So too when one comes with his candle and one with his flax.

There is one who is obligated for the act of his ox and exempt from his own act, and one who is exempt from the act of his ox and obligated on his own act. [If] his ox caused embarrassment [to another person], he is exempt; [If, however] he caused embarrassment [to another person] he is obligated. [If] his ox put out the eye of his slave or knocked out his [slave’s] tooth, he is exempt [from freeing the slave]; [If, however] he put out the eye of his slave or knocked out his tooth, he is obligated to free the slave. [If] his ox injured his father or mother he is obligated; [If, however] he injured his father or mother he is exempt. [If] his ox lit a heap of produce on fire on Shabbat, he is obligated; [If, however] he lit a heap of produce on Shabbat he is exempt, because he is liable for his life.

There is one who is obligated for the act of his ox and exempt from his own act, and one who is exempt from the act of his ox and obligated on his own act. [If] his ox caused embarrassment [to another person], he is exempt; [If, however] he caused embarrassment [to another person] he is obligated. [If] his ox put out the eye of his slave or knocked out his [slave’s] tooth, he is exempt [from freeing the slave]; [If, however] he put out the eye of his slave or knocked out his tooth, he is obligated to free the slave. [If] his ox injured his father or mother he is obligated; [If, however] he injured his father or mother he is exempt. [If] his ox lit a heap of produce on fire on Shabbat, he is obligated; [If, however] he lit a heap of produce on Shabbat he is exempt, because he is liable for his life.

There is one who is obligated for the act of his ox and exempt from his own act, and one who is exempt from the act of his ox and obligated on his own act. [If] his ox caused embarrassment [to another person], he is exempt; [If, however] he caused embarrassment [to another person] he is obligated. [If] his ox put out the eye of his slave or knocked out his [slave’s] tooth, he is exempt [from freeing the slave]; [If, however] he put out the eye of his slave or knocked out his tooth, he is obligated to free the slave. [If] his ox injured his father or mother he is obligated; [If, however] he injured his father or mother he is exempt. [If] his ox lit a heap of produce on fire on Shabbat, he is obligated; [If, however] he lit a heap of produce on Shabbat he is exempt, because he is liable for his life.

There is one who is obligated for the act of his ox and exempt from his own act, and one who is exempt from the act of his ox and obligated on his own act. [If] his ox caused embarrassment [to another person], he is exempt; [If, however] he caused embarrassment [to another person] he is obligated. [If] his ox put out the eye of his slave or knocked out his [slave’s] tooth, he is exempt [from freeing the slave]; [If, however] he put out the eye of his slave or knocked out his tooth, he is obligated to free the slave. [If] his ox injured his father or mother he is obligated; [If, however] he injured his father or mother he is exempt. [If] his ox lit a heap of produce on fire on Shabbat, he is obligated; [If, however] he lit a heap of produce on Shabbat he is exempt, because he is liable for his life.

There is one who is obligated for the act of his ox and exempt from his own act, and one who is exempt from the act of his ox and obligated on his own act. [If] his ox caused embarrassment [to another person], he is exempt; [If, however] he caused embarrassment [to another person] he is obligated. [If] his ox put out the eye of his slave or knocked out his [slave’s] tooth, he is exempt [from freeing the slave]; [If, however] he put out the eye of his slave or knocked out his tooth, he is obligated to free the slave. [If] his ox injured his father or mother he is obligated; [If, however] he injured his father or mother he is exempt. [If] his ox lit a heap of produce on fire on Shabbat, he is obligated; [If, however] he lit a heap of produce on Shabbat he is exempt, because he is liable for his life.

There is one who is obligated for the act of his ox and exempt from his own act, and one who is exempt from the act of his ox and obligated on his own act. [If] his ox caused embarrassment [to another person], he is exempt; [If, however] he caused embarrassment [to another person] he is obligated. [If] his ox put out the eye of his slave or knocked out his [slave’s] tooth, he is exempt [from freeing the slave]; [If, however] he put out the eye of his slave or knocked out his tooth, he is obligated to free the slave. [If] his ox injured his father or mother he is obligated; [If, however] he injured his father or mother he is exempt. [If] his ox lit a heap of produce on fire on Shabbat, he is obligated; [If, however] he lit a heap of produce on Shabbat he is exempt, because he is liable for his life.

If an ox was pursuing another ox and [the latter ox] was injured: this one claims “Your ox caused the injury, and this one claims “No, it was injured by a rock.” on the one who wishes to exact compensation lies the burden of proof. If two oxen were pursuing a third ox: this one claims “Your ox caused the injury”, and this one claims “Your ox caused the injury”, they are both exempt. However, if they were both owned by one man, they are both obligated. If one was big and was small: the [owner] of injured [ox] says that “The large one caused the injury”, and the [owner] of the injuring [ox] says, “The small one caused the injury”, [or] if one was a harmless ox and one was an attested danger (muad) the [owner] of the injured ox says, “The [ox which is an] attested danger caused the injury, and the owner of the injuring ox says, “The [ox which is] harmless caused the injury”, on the one who wishes to exact compensation lies the burden of proof. If two oxen were injured, one big and one small, and two oxen caused the injury, one big and one small: [the owner] of the injured oxen says, “The big ox injured the big ox and small ox injured the small ox,” and the [owner] of the injuring oxen says, “The small ox injured the big ox and the big ox injured the small ox”; [or] if one was harmless and one was an attested danger: the [owner] of the injured oxen says, “The [ox which is an] attested danger injured the big ox, and the harmless [ox] injured the small ox”, the owner of injuring oxen says, “No rather the harmless [ox] injured the large ox and the [ox which is an] attested danger injured the small ox”, on the one who wishes to exact compensation lies the burden of proof.

An ox of an Israelite that gored an ox belonging to the Temple, or an ox belonging to the Temple that gored an ox of an Israelite, the owner is exempt, as it says, “The ox belonging to his neighbor” (Exodus 21:35), and not an ox belonging to the Temple. An ox of an Israelite that gores an ox of a gentile, the owner is exempt. And an ox of a gentile that gores the ox of an Israelite, whether the ox is harmless or an attested danger, its owner pays full damages.

An ox of an Israelite that gored an ox belonging to the Temple, or an ox belonging to the Temple that gored an ox of an Israelite, the owner is exempt, as it says, “The ox belonging to his neighbor” (Exodus 21:35), and not an ox belonging to the Temple. An ox of an Israelite that gores an ox of a gentile, the owner is exempt. And an ox of a gentile that gores the ox of an Israelite, whether the ox is harmless or an attested danger, its owner pays full damages.

[If] an ox of a person of sound senses gored the ox of a deaf-mute, an insane person, or a minor, [its owner] is obligated. [If] an ox of a deaf-mute, an insane person or a minor, gored the ox of a person of sound senses, [its owner] is exempt. [If] an ox a deaf-mute, an insane person or a minor gored, the court appoints a guardian over them, and [their oxen] are testified against in the presence of the guardian. [If] the deaf-mute became of sound senses, or the insane person recovered his reason, or the minor came of age, [the ox] is thereupon deemed harmless once more, according to Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yose says, “It remains as it was before.” An ox from the stadium is not liable to be put to death, as it says, “When it will gore” (Exodus 21:28), and not “When others cause it to gore.”

If an ox gored a person and he died, if it was an attested danger [its owner] must pay the ransom, if it was accounted harmless he is exempt from paying the ransom. In both cases the ox is obligated for the death penalty. So too [if it killed] a son or a daughter. If it gored a male slave or a female slave its owner pays 30 sela, Whether [the slave] was worth a maneh or not even worth a dinar.

If an ox was rubbing itself against a wall and it fell on a person; or if it intended to kill an animal and it killed a man; or if it intended to kill a gentile and it killed an Israelite; or if it intended to kill an untimely birth and it killed a viable infant, it is exempt [from death by stoning].

The ox of a woman, or the ox of orphans, or the ox of a guardian, or a wild ox, or an ox belonging to the Temple, or an ox belonging to a proselyte who died and has no inheritors, these are all liable for the death penalty. Rabbi Judah says, “A wild ox, or an ox belonging to the Temple, or an ox belonging to a proselyte who died are exempt from death, since they have no owners.”

If one handed it to an unpaid guardian, or to a borrower, or to a paid guardian, or to a hirer, they take the place of the owners; if the beast was an attested danger he pays full damages, and if it was accounted harmless he pays half damages. If its owner had tied it with a halter, or locked it up properly, but it came out and caused damage, the owner is liable, whether it was an attested danger or accounted harmless, these are the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah says: “If it was accounted harmless he is liable, but if it was an attested danger he is exempt, as it says, “and its owner did not guard it”, but this one has been guarded. Rabbi Eliezer says: “Its only guarding is the knife.”

If a pit belonged to two partners and one went over it and did not cover it, and the other also went over it and did not cover it, the second one is liable. If the first covered it and the second came and found it uncovered and did not cover it, the second one is liable. If he covered it properly and an ox or an ass fell into it and died, he is not liable. If he did not cover it properly and an ox or an ass fell into it and died, he is liable. If it fell forward [not into the pit, frightened] because of the sound of the digging, the owner of the pit is liable. But if backward [not into the pit, frightened] because of the sound of the digging, he is not liable. If an ox and all of its trappings fell into it and they broke, or if an ass fell into it with its trappings and they were torn, he is liable for the beast but exempt for the trappings. If an ox that was deaf, insane or young fell in, the owner is liable. If a boy or a girl or a slave or a bondwoman fell in, he is not liable.

If a man brought his flock into a pen and shut it in properly and it went out and caused damage, he is exempt. If he had not shut it in properly and it went out and caused damage, he is liable. If the pen was broken through at night, or bandits broke through it, and the flock came out and caused damage, he is not liable. If the bandits brought out the flock, the bandits are liable. 

If a man stacked his sheaves in his fellow’s field without his permission, and the owner of the field’s beast ate the sheaves, he is exempt. If [the beast] was injured by them, the owner of the stack is liable. If he made the stack with his permission, the owner of the field is liable.

If a person sends forth fire in the hands of a deaf-mute, an idiot or a minor he is not liable by the laws of man, but he is liable by the laws of Heaven. If he sent it forth in the hands of a person of sound senses, the one of sound senses is liable. If one brought the fire, and then another brought the wood, he that brought the wood is liable. If one brought the wood and then another brought fire, he that brought the fire is liable. If another came and fanned the flames, the one who fanned the flame is liable. If the wind fanned the flame, they are all exempt. If a man sent forth fire, and it consumed wood or stones or dust, he is liable, for it says: “When a fire breaks out and spreads to thorns so that the stacked corn is consumed, or the standing corn, or the field, he that kindled the fire shall surely make restitution.” If it passed over a fence four cubits high, or over a public way, or over a river, he is exempt. If a man kindled fire within his own domain, how far may it spread [and he will still be liable]? Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah says: “It is looked at as if it was in the middle of a kor’s space.” [ Rabbi Eliezer says: “Sixteen cubits [in every direction] like a public highway.” Rabbi Akiva says: “Fifty cubits.” Rabbi Shimon says: “[It is said] ‘He that kindled the fire shall surely make restitution’, all is in accordance with the nature of the fire.”

If a person sends forth fire in the hands of a deaf-mute, an idiot or a minor he is not liable by the laws of man, but he is liable by the laws of Heaven. If he sent it forth in the hands of a person of sound senses, the one of sound senses is liable. If one brought the fire, and then another brought the wood, he that brought the wood is liable. If one brought the wood and then another brought fire, he that brought the fire is liable. If another came and fanned the flames, the one who fanned the flame is liable. If the wind fanned the flame, they are all exempt. If a man sent forth fire, and it consumed wood or stones or dust, he is liable, for it says: “When a fire breaks out and spreads to thorns so that the stacked corn is consumed, or the standing corn, or the field, he that kindled the fire shall surely make restitution.” If it passed over a fence four cubits high, or over a public way, or over a river, he is exempt. If a man kindled fire within his own domain, how far may it spread [and he will still be liable]? Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah says: “It is looked at as if it was in the middle of a kor’s space.” [ Rabbi Eliezer says: “Sixteen cubits [in every direction] like a public highway.” Rabbi Akiva says: “Fifty cubits.” Rabbi Shimon says: “[It is said] ‘He that kindled the fire shall surely make restitution’, all is in accordance with the nature of the fire.”

If he stole [an ox or a sheep] according to the evidence of two witnesses, and slaughtered it or sold it according to the evidence of one witness or according to his own evidence, he makes twofold restitution, but not fourfold or fivefold restitution. If he stole [an ox or a sheep] and slaughtered it on the Sabbath, or stole it and slaughtered it for idolatrous use, or stole what was his father’s and his father died, and he afterward slaughtered or sold it, or if he stole it and then dedicated it, and afterward slaughtered it or sold it, he makes twofold restitution but not fourfold or fivefold restitution. Rabbi Shimon says: “If they were Holy Things which must be replaced [if damaged or lost] he must make fourfold or fivefold restitution; but if they were Holy Things which need not be replaced, he is exempt.”

If he sold it all but a hundredth part, or if he had [already] a share in it, or if slaughtered it and it became unfit [to eat] by his own hand, or if he pierced the windpipe or rooted out its gullet, he makes twofold restitution but not fourfold or fivefold restitution. If he stole it in the owner’s domain, but slaughtered it or sold it outside the owner’s domain, or if he stole it outside the owner’s domain and slaughtered or sold it within the owner’s domain; or if he stole it and slaughtered or sold it outside the owner’s domain, he must make fourfold or fivefold restitution. But if he stole it and slaughtered or sold it within the owner’s domain, he is exempt.

If while he was dragging [a sheep or ox] out it died in the owner’s domain, he is exempt. But if he had lifted it or taken it out of the owner’s domain and it died, he is liable. If he brought it as the firstborn offering for his son, or gave it to his creditor, or to an unpaid guardian, or to a borrower, or to a paid guardian, or to a hirer, and one of them was dragging it away and it died in the owner’s domain, he is exempt. If [one of them] had lifted it up or taken it outside the owner’s domain, he is liable.

If while he was dragging [a sheep or ox] out it died in the owner’s domain, he is exempt. But if he had lifted it or taken it out of the owner’s domain and it died, he is liable. If he brought it as the firstborn offering for his son, or gave it to his creditor, or to an unpaid guardian, or to a borrower, or to a paid guardian, or to a hirer, and one of them was dragging it away and it died in the owner’s domain, he is exempt. If [one of them] had lifted it up or taken it outside the owner’s domain, he is liable.

He who wounds his fellow is liable to compensate him on five counts: for injury, for pain, for healing, for loss of income and for indignity. ‘For injury’: How so? If he blinded his fellow’s eye, cut off his hand or broke his foot, [his fellow] is looked upon as if he was a slave to be sold in the market and they assess how much he was worth and how much he is worth. ‘For pain’? If he burned him with a spit or a nail, even though it was on his fingernail, a place where it leaves no wound, they estimate how much money such a man would be willing to take to suffer so. ‘Healing’? If he struck him he is liable to pay the cost of his healing. If sores arise on him on account of the blow, he is liable [for the cost of their healing]. If not on account of the blow, he is not liable. If the wound healed and then opened and healed and then opened, he is liable for the cost of the healing. If it healed completely, he is no longer liable to pay the cost of the healing. ‘Loss of income’: He is looked upon as a watchman of a cucumber field, since he already gave him compensation for the loss of his hand or foot. ‘Indignity’: All is according to the status of the one that inflicts indignity and the status of the one that suffers indignity. If a man inflicted indignity on a naked man, or a blind man, or a sleeping man, he is [still] liable. If a sleeping man inflicted indignity, he is exempt. If a man fell from the roof and caused injury and inflicted indignity, he is liable for the injury but not for the indignity, as it says, “And she puts forth her hand and grabs him by the private parts”, a man is liable only when he intended [to inflict indignity].

It is losing proposition to meet up with a deaf-mute, an idiot or a minor: he that injures them is obligated; and they that injure others are exempt. It is a losing proposition to meet up with a slave or [married] woman; he that injures them is obligated; and they that injure others are exempt. However, they pay after some time; if the woman was divorced or the slave freed they are liable for restitution.

It is losing proposition to meet up with a deaf-mute, an idiot or a minor: he that injures them is obligated; and they that injure others are exempt. It is a losing proposition to meet up with a slave or [married] woman; he that injures them is obligated; and they that injure others are exempt. However, they pay after some time; if the woman was divorced or the slave freed they are liable for restitution.

Even though a man pays [him that suffers the indignity], he is not forgiven until he seeks [forgiveness] from him, for it says: “Therefore restore the man’s wife… [and he shall pray for you]” (Genesis 20:7). And from where do we learn that he who must forgive should not be cruel? As it says: “And Abraham prayed unto God and God healed Avimelech” (Genesis 20:17). If a man said, “Blind my eye”, or “Cut off my hand”, or “Break my foot”, he [that does so] is liable. [If he added] “On the condition that you will be exempt”, he is still liable. [If he said] “Tear my garment”, or “Break my jug”, he that does so is liable. [If he added] “On the condition that you will be exempt”, he is exempt. [If he said], “Do so to so-and-so, on the condition that you will be exempt, he is liable, whether it was [an offense] against his person or his property.

Even though a man pays [him that suffers the indignity], he is not forgiven until he seeks [forgiveness] from him, for it says: “Therefore restore the man’s wife… [and he shall pray for you]” (Genesis 20:7). And from where do we learn that he who must forgive should not be cruel? As it says: “And Abraham prayed unto God and God healed Avimelech” (Genesis 20:17). If a man said, “Blind my eye”, or “Cut off my hand”, or “Break my foot”, he [that does so] is liable. [If he added] “On the condition that you will be exempt”, he is still liable. [If he said] “Tear my garment”, or “Break my jug”, he that does so is liable. [If he added] “On the condition that you will be exempt”, he is exempt. [If he said], “Do so to so-and-so, on the condition that you will be exempt, he is liable, whether it was [an offense] against his person or his property.

Even though a man pays [him that suffers the indignity], he is not forgiven until he seeks [forgiveness] from him, for it says: “Therefore restore the man’s wife… [and he shall pray for you]” (Genesis 20:7). And from where do we learn that he who must forgive should not be cruel? As it says: “And Abraham prayed unto God and God healed Avimelech” (Genesis 20:17). If a man said, “Blind my eye”, or “Cut off my hand”, or “Break my foot”, he [that does so] is liable. [If he added] “On the condition that you will be exempt”, he is still liable. [If he said] “Tear my garment”, or “Break my jug”, he that does so is liable. [If he added] “On the condition that you will be exempt”, he is exempt. [If he said], “Do so to so-and-so, on the condition that you will be exempt, he is liable, whether it was [an offense] against his person or his property.

Even though a man pays [him that suffers the indignity], he is not forgiven until he seeks [forgiveness] from him, for it says: “Therefore restore the man’s wife… [and he shall pray for you]” (Genesis 20:7). And from where do we learn that he who must forgive should not be cruel? As it says: “And Abraham prayed unto God and God healed Avimelech” (Genesis 20:17). If a man said, “Blind my eye”, or “Cut off my hand”, or “Break my foot”, he [that does so] is liable. [If he added] “On the condition that you will be exempt”, he is still liable. [If he said] “Tear my garment”, or “Break my jug”, he that does so is liable. [If he added] “On the condition that you will be exempt”, he is exempt. [If he said], “Do so to so-and-so, on the condition that you will be exempt, he is liable, whether it was [an offense] against his person or his property.

If he gave [something] to craftsmen to repair, and they ruined it, they must make restitution. If he gave a carpenter a box, chest or cupboard to repair, and he ruined it, he must make restitution. If a builder undertook to pull down a wall, and he broke the stones or caused damage, he must make restitution. If he was pulling down at the one end and it fell down on the other, he is exempt; However, if it fell due to the blow, he is liable.

If a man stole [something] and fed it to his children, or if he left it in front of them, they are exempt from making restitution. But if it was something which is subject to mortgage (that is, real estate), they are liable to make restitution. One may not make change from the chest of an excise collector or from the wallet of tax collectors, or take any charity from them. But it may be taken from them at their own house or in the market.

If a man said to his fellow, “I robbed you”, [or], “You lent me [something]”, [or] “You deposited [something] with me, but I do not know whether I returned it or not” he is obligated to repay. But if he said, “I do not know whether I robbed you, [or], “whether you lent me [something]”, or “whether you deposited [something] with me”, he is exempt from repaying.

If a man stole a lamb from the flock and restored it, but it died or was stolen again, he is responsible for it. If the owner knew neither of its theft nor of its return and counted the flock and found it complete, the thief is exempt.

If a man left an animal or utensils in his fellow’s keeping and they were stolen or lost, and his fellow made restitution and did not want to take an oath – for they have taught: an unpaid guardian may take an oath and be exempt from liability – if the thief is found he must make twofold restitution, and if he slaughtered or sold the [sheep or ox] he must make four of fivefold restitution. To whom does he pay? He with whom the money was deposited. If his fellow (the unpaid guardian) takes an oath and does not want to make restitution, if the thief is found he must make twofold restitution, and if he slaughtered or sold the [sheep or ox] he must make four of fivefold restitution. To whom does he pay? To the owner of the property deposited.

If a man left a jar with his fellow [to guard] and the owner did not assign it a special place [to be kept] and [the guardian] moved it and it broke: If it was broken while he was handling it: If for his own sake he is liable. If for the sake of the jar, he is not liable. But if it was broken after he had put it in place, whether he moved it for his own sake or for the sake of the jar, he is exempt. If the owner had assigned it a special place, and the guardian moved it and it broke: Whether or not it broke while he was handling it or after he had put it in its place; If for his own sake he is liable, if for the sake of the jar, he is not liable.

If a man left money in his fellow’s keeping and his fellow bound it up and hung it over his back, or delivered it to his son or his daughter who were minors, or locked it up improperly, he is liable since he did not guard in the way of guardians. If he guarded it in the way of guardians he is exempt.

If one hired a cow to plow in the hill country and he plowed in the valley, if the plowshare was broken he is exempt. [If one hired a cow to plow] in the valley and he plowed in the hill country, if the plowshare was broken he is liable. [If one hired it] to thresh beans and he threshed grain [and the cow slipped and was injured], he is exempt. [If one hired it] to thresh grain and he threshed beans [and the cow slipped and was injured], he is liable.

If one hired a cow to plow in the hill country and he plowed in the valley, if the plowshare was broken he is exempt. [If one hired a cow to plow] in the valley and he plowed in the hill country, if the plowshare was broken he is liable. [If one hired it] to thresh beans and he threshed grain [and the cow slipped and was injured], he is exempt. [If one hired it] to thresh grain and he threshed beans [and the cow slipped and was injured], he is liable.

If one moved a jar from place to place and broke it, whether he is a paid guardian or an unpaid guardian, he may take an oath [that he did not break it through neglect and be exempt from liability]. Rabbi Eliezer says: “[I too have heard that] in either case he may take an oath, but I wonder whether in either case the oath is valid.”

If a beast died a natural death this counts as an unavoidable accident [for which a hirer or paid guardian is not liable]. But if he tortured it and it died it does not count as an unavoidable accident [and the hirer and paid guardian would be liable]. If it was led up to the top of a crag and it fell down and died, this does not count as an unavoidable accident. An unpaid guardian may make a stipulation that he will be exempt from taking an oath, and a borrower [may make a stipulation that he will be exempt] from making restitution, and a paid guardian and a hirer [may make a stipulation that they will be exempt] from taking an oath or from making restitution.

If a beast died a natural death this counts as an unavoidable accident [for which a hirer or paid guardian is not liable]. But if he tortured it and it died it does not count as an unavoidable accident [and the hirer and paid guardian would be liable]. If it was led up to the top of a crag and it fell down and died, this does not count as an unavoidable accident. An unpaid guardian may make a stipulation that he will be exempt from taking an oath, and a borrower [may make a stipulation that he will be exempt] from making restitution, and a paid guardian and a hirer [may make a stipulation that they will be exempt] from taking an oath or from making restitution.

If a beast died a natural death this counts as an unavoidable accident [for which a hirer or paid guardian is not liable]. But if he tortured it and it died it does not count as an unavoidable accident [and the hirer and paid guardian would be liable]. If it was led up to the top of a crag and it fell down and died, this does not count as an unavoidable accident. An unpaid guardian may make a stipulation that he will be exempt from taking an oath, and a borrower [may make a stipulation that he will be exempt] from making restitution, and a paid guardian and a hirer [may make a stipulation that they will be exempt] from taking an oath or from making restitution.

One may not set up an oven inside a house unless there is a space of four cubits above it. If he sets it up in the upper room, the flooring beneath it must be three handbreadths deep, or for a stove one handbreadth. And if it causes damage [to the floor] he must pay for the damage caused. Rabbi Shimon says: “They only mentioned these measurements so that if the object caused damage he would be exempt.”

If a man sold wine or oil to his fellow, and its value rose or fell, if [the price rose or fell] before the measure was filled up, it belongs to the seller, [and he may refuse to sell except at the higher price]. But if [the price rose or fell] after the measure was filled up, it belongs to the buyer [and he may refuse to buy except at the lower price]. If there was a middleman between them, and the jar broke, it is broken to [the loss of] the middleman. [After emptying the measure] the seller must let three more drops drip [for the buyer]. If he then turned the measure over and drained it off, what flows out belongs to the seller. The shopkeeper is not obligated to let three more drops drip. Rabbi Judah says: “[Only] on the eve of Shabbath as it becomes dark is he exempt.”

If a man sent his child to a shopkeeper with a pondion (a coin) in his hand and he measured him out an issar’s (a coin worth half a pondion) worth of oil and gave him an issar in change and the child broke the flask and lost the issar, the shopkeeper is liable. Rabbi Judah declares him exempt, since the father sent the child for this purpose. And the Sages agree with Rabbi Judah that if the flask was in the child’s hand, and the shopkeeper measured the oil into it, the shopkeeper is exempt.

If a man sent his child to a shopkeeper with a pondion (a coin) in his hand and he measured him out an issar’s (a coin worth half a pondion) worth of oil and gave him an issar in change and the child broke the flask and lost the issar, the shopkeeper is liable. Rabbi Judah declares him exempt, since the father sent the child for this purpose. And the Sages agree with Rabbi Judah that if the flask was in the child’s hand, and the shopkeeper measured the oil into it, the shopkeeper is exempt.

He who desecrates the Sabbath [is stoned], providing that it is an offence punished by “kareth” if deliberate, and by a sin-offering if unwitting. One who curses His father or his mother is not punished unless he curses them by the divine name. If he cursed them by a nickname, Rabbi Meir held him liable, but the Sages ruled that he is exempt.

A sorcerer, if he actually performs magic, is liable [to death], but not if he merely creates illusions. Rabbi Akiva says in Rabbi Joshua’s name: “If two are gathering cucumbers [by magic] one may be punished and the other exempt: he who really gathers them is punished: while he who produces an illusion is exempt.”

A sorcerer, if he actually performs magic, is liable [to death], but not if he merely creates illusions. Rabbi Akiva says in Rabbi Joshua’s name: “If two are gathering cucumbers [by magic] one may be punished and the other exempt: he who really gathers them is punished: while he who produces an illusion is exempt.”

A wayward and rebellious son: at what age does he become liable [to be stoned]? From the time that he produces two hairs until the beard is full by which is meant the hair of the genitals, not that of the face, but the Sages used euphemisms, for it says, “If a man has a son” (Deut. 21:18) a son, but not a daughter; ‘a son’, but not an adult man. The minor is exempt, since he does not come within the scope of the commandments.

The following are burnt: he who has sexual relations with a woman and her daughter, and a priest’s adulterous daughter. There is included in [the prohibition of having relations with] a woman and her daughter his own daughter, his daughter’s daughter, his son’s daughter, his wife’s daughter and the daughter of her daughter or son, his mother-in-law, her mother, and his father-in-law’s mother. The following are decapitated: a murderer, and the inhabitants of a city subverted into worshipping idols. A murderer who slew his fellow with a stone or iron, or kept him down under water or in fire, so that he could not get out of there, is executed. If he pushed him into water or fire, but he could get out of there , yet he died, he is not liable [for the death penalty]. If he set a dog or a snake against him [and they killed him], he is free from death. If he caused a snake to bite him, Rabbi Judah ruled that he is liable [for the death penalty] and the Sages, that he is not. If a man struck his fellow, whether with a stone or with his fist, and they [the experts] declared that he would die, but then its effect lessened [so that it was thought that he would live], only to increase subsequently, so that he died he is liable. Rabbi Nehemiah said that he is exempt, since there is a strong possibility [that he did not die as a result of his injuries].

The following are strangled: One who strikes his father or mother; One who kidnaps a Jew; An elder who rebels against the ruling of the court; A false prophet; One who prophesies in the name of an idol; One who commits adultery; Witnesses who testified falsely [to the adultery of] a priest’s daughter, and the one who has had sexual relations with her. The one who strikes his father or his mother is liable only if he wounds them. In this respect, cursing is more stringent than striking, for one who curses [his/her parents] after death is liable, while one who strikes them after death is not. One who kidnaps a Jew is not liable unless he brings him onto his own property. Rabbi Judah said: “Until he brings him onto his own property and puts him to service, as it says, “If a man is found to have kidnapped a fellow Israelite, enslaving him or selling him” (Deut. 24:7). If he kidnaps his own son. Rabbi Ishmael the son of Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka declares him liable, but the Sages exempt [him]. If he kidnapped one who was half a slave and half free, Rabbi Judah declares him liable, but the Sages exempt [him].

The following are strangled: One who strikes his father or mother; One who kidnaps a Jew; An elder who rebels against the ruling of the court; A false prophet; One who prophesies in the name of an idol; One who commits adultery; Witnesses who testified falsely [to the adultery of] a priest’s daughter, and the one who has had sexual relations with her. The one who strikes his father or his mother is liable only if he wounds them. In this respect, cursing is more stringent than striking, for one who curses [his/her parents] after death is liable, while one who strikes them after death is not. One who kidnaps a Jew is not liable unless he brings him onto his own property. Rabbi Judah said: “Until he brings him onto his own property and puts him to service, as it says, “If a man is found to have kidnapped a fellow Israelite, enslaving him or selling him” (Deut. 24:7). If he kidnaps his own son. Rabbi Ishmael the son of Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka declares him liable, but the Sages exempt [him]. If he kidnapped one who was half a slave and half free, Rabbi Judah declares him liable, but the Sages exempt [him].

An elder rebelling against the ruling of the court [is strangled], for it says, “If there arise a matter too hard for you for judgement […you shall promptly repair to the place that the Lord your God will have chosen, and appear before the levitical priests, or the magistrate in charge at the time, and present your problem. When they have announced to you the verdict in the case, you shall carry out the verdict that is announced to you from that place that the Lord chose, observing scrupulously all their instructions to you. You shall act in accordance with the instructions given you and the ruling handed down to you; you must not deviate from the verdict that they announce to you either to the right or to the left. Should a man act presumptuously and disregard the priest charged with serving there the Lord your God, or the magistrate, that man shall die” (Deut. 17:8-13, JPS translation). Three courts of law were there, one situated at the entrance to the Temple mount, another at the door of the [Temple] court, and the third in the Chamber of Hewn Stone. They [first] went to the court which is at the entrance to the Temple mount, and he [the rebellious elder] stated, “Thus have I expounded and thus have my colleagues expounded; thus have I taught, and thus have my colleagues taught.” If [this first court] had heard [a ruling on the matter], they state it. If not, they go to the [second court] which is at the entrance of the Temple court, and he declares, “Thus have I expounded and thus have my colleagues expounded; thus have I taught, and thus have my colleagues taught.” If [this second court] had heard [a ruling on the matter] they state it; if not, they all proceed to the great court of the Chamber of Hewn Stone from whence instruction issued to all Israel, for it says, [you shall carry out the verdict that is announced to you] from that place that the Lord chose (Deut. 17:10). If he returned to his town and taught again as he did before, he is not liable. But if he gave a practical decision, he is guilty, for it says, “Should a man act presumptuously” (Deut. 17:12) he is liable only for a practical ruling. But if a disciple gave a practical decision [opposed to the court], he is exempt: thus his stringency is his leniency.

There is greater stringency in respect to the teachings of the scribes than in respect to the torah: [thus,] if [a rebellious elder] says, there is no commandment of tefillin, so that a biblical law may be transgressed, he is exempt. [But if he rules that the tefillin must contain] five compartments, thus adding to the words of the scribes, he is liable.

If two persons see him [the transgressor] from one window and two other persons see him from another window and one standing in the middle warns him, then, if some on one side and some on the other side can see one another, they constitute together one body of evidence, but if they cannot [see one another], they are two bodies of evidence. Consequently, if one of these is found to be a perjurer, both [the transgressor] and those two witnesses are put to death, while other group of witnesses is exempt. Rabbi Yose says: “He is never put to death unless two witnesses had warned him, as it says, “by the mouth of two witnesses..” (Deut. 17:6). Another interpretation: “By the mouth of two witnesses”: that the Sanhedrin shall not hear the evidence from the mouth of an interpreter.

If a man threw a stone into the public domain and killed a person, he goes into banishment. Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob says: “If after the stone had left his hand another person put out his head and caught it, the thrower is exempt [from banishment].” If a man threw a stone into his [own] court and killed a person, then, if the victim had a right of entry there, the thrower goes into banishment, and if not, he does not go into banishment, as it says, “As when a man goes into the forest with his neighbor” (Deut. 19:5): the forest is a domain accessible to the victim and to the slayer and it therefore excludes the court of the householder where the victim has no right of entry. Abba Shaul says: “Hewing of wood is an optional act and it therefore excludes a father beating his son, or a master disciplining his pupil, or an agent of the court [administering lashes].”

When they estimate the number of lashes he can stand it must be a number divisible by three. If they estimated him capable of receiving forty, and after receiving some they said he cannot receive forty, he is exempt [from the rest]. If they estimated him fit to receive eighteen, and after he was lashed they said he could receive forty, he is exempt [from the rest]. If he committed a transgression which violated two prohibitions and they made one estimate [for the lashes for both prohibitions], he is lashed and then exempt [from more]. And if [they had] not [made one estimate for both], he is lashed [for one transgression], is allowed to recover and then is lashed again.

When they estimate the number of lashes he can stand it must be a number divisible by three. If they estimated him capable of receiving forty, and after receiving some they said he cannot receive forty, he is exempt [from the rest]. If they estimated him fit to receive eighteen, and after he was lashed they said he could receive forty, he is exempt [from the rest]. If he committed a transgression which violated two prohibitions and they made one estimate [for the lashes for both prohibitions], he is lashed and then exempt [from more]. And if [they had] not [made one estimate for both], he is lashed [for one transgression], is allowed to recover and then is lashed again.

When they estimate the number of lashes he can stand it must be a number divisible by three. If they estimated him capable of receiving forty, and after receiving some they said he cannot receive forty, he is exempt [from the rest]. If they estimated him fit to receive eighteen, and after he was lashed they said he could receive forty, he is exempt [from the rest]. If he committed a transgression which violated two prohibitions and they made one estimate [for the lashes for both prohibitions], he is lashed and then exempt [from more]. And if [they had] not [made one estimate for both], he is lashed [for one transgression], is allowed to recover and then is lashed again.

And the one who recites, says: “If you fail to observe faithfully all the terms of this Teaching…the Lord will inflict upon you extraordinary plagues (lashes)” (Deut. 25:58-59) And then (if time remains) he returns to the beginning of the section. [“Therefore observe faithfully all the terms of this covenant” (Deut. 28:9) and he completes by saying, “And He is merciful, forgiving iniquity” (Psalms 78:38).] If the offender dies under his hand, he is exempt [from penalty]. If he gave him one more lash and the offender died, he goes into banishment. If the offender befouled himself either with feces or urine, he is exempt. Rabbi Judah says: “Feces in the case of a man and [even] urine in the case of a woman.

And the one who recites, says: “If you fail to observe faithfully all the terms of this Teaching…the Lord will inflict upon you extraordinary plagues (lashes)” (Deut. 25:58-59) And then (if time remains) he returns to the beginning of the section. [“Therefore observe faithfully all the terms of this covenant” (Deut. 28:9) and he completes by saying, “And He is merciful, forgiving iniquity” (Psalms 78:38).] If the offender dies under his hand, he is exempt [from penalty]. If he gave him one more lash and the offender died, he goes into banishment. If the offender befouled himself either with feces or urine, he is exempt. Rabbi Judah says: “Feces in the case of a man and [even] urine in the case of a woman.

All who have incurred [the penalty of] kareth, on being flogged are exempt from their punishment of kareth, for it says, “[He may be given up to forty lashes, but not more] ... lest your brother shall be dishonored before your eyes” (Deut. 25;3) once he has been lashed he is [considered] “your brother”, the words of Rabbi Hananiah ben Gamaliel. Rabbi Hananiah ben Gamaliel said: “Just as one who transgresses one transgression forfeits his life, how much more does one who performs one commandment have his life granted him.” Rabbi Shimon says: “You can learn this from its own passage; as it says: “[All who do any of those abhorrent things] such persons shall be cut off from their people” (Lev. 18:29), and it says: “You shall keep my statutes and my ordinances which if a man do, he shall live by them” (Lev. 18:5), which means that one who desists from transgressing is granted reward like one who performs a precept. Rabbi Shimon bar Rabbi says: Behold [the Torah] says, “But makes sure that you do not partake of the blood; for the blood is the life, and you must not consume the life with the flesh…[that it may go well with you and with your descendents to come..” (Deut. 12:23-25”-- now, if in the case of blood which a person’s soul loathes, anyone who refrains from it receives reward, how much more so in regard to robbery and sexual sin for which a person’s soul craves and longs shall one who refrains from them acquire merit for himself and for generations and generations to come, to the end of all generations!

“I swear I shall not eat,” and he ate foods which are not fit to be eaten, and drank liquids which are not fit to be drunk, he is exempt. “I swear I shall not eat,” and he ate carrion, trefot, and reptiles and creepy things, he is liable. Rabbi Shimon exempts him. He said, “I vow that my wife shall not benefit from me, if I have eaten today,” and he had eaten carrion, trefot, forbidden animals, or reptiles, his wife is prohibited to him.

If he swore to annul a commandment, and did not annul it, he is exempt. [If he swore] to fulfill [a commandment], and did not fulfill it, he is exempt. For it would have been logical [in the second instance] that he should have been liable, as is the opinion of Rabbi Judah ben Bathyra. [For] Rabbi Judah ben Bathyra said, “Now, if for [swearing with regards to] an optional matter, for which he is not adjured from Mount Sinai, he is liable [should he not fulfill his oath], for [swearing with regards to] a commandment, for which he is adjured from Mount Sinai, he should most certainly be liable [should he not fulfill his oath]! They said to him: “No! If you say that for an oath with regards to an optional matter [he is liable], it is because [Scripture] has in that case made negative equal to positive [for liability]; But how can you say that for an oath [to fulfill] a commandment [he is liable], since [Scripture] has not in that case made negative equal to positive, for if he swore to annul [a commandment], and did not annul it, he is exempt!

If he swore to annul a commandment, and did not annul it, he is exempt. [If he swore] to fulfill [a commandment], and did not fulfill it, he is exempt. For it would have been logical [in the second instance] that he should have been liable, as is the opinion of Rabbi Judah ben Bathyra. [For] Rabbi Judah ben Bathyra said, “Now, if for [swearing with regards to] an optional matter, for which he is not adjured from Mount Sinai, he is liable [should he not fulfill his oath], for [swearing with regards to] a commandment, for which he is adjured from Mount Sinai, he should most certainly be liable [should he not fulfill his oath]! They said to him: “No! If you say that for an oath with regards to an optional matter [he is liable], it is because [Scripture] has in that case made negative equal to positive [for liability]; But how can you say that for an oath [to fulfill] a commandment [he is liable], since [Scripture] has not in that case made negative equal to positive, for if he swore to annul [a commandment], and did not annul it, he is exempt!

If he swore to annul a commandment, and did not annul it, he is exempt. [If he swore] to fulfill [a commandment], and did not fulfill it, he is exempt. For it would have been logical [in the second instance] that he should have been liable, as is the opinion of Rabbi Judah ben Bathyra. [For] Rabbi Judah ben Bathyra said, “Now, if for [swearing with regards to] an optional matter, for which he is not adjured from Mount Sinai, he is liable [should he not fulfill his oath], for [swearing with regards to] a commandment, for which he is adjured from Mount Sinai, he should most certainly be liable [should he not fulfill his oath]! They said to him: “No! If you say that for an oath with regards to an optional matter [he is liable], it is because [Scripture] has in that case made negative equal to positive [for liability]; But how can you say that for an oath [to fulfill] a commandment [he is liable], since [Scripture] has not in that case made negative equal to positive, for if he swore to annul [a commandment], and did not annul it, he is exempt!

“I swear I shall not eat this loaf”; “I swear I shall not eat it”; “I swear I shall not eat it”; and he ate it, he is liable only once. This is the oath of utterance, for which one is liable, for its willful transgression, flogging; and for its unwitting transgression, a sliding scale sacrifice. For a vain oath one is liable for willful transgression, flogging, and for unwitting transgression one is exempt.

What is a vain oath? If he swore that which is contrary to the facts known to people, saying of a pillar of stone that it is of gold; or of a man that he is a woman; or of a woman that she is a man. If he swore concerning a thing which is impossible, [for instance if he said,] “If I have not seen a camel flying in the air”, or “If I have not seen a serpent as thick as the beam of the olive press”. If he said to witnesses, “Come and bear testimony for me”, [and they replied,] “We swear that we will not bear testimony for you”. If he swore to annul a commandment, [for example] not to make a sukkah, or not to take a lulav, or not to put on tefillin. These are vain oaths, for which one is liable, for intentional transgression, lashes, and for unintentional transgression one is exempt.

A vain oath applies to men and women, to relatives and non-relatives, to those qualified [to bear witness] and those not qualified, [whether uttered] before the court, or not before the court, [but it must be uttered] with a man's own mouth. And he is liable, for intentional transgression, stripes, and for unintentional transgression he is exempt. [In the case of] both this and that [oath], if he was adjured by the mouth of others, he is liable. How so? If he said, “I have not eaten today,” or, “I have not put on tefillin today” [and the another person said,] “I adjure thee,” and he said, “Amen!”, he is liable [if his oath was false].

The oath of testimony: How is it done? If he said to two [persons]: “Come and bear testimony for me”; [and they replied:] “We swear we know no testimony for you”; Or they said to him: “We know no testimony for you”, [and he said:] “I adjure you” and they said, “Amen! “, they are liable. If he adjured them five times outside the court, and the they came to the court and admitted [knowledge of testimony], they are exempt. If they denied, they are liable for each [oath]. If he adjured them five times before the court, and they denied [knowledge of testimony], they are liable only once. Said Rabbi Shimon: “What is the reason? Because they cannot afterwards admit [knowledge].

If both [persons] denied [knowledge] together, they are both liable. If one after another, the first is liable, and the second exempt. If one denied, and the other admitted, the one who denied is liable. If there were two sets of witnesses, and the first denied, and then the second denied, they are both liable, because the testimony could be upheld by [either of] the two.

"I adjure you that you come and bear testimony for me that I am a priest, or, that I am a levite, or, that I am not the son of a divorced woman, or, that I am not the son of a halutzah; That so-and-so is a priest, or, that so-and-so is a levite, or, that he is not the son of a divorced woman, or, that he is not the son of a halutzah; That so-and-so violated his daughter, or seduced his daughter; That my son injured me; That my neighbor injured me, or set fire to my haystack on the Sabbath" [And they deny knowledge of testimony] they are exempt.

[If a man said,] “I adjure you that you come and bear testimony for me that so-and-so promised to give me two hundred zuz, and did not give me”, they are exempt, for they are liable only for a money claim as [in the case of] deposit.

“I adjure you that, when you know any testimony for me, you should come and bear testimony for me,” they are exempt, because the oath preceded the testimony.

[If] he stood in the synagogue and said, “I adjure you that if you know any testimony for me you should come and bear testimony for me”, they are exempt unless he directs himself to them.

If he said to two [persons]: “I adjure you, so-and-so and so-and-so, that if you know any testimony for me you should come and bear testimony for me”: [And they replied,] “We swear we know no testimony for you”, and they did know testimony for him, [but it was evidence of] one witness from the mouth of another witness; or if one of them was a relative or [otherwise] ineligible [as a witness], they are exempt.

If he sent by the hand of his servant, or if the defendant said to them: “I adjure you that if you know any testimony for him you should come and bear testimony for him”, they are exempt, until they hear [the adjuration] direct from the claimant.

[If he said]: "I adjure you"; "I command you"; "I bind you"; they are liable. "By heaven and earth!", they are exempt. "By Alef Daleth"; "By Yod He"; "By God Almighty"; "By The Lord of Hosts; "By the Merciful and Gracious one"; "By the Long Suffering One"; "By the One Abounding in Kindness"; or by any of the substitutes [for the name], they are liable. He who blasphemes by any of them is liable, according to the words of Rabbi Meir. And the Sages exempt him. He who curses his father or mother by any of them is liable according to the words of Rabbi Meir. And the Sages exempt him. He who curses himself or his neighbor by any of them transgresses a negative precept. [If he said,] "May God smite you"; or "Yea, may God smite you"; this is the curse written in the Torah. "May [God] not smite you"; or "May he bless you"; Or "May he do good unto you [if you bear testimony for me]": Rabbi Meir makes [them] liable, and the Sages exempt [them].

[If he said]: "I adjure you"; "I command you"; "I bind you"; they are liable. "By heaven and earth!", they are exempt. "By Alef Daleth"; "By Yod He"; "By God Almighty"; "By The Lord of Hosts; "By the Merciful and Gracious one"; "By the Long Suffering One"; "By the One Abounding in Kindness"; or by any of the substitutes [for the name], they are liable. He who blasphemes by any of them is liable, according to the words of Rabbi Meir. And the Sages exempt him. He who curses his father or mother by any of them is liable according to the words of Rabbi Meir. And the Sages exempt him. He who curses himself or his neighbor by any of them transgresses a negative precept. [If he said,] "May God smite you"; or "Yea, may God smite you"; this is the curse written in the Torah. "May [God] not smite you"; or "May he bless you"; Or "May he do good unto you [if you bear testimony for me]": Rabbi Meir makes [them] liable, and the Sages exempt [them].

[If he said]: "I adjure you"; "I command you"; "I bind you"; they are liable. "By heaven and earth!", they are exempt. "By Alef Daleth"; "By Yod He"; "By God Almighty"; "By The Lord of Hosts; "By the Merciful and Gracious one"; "By the Long Suffering One"; "By the One Abounding in Kindness"; or by any of the substitutes [for the name], they are liable. He who blasphemes by any of them is liable, according to the words of Rabbi Meir. And the Sages exempt him. He who curses his father or mother by any of them is liable according to the words of Rabbi Meir. And the Sages exempt him. He who curses himself or his neighbor by any of them transgresses a negative precept. [If he said,] "May God smite you"; or "Yea, may God smite you"; this is the curse written in the Torah. "May [God] not smite you"; or "May he bless you"; Or "May he do good unto you [if you bear testimony for me]": Rabbi Meir makes [them] liable, and the Sages exempt [them].