exempts

A zav who has had a seminal emission and a niddah from whom semen escapes and a woman who becomes niddah during intercourse require a mikveh. Rabbi Judah exempts them.

If they brought in front of him salted food at the beginning of the meal and bread with it, he blesses over the salted food and thereby exempts the bread, since the bread is ancillary to it. This is the general principle: whenever there is one kind of food that is the main [food] and another that is ancillary, he blesses over the main food and thereby exempts the ancillary.

If they brought in front of him salted food at the beginning of the meal and bread with it, he blesses over the salted food and thereby exempts the bread, since the bread is ancillary to it. This is the general principle: whenever there is one kind of food that is the main [food] and another that is ancillary, he blesses over the main food and thereby exempts the ancillary.

Onions grown for their seed are liable for peah. But Rabbi Yose exempts them. Plots of onions [growing] between vegetables: Rabbi Yose says: peah must be given from each [plot]. But the sages say: from one [plot] for all.

If a man bought [grain from an am haaretz] to be used for seed or for animal [feed], flour for hides, oil for a lamp, or oil for greasing utensils, it is exempt from [the rules of] demai. [Produce grown] beyond Cheziv and north is exempt from [the rules of] demai. The hallah of an am haaretz, produce mixed with terumah, produce bought with second tithe money, and the leftovers of minhah offerings are exempt from [the rules of] demai. Oil spiced [with spices from an am haaretz]: Bet Shammai makes it liable [to the rules of demai]. But Bet Hillel exempts it.

The person driving [the two different animals yoked together] receives the forty [lashes]. And the person sitting in the wagon receives the forty [lashes]. But Rabbi Meir exempts [the latter]. [The tying of] a third [animal different from the two already harnessed to a wagon] to the straps [of those animals] is prohibited.

Terumah given by a non-Jew or a Samaritan is terumah and their tithes are tithes and their dedications [to the Temple] are dedications. Rabbi Judah says: the law of the vineyard in the fourth year is not applicable to a non-Jew. But the sages say: it is. The terumah of a non-Jew renders [produce into which it falls] medumma and [one who eats it unwittingly] is obligated [to pay back an extra] fifth. But Rabbi Shimon exempts it.

If there were two baskets, one of terumah and one of hullin, and a seah of terumah fell into one of them, but it is not known into which, behold I can assume that it had fallen into that of the terumah. [Two baskets] and it is not known which was of terumah and which of hullin, and he eats from one of them, he is exempt, and the second basket is treated as terumah and subject to the laws of hallah, the words of Rabbi Meir. But Rabbi Yose exempts it. If another person eats from the second basket he is exempt. If one man ate of both, he must repay the value of the smaller of the two.

If one of these [baskets] fell into hullin, it does not render it medumma (doubtful terumah), but the second is treated as terumah and subject to the law of hallah, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yose exempts it. If the second falls elsewhere [into hullin] it does not render it medumma. If both of them fall into one place, they render it medumma according to [the proportion] of the smaller of the two.

If he used one of these [baskets] as seed, he is exempt, and the second is treated as if it were terumah and subject to the law of hallah, the words of Rabbi Meir. But Rabbi Yose exempts it. If another person uses the second as seed, then he is exempt. If one man uses both as seed, if it is of a kind whose seed disintegrates [in the ground] it is permissible, but if it is of the kind whose seed does not disintegrate it is prohibited.

If a woman was eating terumah, and they came and said to her, “Your husband is dead”, or “He divorced you.” Or, if a slave was eating terumah, and they came and said to him: “Your master is dead”, or “He sold you to an Israelite”, or “He gave you away as a gift”, or “He emancipated you.” So too, if a priest was eating terumah and it became known that he was the son of a divorced woman or a halutzah (a woman released from levirate marriage): Rabbi Eliezer says: they must repay both the value and the fifth. But Rabbi Joshua exempts them [from the added fifth]. If [a priest] was standing and sacrificing on the altar and it became known that he was the son of a divorced woman or a halutzah: Rabbi Eliezer says: all the sacrifices he had offered on the altar are disqualified. But Rabbi Joshua pronounces them valid. If it, however, it became known that he possessed a blemish, his service is disqualified.

[A non-priest drank] honey of dates, wine of apples, vinegar from winter grapes, and all other kinds of fruit juice of terumah: Rabbi Eliezer makes him liable to repay their value and the fifth; But Rabbi Joshua exempts from the fifth. Rabbi Eliezer declares [these] susceptible to uncleanness as liquids. Rabbi Joshua says: the sages have not enumerated seven liquids as those that count spices, but rather they stated: seven liquids make things susceptible to uncleaness, whereas all other liquids do not make susceptible.

With regard to when vegetables [are liable to tithes]: Cucumbers, gourds, water-melons, cucumber-melons, apples and etrogs are liable [for tithes], whether gathered in the earlier or later stages of ripening. Rabbi Shimon exempts the etrog in the earlier stages. The condition in which bitter almonds are liable [to tithes] is exempt in the case of sweet almonds, and the condition in which sweet almonds are liable [to tithe] is exempt in the case of bitter almonds.

If they were sitting at the gate or a shop, and one said [to them], “Take for yourselves figs,” they may eat and be exempt from tithes, but the owner of the gate, or the owner of the shop, is liable [to give tithe]. Rabbi Judah exempts him unless he turns his face or changes the place where he was sitting [and selling].

Meisah: Bet Shammai exempts [from hallah], And Bet Hillel makes liable [for hallah]. Halita: Bet Shammai makes liable, And Bet Hillel exempts. The loaves of the thanksgiving sacrifice and the wafers of a nazirite: if one made them for oneself, they are exempt [from hallah]. [If one made them] to sell in the market, they are subject [to hallah].

Meisah: Bet Shammai exempts [from hallah], And Bet Hillel makes liable [for hallah]. Halita: Bet Shammai makes liable, And Bet Hillel exempts. The loaves of the thanksgiving sacrifice and the wafers of a nazirite: if one made them for oneself, they are exempt [from hallah]. [If one made them] to sell in the market, they are subject [to hallah].

Two [separate] kavs [of dough], this one had its hallah removed on its own, and this one had its hallah removed on its own, and then he went back and made of them one dough: Rabbi Akiva exempts; But the sages make it liable. It turns out that the stringency of his [first] ruling leads to the leniency of his other ruling.

There are [laws] which apply to [second tithe] and bikkurim but not to terumah: That [second] tithe and bikkurim must to be brought to [the appointed] place; They require confession; They are forbidden to an onen. But Rabbi Shimon permits [bikkurim to an onen]; They are subject to [the law of] removal. But Rabbi Shimon exempts [bikkurim from removal]. And in Jerusalem the slightest mixture of them [with hullin of the same species] renders it forbidden to be consumed [as common food outside of Jerusalem.] And what grows from them in Jerusalem is forbidden to be consumed [outside of Jerusalem], Even by non-priests or by cattle; But Rabbi Shimon permits. These are [the laws] which apply to [second] tithe and bikkurim, but not to terumah.

And how is [the koy] similar to a behemah (a domesticated beast)? Its fat (helev) is prohibited like the fat of a behemah, but one [who eats it] is not liable for karet. It may not be bought with the money from second tithe to be eaten in Jerusalem. It is subject to [the priest’s share of] the shoulder, the two cheeks and the maw. Rabbi Eliezer exempts it because the burden of proof is upon the one who extracts from his neighbor.

One who extinguishes the lamp because he is afraid of non-Jews, robbers, or an evil spirit, or so that a sick person may sleep, he is exempt. If [he does so because] he wants to spare the lamp, the oil, or the wick, he is liable. Rabbi Yose exempts in all cases, except for the wick, because he makes charcoal.

If one carries out a loaf into the public domain, he is liable. If two carry it out, both are exempt. If one could not carry it out and two carry it out, they are liable; But Rabbi Shimon exempts [them]. If one carries out less than the standard quantity of food in a utensil, he is not liable for the utensil, because the utensil is secondary to the [food]. [If one carries out] a living person on a bed, he is not liable even in respect of the bed, because the bed is secondary to him. A corpse in a bed, he is liable. And similarly [if one carries out] the size of an olive of a corpse, the size of an olive of a nevelah, or the size of a lentil of a [dead] creeping thing, he is liable. But Rabbi Shimon exempts him.

If one carries out a loaf into the public domain, he is liable. If two carry it out, both are exempt. If one could not carry it out and two carry it out, they are liable; But Rabbi Shimon exempts [them]. If one carries out less than the standard quantity of food in a utensil, he is not liable for the utensil, because the utensil is secondary to the [food]. [If one carries out] a living person on a bed, he is not liable even in respect of the bed, because the bed is secondary to him. A corpse in a bed, he is liable. And similarly [if one carries out] the size of an olive of a corpse, the size of an olive of a nevelah, or the size of a lentil of a [dead] creeping thing, he is liable. But Rabbi Shimon exempts him.

If one pares his nails with each other or with his teeth, likewise [if one plucks] his hair, likewise his mustache, likewise his beard; And likewise if [a woman] braids [her hair], likewise if she paints [her eyelids] likewise if she puts rouge on [her face]: Rabbi Eliezer makes them liable, But the rabbis forbid [these actions] because of “shevuth.” If one picks [something] from a perforated pot, he is liable. If it is unperforated, he is exempt. Rabbi Shimon exempts in both cases.

If a deer enters a house and one person shuts [the door] before it, he is liable. If two shut it, they are exempt. If one could not shut it, and both shut it, they are liable. Rabbi Shimon exempts them.

If a man has two infants, one to circumcise after Shabbat and the other to circumcise on Shabbat, and he forgets and circumcises the one who should be circumcised after Shabbat on the Shabbat, he is liable. [If he has] one to circumcise on the eve of Shabbat and another to circumcise on Shabbat, and he forgets and circumcises the one who should be circumcised on the eve of Shabbat on Shabbat: Rabbi Eliezer holds [him] liable to a sin-offering, but Rabbi Joshua exempts [him].

If the pesah was slaughtered for a different purpose on Shabbat, he [the slaughterer] is liable to a sin-offering on its account. All other sacrifices which he slaughtered as a pesah: if they are not fit [to be a pesah] he is liable; if they are fit [to be a pesah]: Rabbi Eliezer makes him liable to a sin-offering, But Rabbi Joshua exempts him. Rabbi Eliezer said to him: if for the pesah, which it is permitted [to slaughter] for its own purpose, yet when he changes its purpose he is liable; then [other] sacrifices, which are forbidden [to slaughter even] for their own purpose, if he changes their purpose is it not logical that he should be liable. Rabbi Joshua said to him: not so. If you say [with regard to] the pesah, [he is liable] because he changed it to something that is forbidden; will you say [the same] of [other] sacrifices, where he changed them for something that is permitted? Rabbi Eliezer said to him: let the community sacrifices prove it, which are permitted for their own sake, yet he who slaughters [other sacrifices] in their name is liable. Rabbi Joshua said to him: not so. If you say [with regard to] the public sacrifices, [that is] because they have a limit; will you say [the same] of the pesah, which has no limit? Rabbi Meir says: he too who slaughters [other sacrifices] in the name of public sacrifice is not liable.

The pesah which comes in impurity: zavin and zavot, menstruant women and women after childbirth do not eat from it, yet if they did eat they are exempt from karet. Rabbi Eliezer exempts [them] even [of the karet normally incurred] for entering the sanctuary.

The pesah defiles one’s hands after midnight. Piggul and remnant defile one’s hands. If he recited the blessing for the pesah, he thereby exempts the sacrifice [the hagigah]; [but] if he recited the blessing for the sacrifice [the hagigah], he does not exempt the pesah, the words of Rabbi Ishmael. Rabbi Akiva says: this does not exempt that nor does that exempt this.

One who borrows a vessel from his neighbor on the eve of Yom Tov, [it is restricted to the same limits] as the feet of the borrower. [But if he borrowed it] on Yom Tov, it is as the feet of the lender. A woman who borrowed from her neighbor spices, water or salt for her dough, these are [restricted to the same limits] as the feet of both them. Rabbi Judah exempts in the case of water, because it is not substantial.

If one has any kind of brother, [that brother] requires his brother’s wife to have yibbum, and he is his brother in every respect, except for a brother born from a female slave or a non-Jewish woman. If one has any kind of son, [that son] exempts his father’s wife from yibbum, and he is liable for striking or cursing [his father], and he is his son in every respect, except for the son of a female slave or a non-Jewish woman.

Three brothers: two of whom were married to two sisters, or to a woman and her daughter, or to a woman and her daughter’s daughter, or to a woman and her son’s daughter, behold, these must perform halitzah but may not be taken in yibbum. Rabbi Shimon exempts them. If one of them was forbidden to him by a prohibition of incest, he is forbidden to marry her but is permitted to marry her sister. If the prohibition is due to a commandment or to holiness, they must perform halitzah but may not be taken in yibbum.

If four brothers were married to four women, and they died, if the eldest [surviving brother] desires he may contract yibbum with all of them. If a man was married to two women and died, sexual relations or halitzah with one of them exempts her rival. If one of them was eligible [to marry a priest] and one ineligible [to marry a priest], then if he performs halitzah it should be to her who is ineligible, and if he contracts yibbum it may be with her who is eligible.

A woman whose husband had gone to a country beyond the sea and they came and told her, “Your husband died”, married, and then her husband returned: She must leave this one and that one, and she also requires a get from this one and that one. She has no ketubah, no usufruct, no support money or worn clothes, neither from this one nor from that one. If she has taken anything from this one or that one, she must return it. The child from this one or that one is a mamzer. Neither this one nor that one may impurify himself for her. Neither this one and that one has a claim to whatever she may find, nor what she makes with her hands, nor to invalidate her vows. If she was the daughter of an Israelite, she becomes disqualified from marrying a priest; if the daughter of a Levite, from the eating of tithe; and if the daughter of a priest, from the eating of terumah. Neither the heirs of this one nor the heirs of that one are entitled to inherit her ketubah. And if [the husbands] die, the brother of the one and the brother of the other must perform halitzah, but may not contract yibbum. Rabbi Yose said: her ketubah remains a charge upon the estate of her first husband. Rabbi Elazar said: the first husband is entitled to whatever she may find, and what she makes with her hands, and also has the right to invalidate her vows. Rabbi Shimon said: intercourse or halitzah with the brother of the first husband exempts her rival, and the child from him is not a bastard. If she married without an authorization, she may return to him.

If she married with the authorization of the court, she must leave, but is exempt from bringing a sacrifice. If she married without the authorization of the court, she must leave and is liable to bring a sacrifice. The authority of the court is thus more greater in that it exempts her from the sacrifice. If the court ruled that she may be married and she went and disgraced herself, she must bring a sacrifice, because the court permitted her only to marry.

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.

Any matter of doubt regarding [leprous affliction] at the outset is clean before a decision is made [to declare it] unclean. Once a decision has been made [to declare it] unclean, any matter of doubt is regarded as unclean. A person suffering from gonorrhea (a is examined regarding seven things, before it has been decided that it is gonorrhea: With regard to food, drink, carrying things, jumping, sickness, something seen, or an impure thought. Once gonorrhea is established, he is no longer examined. [Any flux resulting] from an accident to him, doubtful [flux] and his semen are unclean, for there are grounds for this assumption. If a one strikes his fellow, and they expected him to die and he partially recovered and then grew worse and died [the other] is liable [for murder]. Rabbi Nehemiah exempts him, for there are grounds for this assumption.

If a man stole [an ox or a sheep] according to the evidence of two witnesses and killed it or sold it according to the evidence of two others, he must make fourfold or fivefold restitution. If a man stole [an ox or a sheep] and sold it on the Sabbath, or stole it and sold it for idolatrous use or stole it and slaughtered it on the Day of Atonement; if he stole what was his father’s and slaughtered it or sold it, and afterward his father died; if he stole it and slaughtered it and then he dedicated it to the Temple he must make fourfold or fivefold restitution. If he stole it and then killed it for use in healing, or for food for dogs; or if he slaughtered it and it was found to be terefah, or if he slaughtered it in the Temple Court [intending to eat it] as common food, he must make fourfold or fivefold restitution. In these last two cases Rabbi Shimon exempts.

“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.

“You raped or seduced my daughter” and the other says, “I did not rape, nor seduce,” “I adjure you,” and he responds, “Amen!” he is liable. Rabbi Shimon exempts him, for he does not pay a fine on his own admission. They said to him: “Even though he does not pay a fine on his own admission, he still pays for the shame and blemish [to the girl], based on his own admission.

One who takes a vow not to have intercourse with his wife: Beth Shammai says: [after] two weeks [he must divorce her and pay her kethubah], And Beth Hillel say: after one week. A woman has a miscarriage on the eve of the eighty first [day]: Beth Shammai exempt her from bringing the offering, And Beth Hillel do not exempt her. [With regards to the rules of] tzitzit (fringes) on linen sheet: Beth Shammai exempts, And Beth Hillel does not exempt. A basket of [fruit set aside for] the Sabbath: Beth Shammai exempts it [from tithes]. And Beth Hillel does not exempt it.

One who takes a vow not to have intercourse with his wife: Beth Shammai says: [after] two weeks [he must divorce her and pay her kethubah], And Beth Hillel say: after one week. A woman has a miscarriage on the eve of the eighty first [day]: Beth Shammai exempt her from bringing the offering, And Beth Hillel do not exempt her. [With regards to the rules of] tzitzit (fringes) on linen sheet: Beth Shammai exempts, And Beth Hillel does not exempt. A basket of [fruit set aside for] the Sabbath: Beth Shammai exempts it [from tithes]. And Beth Hillel does not exempt it.

Rabbi Yose says: there are six instances of lenient rulings by Beth Shammai and stringent rulings by Beth Hillel. A fowl may be put on a table [together] with cheese but may not be eaten [with it], according to the opinion of Beth Shammai. But Beth Hillel says: it may neither be put on [the table together with it] nor eaten [with it]. Olives may be given as terumah for oil and grapes for wine, according to the opinion of Beth Shammai. But Beth Hillel says: they may not be given. One who sows seed [within] four cubits of a vineyard: Beth Shammai says: he has caused one row [of vines] to be prohibited. But Beth Hillel says: he has caused two rows to be prohibited. Flour paste [flour that had been mixed with boiling water]: Beth Shammai exempts [from the law of hallah]; But Beth Hillel pronounces it liable. One may immerse oneself in a rain-torrent, according to the opinion of Beth Shammai; But Beth Hillel say: one may not immerse oneself [therein]. One who became a proselyte on the eve of Passover: Beth Shammai says: he may immerse himself and eat his Passover sacrifice in the evening. But Beth Hillel says: one who separates himself from uncircumcision is as one who separates himself from the grave.

If a court ruled, and later discovered that they had erred and changed their decision, whether they brought their offering or whether they did not bring their offering, if an individual proceeded and acted in accordance with their [erroneous] decision, Rabbi Shimon exempts him and Rabb Elazar declares [his case] doubtful. Which case may be regarded doubtful? If he was at home, he is liable. If he went abroad, he is exempt. Rabbi Akiba said: I agree that a person in such a case is nearer to exemption than to culpability. Said Ben Azzai to him: how does such a person differ from one who remains at home? He who remains at home is in a position to ascertain the facts but the other was not in such a position.

In regard to both valid sacrifices or invalid sacrifices which had become unfit within [the Temple]: if one offers them outside, he is liable. If one offers up outside [the Temple] as much as an olive’s worth of an olah and its innards [combined], he is liable. As for the fistful [of flour], the frankincense, the incense, the priests’ meal-offering, the anointed priest’s meal-offering, and the meal offering of libations, if [one] offered up as much as an olive of one of these outside, he is liable. But Rabbi Elazar exempts him unless he offers up the whole of them. In all of these cases, if they offered them within, and left over an olive’s worth and one offered it outside, he is liable. In all of these cases, if they became lacking something, and one offered them outside, he is not liable.

If one nips a bird [offering] inside and offers it up outside, he is liable; If one nips it outside and offers it up outside, he is exempt. If one slaughters a bird inside and offers it up outside, he is exempt. If one slaughters [it] outside and offers [it] up outside, he is liable. Thus its prescribed rite inside exempts him [if he does it] outside, while its prescribed rite outside exempts him [if he does it] inside. Rabbi Shimon says: whatever he is liable for outside, he is liable in similar circumstances inside when one [subsequently] offers it up outside; except when one slaughters [a bird] inside and offers [it] up outside.

If one nips a bird [offering] inside and offers it up outside, he is liable; If one nips it outside and offers it up outside, he is exempt. If one slaughters a bird inside and offers it up outside, he is exempt. If one slaughters [it] outside and offers [it] up outside, he is liable. Thus its prescribed rite inside exempts him [if he does it] outside, while its prescribed rite outside exempts him [if he does it] inside. Rabbi Shimon says: whatever he is liable for outside, he is liable in similar circumstances inside when one [subsequently] offers it up outside; except when one slaughters [a bird] inside and offers [it] up outside.

As for a hatat whose blood was received in one goblet: If one [first] sprinkled [the blood] outside and then sprinkled [it] inside; [Or] inside and then outside, he is liable, because the whole of it was eligible inside. If the blood was received in two goblets: If he sprinkled both inside, he is exempt; Both outside, he is liable. One inside and one outside, he is exempt; One outside and one inside, he is liable on account of the one outside, while the one inside makes atonement. To what may this be compared? To one who set aside [an animal for] a hatat, then it was lost, and he set aside another in its place; then the first was found, and [so] both are present. If he slaughtered both of them inside, he is exempt; Both of them outside, he is liable. [If he slaughtered] one inside and one outside, he is exempt; One outside and one inside, he is liable on account of the one outside, while the one inside makes atonement. Just as the blood exempts its own flesh, so does it exempt the flesh of its companion [the other animal].

If a person slaughtered [an animal] and it was found to be terefah, or if he slaughtered [it as an offering] to idols, or if he slaughtered the red cow, or an ox which was condemned to be stoned, or a heifer whose neck was to be broken: Rabbi Shimon exempts [him from having transgressed the law of “it and its young”]; but the sages make him liable. If a person slaughtered [an animal] and it became nevelah under his hand, or if he stabbed it, or tore away [the organs of the throat], he does not thereby transgress the law of it and its young. If two people bought a cow and its young, he who bought first can slaughter first; but if the second preceded him, he holds his advantage. If a person slaughtered a cow and then two of its calves, he is liable for eighty lashes. If he slaughtered its two calves and then the cow, he is liable for forty lashes. If he slaughtered it and then its calf and then the calf's offspring, he is liable for eighty lashes. If he slaughtered it and then its calf's offspring and then the calf, he is liable for forty lashes. Symmachos says in the name of Rabbi Meir: he is liable for eighty lashes. At four periods in the year he who sells a beast to another must inform him, “I sold today its mother to be slaughtered,” or “I sold today its young to be slaughtered,” and these are they: on the eve of the last day of the feast [of Sukkot], on the eve of the first day of Pesah, on the eve of Shavuot, and on the eve of Rosh Hashanah. According to Rabbi Yose the Galilean, also on the eve of Yom Kippur, in the Galilee. Rabbi Judah says, this is so, only when there was no time in between the sales, but if there was time, he need not inform him. Rabbi Judah agrees that if he sold the mother to the bridegroom and the young to the bride, he must inform them of it, for it is certain that they will each slaughter on the same day.

If a ewe which never before had given birth bore two males and both heads came forth simultaneously: Rabbi Yose the Galilean says: both belong to the priest for scripture says: “The males shall be the Lord’s” (Exodus 13:12). But the sages say: it is impossible, therefore one remains [with the Israelite] and the other is for the priest. Rabbi Tarfon says: the priest chooses the better one. Rabbi Akiva says: we compromise between them. The second one [in the Israelite's possession] is left to pasture until it becomes blemished and the owner is liable for the [priest's] gifts. Rabbi Yose exempts him. If one of them died: Rabbi Tarfon says: they divide [the living one]. Rabbi Akiva says: the burden of proof is upon the claimant. If it gave birth to a male and a female, the priest receives nothing [in such circumstances].

If two ewes which had never previously given birth bore two males, both belong to the priest. [If they gave birth] to a male and a female, the male belongs to the priest. [If they gave birth] to two males and a female, one remains with him, and the other belongs to the priest. Rabbi Tarfon says: the priest chooses the better one. Rabbi Akiva says: we compromise between them. The second one [in the Israelite's possession] is left to pasture until it becomes blemished and the owner is liable for the [priest's] gifts. Rabbi Yose exempts him. If one of them died: Rabbi Tarfon says: they divide [the living one]. Rabbi Akiva says: the burden of proof is upon the claimant. [If they gave birth to] two females and a male or two males and two females, the priest receives nothing in such circumstances.

If one [of the ewes] had given birth and the other had never previously given birth and they bore two males, one remains with him and the other belongs to the priest. Rabbi Tarfon says: the priest chooses the better one. Rabbi Akiva says: we compromise between them. The second one [in the Israelite's possession] is left to pasture until it becomes blemished and the owner is liable for the [priest's] gifts. Rabbi Yose exempts him. For Rabbi Yose says: wherever the priest receives [an animal] in its place, he is exempt from the priestly gifts. Rabbi Meir however makes him liable. If one of them died: Rabbi Tarfon says: they divide [the living one]. Rabbi Akiva says: the burden of proof is upon the claimant. If they gave birth to a male and a female, the priest receives nothing [in such circumstances].

Just as a person who ate forbidden fat twice in one spell of unawareness is liable to only one hatat, so too, when the transgression is in doubt, he is liable to only one asham talui. If in the meantime he became aware [of the possible sin] he is liable to a separate asham talui for each act, just as he would [in similar circumstances] be liable to a separate hatat for each act. Just as one is liable to separate hatats if he ate, in one spell of unawareness, forbidden fat and blood and piggul and notar, so, too, when the transgression is in doubt, he is liable to an asham talui for each different act. [If both] forbidden fat and notar lay before a person and he ate one of them but does not know which; Or if his menstruant wife and his sister were with him in his house and he has sex unwittingly with one of them and does not know with which, Or if Shabbat and Yom Kippur [followed each other] and he did forbidden work at twilight and does not know on which day: Rabbi Eliezer declares him liable to a hatat; But Rabbi Joshua exempts him. Rabbi Yose said: they did not dispute about a person that did work at twilight, for he is certainly exempt, for I may assume that part of the work was done on the one day and part on the following day. About what did they dispute? About one who did work during the day itself but he did not know whether he did it on Shabbat or on Yom Kippur, or if he did work and did not know what manner of work he did: Rabbi Eliezer declares him liable to a hatat; But Rabbi Joshua exempts him. Rabbi Judah said: Rabbi Joshua exempts him even from an asham talui.

Just as a person who ate forbidden fat twice in one spell of unawareness is liable to only one hatat, so too, when the transgression is in doubt, he is liable to only one asham talui. If in the meantime he became aware [of the possible sin] he is liable to a separate asham talui for each act, just as he would [in similar circumstances] be liable to a separate hatat for each act. Just as one is liable to separate hatats if he ate, in one spell of unawareness, forbidden fat and blood and piggul and notar, so, too, when the transgression is in doubt, he is liable to an asham talui for each different act. [If both] forbidden fat and notar lay before a person and he ate one of them but does not know which; Or if his menstruant wife and his sister were with him in his house and he has sex unwittingly with one of them and does not know with which, Or if Shabbat and Yom Kippur [followed each other] and he did forbidden work at twilight and does not know on which day: Rabbi Eliezer declares him liable to a hatat; But Rabbi Joshua exempts him. Rabbi Yose said: they did not dispute about a person that did work at twilight, for he is certainly exempt, for I may assume that part of the work was done on the one day and part on the following day. About what did they dispute? About one who did work during the day itself but he did not know whether he did it on Shabbat or on Yom Kippur, or if he did work and did not know what manner of work he did: Rabbi Eliezer declares him liable to a hatat; But Rabbi Joshua exempts him. Rabbi Judah said: Rabbi Joshua exempts him even from an asham talui.

Just as a person who ate forbidden fat twice in one spell of unawareness is liable to only one hatat, so too, when the transgression is in doubt, he is liable to only one asham talui. If in the meantime he became aware [of the possible sin] he is liable to a separate asham talui for each act, just as he would [in similar circumstances] be liable to a separate hatat for each act. Just as one is liable to separate hatats if he ate, in one spell of unawareness, forbidden fat and blood and piggul and notar, so, too, when the transgression is in doubt, he is liable to an asham talui for each different act. [If both] forbidden fat and notar lay before a person and he ate one of them but does not know which; Or if his menstruant wife and his sister were with him in his house and he has sex unwittingly with one of them and does not know with which, Or if Shabbat and Yom Kippur [followed each other] and he did forbidden work at twilight and does not know on which day: Rabbi Eliezer declares him liable to a hatat; But Rabbi Joshua exempts him. Rabbi Yose said: they did not dispute about a person that did work at twilight, for he is certainly exempt, for I may assume that part of the work was done on the one day and part on the following day. About what did they dispute? About one who did work during the day itself but he did not know whether he did it on Shabbat or on Yom Kippur, or if he did work and did not know what manner of work he did: Rabbi Eliezer declares him liable to a hatat; But Rabbi Joshua exempts him. Rabbi Judah said: Rabbi Joshua exempts him even from an asham talui.

If the flesh of most holy sacrifices was taken out [of the Temple court] before the blood was sprinkled: Rabbi Eliezer says: it is still subject to the laws of sacrilege and one does not become guilty of [transgressing with it the laws of] notar, piggul and defilement. Rabbi Akiba says: it is not subject to the laws of sacrilege and one can become guilty of [transgressing with it the laws of] notar, piggul and defilement. Rabbi Akiba said: if one set aside his hatat and it was lost and he set aside another in its place and afterwards the first was found, and both of them are in front of us, [do you not agree] that just as [the sprinkling of] the blood [of the one] exempts its own flesh [from the laws of sacrilege] so it exempts the flesh of the other one? Now, if the sprinkling of its blood can exempt the flesh of the other from the laws of sacrilege, how much more must it exempt its own flesh.

If the flesh of most holy sacrifices was taken out [of the Temple court] before the blood was sprinkled: Rabbi Eliezer says: it is still subject to the laws of sacrilege and one does not become guilty of [transgressing with it the laws of] notar, piggul and defilement. Rabbi Akiba says: it is not subject to the laws of sacrilege and one can become guilty of [transgressing with it the laws of] notar, piggul and defilement. Rabbi Akiba said: if one set aside his hatat and it was lost and he set aside another in its place and afterwards the first was found, and both of them are in front of us, [do you not agree] that just as [the sprinkling of] the blood [of the one] exempts its own flesh [from the laws of sacrilege] so it exempts the flesh of the other one? Now, if the sprinkling of its blood can exempt the flesh of the other from the laws of sacrilege, how much more must it exempt its own flesh.

A person does not defile [as a corpse] until he dies. Even he is cut up or even if he is about to die, he [still] makes levirate marriage obligatory and exempts from levirate marriage, he feeds [his mother] terumah and disqualifies [his mother] from eating terumah. Similarly in the case of cattle or wild animals, they do not defile until they die. If their heads have been cut off, even though they are moving convulsively, they are unclean, like a lizard's tail, which moves convulsively.

A girl one day old defiles due to menstruation. A girl ten days old defiles due to zivah. A boy one day old defiles due to zivah, and defiles due to scale disease and due to corpse uncleanness; He subjects [his deceased brother's widow] to yibbum [levirate marriage]; He exempts [his mother] from yibbum, He enables her to eat terumah And he disqualifies her from eating terumah; He inherits and transmits inheritance; He who kills him is guilty of murder, And he counts to his father, to his mother and to all his relatives as a fully grown man.

There (Mishnah Qiddushin 1:7) we have stated: “Every positive commandment that is activated by time, men are obliged by it but women are exempt. Every positive commandment that is not activated by time, both men and women are obliged by it.” (Tosephta Qiddushin 1:10): “What is a positive commandment that is activated by time? For example sukkah, lulab, shofar, and tefillin. What is a positive commandment that is not activated by time? For example lost articles, sending away the nest, railing, and ẓiẓit. Rebbi Simeon exempts women from ẓiẓit because it is a positive commandment activated by time.” Because a nightgown is exempt from ẓiẓit. Rebbi Lia said: The reason of the rebbbis is that, if a garment is designated both for daytime and for night, it needs ẓiẓit.

“Rebbi Jehudah said, when is this? When the ship touches ground.” Rebbi Ḥaggai said, Rebbi Jehudah follows his opinion since Rebbi Jehudah exempts water, as it has no consistency. Rebbi Abin said, it is more reasonable to assume his opinion changed; if the ship does not touch ground, would it not be as if the ship touched ground? If the ship does not touch ground, its tithes are of practice; one tithes from it for a flower pot without hole and from a flower pot without hole for it, as it was stated: “The tithes from a flower pot without hole are of practice, its heave does not create dema‘ and one does not owe a fifth for it.” Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: If somebody acquires a flower pot with a hole in Syria, even if he did not acquire the earth under it or the ground on which it stands, he acquired it to be obligated for tithes and the Sabbatical, even if it sits on two pegs. Even Rebbi Jehudah will agree with this. What is the difference between this case and that of a ship? A ship rises and falls, this [flower pot] rests in its place.

“Rebbi Aqiba says, all goes after forming a crust in the oven.” The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Rebbi Aqiba agrees with the Sages that rolling the dough of a layman makes it ṭevel. Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Rebbi Aqiba agrees with the Sages that rolling the dough by the Temple exempts. Cahana said, the words of Rebbi Aqiba imply that shaping the heap by the Temple does not exempt. Rebbi Jonah said, that of Rebbi Cahana disagrees with that of Rebbi Eleazar. He who says rolling exempts, [says] shaping exempts. And he who says rolling does not exempt, [says] shaping does not exempt. But according to the rabbis, rolling exempts in the Gentile’s power, shaping does not exempt in the Gentile’s power. It is difficult for the rabbis, if rolling exempts in the Gentile’s power, why does shaping not exempt in the Gentile’s power? There is a difference since it is written (Lev.27:30): “All tithe from the Land from the seed of the Land.” But is here not written (Num. 15:19): “From the bread of the Land?” From the bread, not all bread. Rebbi Ḥanina the son of Rebbi Hillel said, from the rabbis we infer that Cahana’s statement does not disagree with Rebbi Eleazar. Just as the rabbis say, rolling exempts in the Gentile’s power but shaping does not exempt in the Gentile’s power, so Rebbi Aqiba says, rolling does not exempt in the Gentile’s power and shaping does not exempt in the power of the Temple.

“Rebbi Aqiba says, all goes after forming a crust in the oven.” The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Rebbi Aqiba agrees with the Sages that rolling the dough of a layman makes it ṭevel. Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Rebbi Aqiba agrees with the Sages that rolling the dough by the Temple exempts. Cahana said, the words of Rebbi Aqiba imply that shaping the heap by the Temple does not exempt. Rebbi Jonah said, that of Rebbi Cahana disagrees with that of Rebbi Eleazar. He who says rolling exempts, [says] shaping exempts. And he who says rolling does not exempt, [says] shaping does not exempt. But according to the rabbis, rolling exempts in the Gentile’s power, shaping does not exempt in the Gentile’s power. It is difficult for the rabbis, if rolling exempts in the Gentile’s power, why does shaping not exempt in the Gentile’s power? There is a difference since it is written (Lev.27:30): “All tithe from the Land from the seed of the Land.” But is here not written (Num. 15:19): “From the bread of the Land?” From the bread, not all bread. Rebbi Ḥanina the son of Rebbi Hillel said, from the rabbis we infer that Cahana’s statement does not disagree with Rebbi Eleazar. Just as the rabbis say, rolling exempts in the Gentile’s power but shaping does not exempt in the Gentile’s power, so Rebbi Aqiba says, rolling does not exempt in the Gentile’s power and shaping does not exempt in the power of the Temple.

“Rebbi Aqiba says, all goes after forming a crust in the oven.” The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Rebbi Aqiba agrees with the Sages that rolling the dough of a layman makes it ṭevel. Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Rebbi Aqiba agrees with the Sages that rolling the dough by the Temple exempts. Cahana said, the words of Rebbi Aqiba imply that shaping the heap by the Temple does not exempt. Rebbi Jonah said, that of Rebbi Cahana disagrees with that of Rebbi Eleazar. He who says rolling exempts, [says] shaping exempts. And he who says rolling does not exempt, [says] shaping does not exempt. But according to the rabbis, rolling exempts in the Gentile’s power, shaping does not exempt in the Gentile’s power. It is difficult for the rabbis, if rolling exempts in the Gentile’s power, why does shaping not exempt in the Gentile’s power? There is a difference since it is written (Lev.27:30): “All tithe from the Land from the seed of the Land.” But is here not written (Num. 15:19): “From the bread of the Land?” From the bread, not all bread. Rebbi Ḥanina the son of Rebbi Hillel said, from the rabbis we infer that Cahana’s statement does not disagree with Rebbi Eleazar. Just as the rabbis say, rolling exempts in the Gentile’s power but shaping does not exempt in the Gentile’s power, so Rebbi Aqiba says, rolling does not exempt in the Gentile’s power and shaping does not exempt in the power of the Temple.

“Rebbi Aqiba says, all goes after forming a crust in the oven.” The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Rebbi Aqiba agrees with the Sages that rolling the dough of a layman makes it ṭevel. Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Rebbi Aqiba agrees with the Sages that rolling the dough by the Temple exempts. Cahana said, the words of Rebbi Aqiba imply that shaping the heap by the Temple does not exempt. Rebbi Jonah said, that of Rebbi Cahana disagrees with that of Rebbi Eleazar. He who says rolling exempts, [says] shaping exempts. And he who says rolling does not exempt, [says] shaping does not exempt. But according to the rabbis, rolling exempts in the Gentile’s power, shaping does not exempt in the Gentile’s power. It is difficult for the rabbis, if rolling exempts in the Gentile’s power, why does shaping not exempt in the Gentile’s power? There is a difference since it is written (Lev.27:30): “All tithe from the Land from the seed of the Land.” But is here not written (Num. 15:19): “From the bread of the Land?” From the bread, not all bread. Rebbi Ḥanina the son of Rebbi Hillel said, from the rabbis we infer that Cahana’s statement does not disagree with Rebbi Eleazar. Just as the rabbis say, rolling exempts in the Gentile’s power but shaping does not exempt in the Gentile’s power, so Rebbi Aqiba says, rolling does not exempt in the Gentile’s power and shaping does not exempt in the power of the Temple.

“Rebbi Aqiba says, all goes after forming a crust in the oven.” The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Rebbi Aqiba agrees with the Sages that rolling the dough of a layman makes it ṭevel. Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Rebbi Aqiba agrees with the Sages that rolling the dough by the Temple exempts. Cahana said, the words of Rebbi Aqiba imply that shaping the heap by the Temple does not exempt. Rebbi Jonah said, that of Rebbi Cahana disagrees with that of Rebbi Eleazar. He who says rolling exempts, [says] shaping exempts. And he who says rolling does not exempt, [says] shaping does not exempt. But according to the rabbis, rolling exempts in the Gentile’s power, shaping does not exempt in the Gentile’s power. It is difficult for the rabbis, if rolling exempts in the Gentile’s power, why does shaping not exempt in the Gentile’s power? There is a difference since it is written (Lev.27:30): “All tithe from the Land from the seed of the Land.” But is here not written (Num. 15:19): “From the bread of the Land?” From the bread, not all bread. Rebbi Ḥanina the son of Rebbi Hillel said, from the rabbis we infer that Cahana’s statement does not disagree with Rebbi Eleazar. Just as the rabbis say, rolling exempts in the Gentile’s power but shaping does not exempt in the Gentile’s power, so Rebbi Aqiba says, rolling does not exempt in the Gentile’s power and shaping does not exempt in the power of the Temple.

“Rebbi Aqiba says, all goes after forming a crust in the oven.” The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Rebbi Aqiba agrees with the Sages that rolling the dough of a layman makes it ṭevel. Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Rebbi Aqiba agrees with the Sages that rolling the dough by the Temple exempts. Cahana said, the words of Rebbi Aqiba imply that shaping the heap by the Temple does not exempt. Rebbi Jonah said, that of Rebbi Cahana disagrees with that of Rebbi Eleazar. He who says rolling exempts, [says] shaping exempts. And he who says rolling does not exempt, [says] shaping does not exempt. But according to the rabbis, rolling exempts in the Gentile’s power, shaping does not exempt in the Gentile’s power. It is difficult for the rabbis, if rolling exempts in the Gentile’s power, why does shaping not exempt in the Gentile’s power? There is a difference since it is written (Lev.27:30): “All tithe from the Land from the seed of the Land.” But is here not written (Num. 15:19): “From the bread of the Land?” From the bread, not all bread. Rebbi Ḥanina the son of Rebbi Hillel said, from the rabbis we infer that Cahana’s statement does not disagree with Rebbi Eleazar. Just as the rabbis say, rolling exempts in the Gentile’s power but shaping does not exempt in the Gentile’s power, so Rebbi Aqiba says, rolling does not exempt in the Gentile’s power and shaping does not exempt in the power of the Temple.

MISHNAH: Two qabim and a qab of rice or heave between them do not combine. If a thing of which ḥallah was taken is between them, they do combine since already they are subject to ḥallah. If a qab of new grain and one of old bit one another, Rebbi Ismael says one should take from the middle but the Sages prohibit this. If somebody takes ḥallah from a single qab, Rebbi Aqiba declares it to be ḥallah but the Sages say, it is not ḥallah. If ḥallah of two qabim was taken separately, when he then combinrd them together into one dough, Rebbi Aqiba exempts but the Sages obligate; it turns out that the severity becomes a leniency.

They wanted to say what Rebbi Aqiba said, ḥallah may be taken from a qab from practice, not as a biblical standard. Since we have stated: “Rebbi Aqiba exempts but the Sages obligate,” this implies that it is by biblical standards.

MISHNAH: Jews were sharecroppers for Gentiles in Syria; Rebbi Eliezer obligates their produce for tithes and the Sabbatical but Rabban Gamliel exempts them. Rabban Gamliel says there are two ḥallot in Syria but Rebbi Eliezer says one ḥallah. They took the leniency of Rabban Gamliel and the leniency of Rebbi Eliezer but then returned to follow Rabban Gamliel in both cases. Rabban Gamliel says: There are three domains for ḥallah. The Land of Israel up to Akhzib, one ḥallah. From Akhzib to the Euphrates or Amanus, two ḥallot, one for the fire and one for the Cohen. The one for the fire has a measure, the one for the Cohen has no measure. From Euphrates or Amanus inside, two ḥallot, one for the fire and one for the Cohen. The one for the fire has no measure, the one for the Cohen has a measure but a ṭevul yom may eat it. Rebbi Yose says one does not need immersion. But it is forbidden to people suffering from genital flux, and to women during menstruation or after childbirth. It may be eaten at one table with a layman and may be given to any Cohen. The following may be given to any Cohen: ḥērem-dedications, firstlings, the redemption money for a [firstborn] son, the redemption value of a firstling donkey, foreleg, jawbone, and first stomach, the first shearing, oil to burn, Temple sacrifices, and First Fruits. Rebbi Jehudah forbids First Fruits. Heave vetch Rebbi Aqiba permits but the Sages forbid.

Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: An exempt root exempts. Is that following Rebbi who said roots live off one another? It is the opinion of everybody. Here, an exempt root exempts. When you say that an exempt root exempts, [you deal with] an old root that expanded from its own ground to that of another’s; but if it extended from outside the Land into the Land it does not apply.

Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: An exempt root exempts. Is that following Rebbi who said roots live off one another? It is the opinion of everybody. Here, an exempt root exempts. When you say that an exempt root exempts, [you deal with] an old root that expanded from its own ground to that of another’s; but if it extended from outside the Land into the Land it does not apply.

Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: An exempt root exempts. Is that following Rebbi who said roots live off one another? It is the opinion of everybody. Here, an exempt root exempts. When you say that an exempt root exempts, [you deal with] an old root that expanded from its own ground to that of another’s; but if it extended from outside the Land into the Land it does not apply.

An exempt root exempts. But did we not state: “Rebbi Yose says, even if the inner part is for food, the outer part as fence, the inner part is obligated but the outer is exempt”? Should not the outer part make the inner exempt? Rebbi Zeïra said it anonymously, Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: He might think about it to obligate it.

MISHNAH: When our forefathers came into the Land, what they found planted was exempt. If they planted even though they had not yet conquered, it was obligated. If somebody plants for the benefit of the public, it is obligated; Rebbi Jehudah exempts. If somebody plants on public property, the Non-Jew who planted, the robber who planted, and he who plants on a ship, are obligated for ‘orlah.

HALAKHAH: (Lev. 19:21) “When you plant,” this excludes what Gentiles planted before Israel came to the Land. Rebbi Huna in the name of Rebbi Abba, this implies that an exempt root exempts.

“If he planted for the public benefit, it is obligated; Rebbi Jehudah exempts”. The rabbis seem inconsistent. There, they say: “Jerusalem and outside the Land cannot become impure by skin disease,” but here, they say so! There (Lev. 14:35) “the owner of the house comes”, excluding Jerusalem which was not distributed among the tribes. But here, (Lev. 19:21) “when you plant,” in any way.

MISHNAH: If part of them slept, they may eat; if all of them, they may not eat Rebbi Yose says, if they were sleepy, they may eat, if they slept they may not eat. The Pesaḥ after midnight makes hands impure. Piggul and leftover make the hands impure. If he recited the benediction for the Pesaḥ it exempted that of the family sacrifice; the one for the family sacrifice does not exempt the one for the Pesaḥ, the words of Rebbi Ismael. Rebbi Aqiba said, neither one exempts the other.

The Torah said: “Do not take a woman in addition to her sister”. Not only her, her co-wife from where? The verse says “to ‘bundle’ together”, not her co-wife nor her co-wife’s co-wife. Not only his wife’s sister, all other incest prohibition from where? Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: A conclusion de minore ad majus. Since his wife’s sister, who is under an incest prohibition which may be lifted after being imposed, nevertheless is prohibited from the levirate, all other women under incest prohibitions which cannot be lifted after being imposed not much more so! Since in the first case the incest prohibition exempts the prohibited co-wife, all other incest prohibitions also exempt their co-wives. This follows Rebbi Aqiba.

“What is a positive commandment that is activated by time? For example sukkah, and shofar, and lulab, and tefillin. What is a positive commandment that is not activated by time? For example lost articles, sending away the [mother from the] nest, railing, and ẓiẓit. Rebbi Simeon exempts women from ẓiẓit because it is a positive commandment activated by time.” Rebbi Simeon said to them: Do you not agree with me that it is a positive commandment activated by time? Because a nightgown is exempt from ẓiẓit. Rebbi Hila said: The reason of the rebbis is that, if a garment is designated both for daytime and for night, it needs ẓiẓit.

Rabina asked Raba : Is the recital of the Grace after meals by women an ordinance from the Torah or the Rabbis ? What is the point at issue ? It is whether they have the power of exempting others. It is quite right if thou sayest it is from the Torah ; then one who is enjoined by the Torah [to keep the observance] comes and exempts one [whose observance is likewise commanded] by the Torah. But if thou sayest it is from the Rabbis, then it is not a compulsory observance, and one who is not under the obligation [to keep the observance] cannot exempt others. How is it then ?

This is quite right if thou sayest that it is from the Torah; then one who is enjoined by the Torah [to keep the observance] comes and exempts one [whose observance is likewise commanded] by the Torah. But if thou sayest it is from the Rabbis, then one who is enjoined by the Rabbis [to keep the observance] comes and exempts one [whose observance is commanded] by the Torah !

This is quite right if thou sayest that it is from the Torah; then one who is enjoined by the Torah [to keep the observance] comes and exempts one [whose observance is likewise commanded] by the Torah. But if thou sayest it is from the Rabbis, then one who is enjoined by the Rabbis [to keep the observance] comes and exempts one [whose observance is commanded] by the Torah !

Also, according to thy reason, is a minor under the obligation [to say Grace] ? Nay, with what case are we here dealing ? With one who, for instance, has eaten the minimum quantity ordained by the Rabbis [as making the saying of Grace necessary] ; and thus one who is enjoined by the Rabbis [to say Grace] comes and exempts one [whose observance is likewise commanded] by the Rabbis.

There is a Mishnaic teaching : A man with a running issue who has experienced emission, a menstruous woman from whom the semen has escaped and a woman who during intercourse experiences the menstrual flow require immersion ; but R. Judah exempts them therefrom.

And shouldest thou say that in fact R. Judah even exempts a mere Ba'al Keri, and the point of variance [between him and the Rabbis] is the man with a running issue who experienced emission, to show thee the extreme view taken by the Rabbis, I then quote the latter part of the Mishnaic teaching : "A woman who during intercourse experiences the menstrual flow requires immersion."

MISHNAH A man with a running issue who experienced emission, a menstruous woman from whom the semen has escaped, and a woman who during intercourse experiences the flow require immersion; but R. Judah exempts them therefrom.

GEMARA The question was asked : If a Ba'al Keri sees a flow, how is it according to R. Judah's view ? For although R. Judah there [in the Mishnah] exempts the man with a running issue who experienced emission — and such a man originally did not require immersion — but a Ba'al Keri who experiences a flow — and such a man originally did require immersion — does he compel to have immersion ? Or perhaps there is no difference ?

Come and hear : A woman who during intercourse experiences the flow requires immersion ; but R. Judah exempts her therefrom. Behold, a woman in these circumstances is identical with a Ba'al Keri who experienced a flow ; and since R. Judah exempts her, conclude [that he exempts him also]. R. Hiyya taught explicitly : A Ba'al Keri who experienced a flow requires immersion ; but R. Judah exempts him therefrom.

Come and hear : A woman who during intercourse experiences the flow requires immersion ; but R. Judah exempts her therefrom. Behold, a woman in these circumstances is identical with a Ba'al Keri who experienced a flow ; and since R. Judah exempts her, conclude [that he exempts him also]. R. Hiyya taught explicitly : A Ba'al Keri who experienced a flow requires immersion ; but R. Judah exempts him therefrom.

Come and hear : A woman who during intercourse experiences the flow requires immersion ; but R. Judah exempts her therefrom. Behold, a woman in these circumstances is identical with a Ba'al Keri who experienced a flow ; and since R. Judah exempts her, conclude [that he exempts him also]. R. Hiyya taught explicitly : A Ba'al Keri who experienced a flow requires immersion ; but R. Judah exempts him therefrom.

Come and hear : A woman who during intercourse experiences the flow requires immersion ; but R. Judah exempts her therefrom. Behold, a woman in these circumstances is identical with a Ba'al Keri who experienced a flow ; and since R. Judah exempts her, conclude [that he exempts him also]. R. Hiyya taught explicitly : A Ba'al Keri who experienced a flow requires immersion ; but R. Judah exempts him therefrom.

According to whom is this ? According to the Tanna of the following Mishnaic teaching : In the case of the honey of the date-palm, cider, the vinegar of winter-grapes and other fruit-juices which are brought as an offering, [if a non-priest in error partake thereof] R. Eliezer condemns him to pay the value plus a fifth; but R. Joshua exempts him.

It is quite right according to him who says [it means] "Fruit scorched by the sun," that is what he teaches, viz. "Those fruits with which, in case of doubt as to the tithe, the law deals leniently" — it is the doubt that exempts them [from the tithe], but if there is certainty, then they are subject. But according to him who says it means "Dates blown from the tree by the wind," how can they be subject [to the tithe] in the case of certainty, since they are public property? With what are we here dealing?

It has been reported : If they set before them figs and grapes in the middle of a meal, Rab Huna declared that they require a benediction before partaking thereof but not after. Similarly said Rab Nahman : They require a benediction before partaking thereof but not after. But Rab Sheshet said : They require a benediction both before and after, because there is nothing which requires a benediction before partaking thereof which does not require one after it, bread offered as a dessert being alone excepted. This is at variance with the statement of R. Hiyya who said : [The benediction over] bread exempts all other articles of food, and that over wine exempts all other kinds of beverage [from the necessity of another benediction].

It has been reported : If they set before them figs and grapes in the middle of a meal, Rab Huna declared that they require a benediction before partaking thereof but not after. Similarly said Rab Nahman : They require a benediction before partaking thereof but not after. But Rab Sheshet said : They require a benediction both before and after, because there is nothing which requires a benediction before partaking thereof which does not require one after it, bread offered as a dessert being alone excepted. This is at variance with the statement of R. Hiyya who said : [The benediction over] bread exempts all other articles of food, and that over wine exempts all other kinds of beverage [from the necessity of another benediction].

Gemara: From where are these words? As our rabbis taught: (Deuteronomy 6:7) "in your sitting in your house" exempts one involved in a mitzvah. "and in your going in the road" exempts a groom. From here they said: One who brings in a maiden is exempt. And a widow, he is obligated.

Gemara: From where are these words? As our rabbis taught: (Deuteronomy 6:7) "in your sitting in your house" exempts one involved in a mitzvah. "and in your going in the road" exempts a groom. From here they said: One who brings in a maiden is exempt. And a widow, he is obligated.