explains

A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “If a man performs preliminary marriage using heaves, or tithes, or gifts to priests, or water for purification, or the ashes of purification, she is married even if he is an Israel.” He explains it with heave he inherited from his maternal grandfather, a Cohen.

Ḥizqiah said, if he redeemed them they revert to their sanctity. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if he redeemed them they are redeemed. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “These have no redemption.” He explains thus: After they were cut they do not need redemption. Rebbi Yose said, what Ḥizqiah said refers to the case that he himself redeemed them. But if another person redeemed them, the sanctity is removed from them. The argument of Rebbi Yose is switched: There, he says that if [another] redeemed them, the sanctity is removed from them, but here, he says that if she was married to another man the qiddušin [of the first] were not removed! All that is questionable for him is if he gave her two peruṭot, one for the moment and one for after he divorced her; what is the situation?

HALAKHAH: “If one says, I preliminarily married off my daughter”, etc. About what is he trustworthy? Samuel says, he is trusted to give a bill of divorce. Assi said, he is trusted to marry. Rav Huna said in the name of Rav: He is trusted to marry. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he is trusted to marry but one does not infer anything for another case from this ruling. What means, one does not infer anything for another case from this ruling? I sold one of my fields but I do not remember to whom I sold it. If someone comes and says, I bought it, he is not trusted in any way. In preliminary marriage, the same holds true. “I betrothed one of my daughters but I do not remember to whom I betrothed her. If someone comes and says, I married her preliminarily,” he is not trusted in any way. The Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “If somebody brings a bill of divorce from overseas and says, it was written and signed in my presence, he shall not marry that woman.” There, she is considered by everybody to be a married woman. Here, she is considered to be a married woman only by two persons. One waits until these two come and say, this is the man who gave her qiddushin. The Mishnah disagrees with Samuel: “This one says, I married her preliminarily, and that one says, I married her preliminarily. Both of them give a bill of divorce, but if they agree, one gives a bill of divorce and the other one marries.” He explains this, if [the father] says, I did betrothe her to one of these two but I do not remember which one it was. Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rebbi Yasa, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If one of them jumped the gun and married her, one does remove her from him. That is, if this one says, I married her preliminarily, and that one says, I married her preliminarily, and one of them jumped the gun and married her definitively. But if he said, I married her preliminarily and then married her definitively, and another one comes and says, I married her preliminarily, he is not trusted in any way. It was stated thus: If after the marriage another man comes and says, I married her preliminarily, he is not trusted in any way.

It was stated: “If a Gentile or a slave had intercourse with a Jewish woman, the child is a bastard; Rebbi Simeon ben Jehudah says in the name of Rebbi Simeon, the child is not a bastard, for a bastard is only from a woman forbidden to him by an incest prohibition for which the penalty is extirpation.” Both of them explained the same verse, “nobody may take his father’s wife, etc.” Rebbi Meïr explains: Since his father’s wife is special in that he cannot have preliminary marriage with her, but she could have preliminary marriage with others, and the child is a bastard, so in all cases in which she cannot have preliminary marriage with him, the child is a bastard. Rebbi Simeon ben Jehudah explains: Since his father’s wife is special in that she cannot have preliminary marriage with him, but she could have preliminary marriage with others, and the child is a bastard; this excludes the Gentile and the slave who cannot contract preliminary marriage with her or with others. Rebbi Samuel bar Abba questions that first Tanna: The sister-in-law who whored cannot have preliminary marriage with him or with others, but the child is qualified! Rebbi Yannai in the name of Rebbi: If a Gentile or a slave had intercourse with a Jewish woman, the child is a bastard. Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both say, the child is a bastard. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Simeon bar Abba, Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, in the name of Rebbi (Yannai ben) Rebbi: The child is neither qualified nor disqualified but dirtied. Rebbi Jonathan went with Rebbi Jehudah Neśia to the hot springs of Gadara. There, he instructed: The child is qualified. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, this child improves as time goes by. Rebbi declared the child dirtied, his grandson declared him qualified. Rebbi Abba bar Zavda instructed in the name of all rabbis: The child is qualified. Rebbi Bevai said before Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: The child is qualified. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, if it is from that, one does not learn from a declaration. Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, I know the story from beginning to end. Rebbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina went up to the hot springs of Gadara. He visited his father who said to him: Be careful, because there are those who are disqualified, lest you injure them.

It was stated: “If a Gentile or a slave had intercourse with a Jewish woman, the child is a bastard; Rebbi Simeon ben Jehudah says in the name of Rebbi Simeon, the child is not a bastard, for a bastard is only from a woman forbidden to him by an incest prohibition for which the penalty is extirpation.” Both of them explained the same verse, “nobody may take his father’s wife, etc.” Rebbi Meïr explains: Since his father’s wife is special in that he cannot have preliminary marriage with her, but she could have preliminary marriage with others, and the child is a bastard, so in all cases in which she cannot have preliminary marriage with him, the child is a bastard. Rebbi Simeon ben Jehudah explains: Since his father’s wife is special in that she cannot have preliminary marriage with him, but she could have preliminary marriage with others, and the child is a bastard; this excludes the Gentile and the slave who cannot contract preliminary marriage with her or with others. Rebbi Samuel bar Abba questions that first Tanna: The sister-in-law who whored cannot have preliminary marriage with him or with others, but the child is qualified! Rebbi Yannai in the name of Rebbi: If a Gentile or a slave had intercourse with a Jewish woman, the child is a bastard. Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both say, the child is a bastard. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Simeon bar Abba, Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, in the name of Rebbi (Yannai ben) Rebbi: The child is neither qualified nor disqualified but dirtied. Rebbi Jonathan went with Rebbi Jehudah Neśia to the hot springs of Gadara. There, he instructed: The child is qualified. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, this child improves as time goes by. Rebbi declared the child dirtied, his grandson declared him qualified. Rebbi Abba bar Zavda instructed in the name of all rabbis: The child is qualified. Rebbi Bevai said before Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: The child is qualified. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, if it is from that, one does not learn from a declaration. Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, I know the story from beginning to end. Rebbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina went up to the hot springs of Gadara. He visited his father who said to him: Be careful, because there are those who are disqualified, lest you injure them.

HALAKHAH: “The daughter of a desecrated priest,” etc. Rav Hamnuna in the name of Rav: Daughter, daughter’s daughter, forever. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Ismael: “In his clans.” Since by “in his clans” said there males are forbidden and females permitted, so by “in his clans” said here males are forbidden and females permitted. What is the difference between them? A Cohen who came to a divorcee and fathered a son; the son went and fathered a son and a daughter. In the opinion of Rav the son, the son’s daughter, the daughter’s son, and the daughter are forbidden. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan the son’s daughter is forbidden, the daughter’s son is permitted. The Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “The daughter of an Israel who married a desecrated woman is qualified for the priesthood.” He explains it, a broomstick desecrated one. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “Rebbi Jehudah says, the daughter of a male proselyte is like the daughter of a desecrated priest.” He explains that Rebbi Jehudah only comes to add. If he had said that the daughter of a desecrated priest is like the daughter of a male proselyte, you would have had a point.

HALAKHAH: “The daughter of a desecrated priest,” etc. Rav Hamnuna in the name of Rav: Daughter, daughter’s daughter, forever. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Ismael: “In his clans.” Since by “in his clans” said there males are forbidden and females permitted, so by “in his clans” said here males are forbidden and females permitted. What is the difference between them? A Cohen who came to a divorcee and fathered a son; the son went and fathered a son and a daughter. In the opinion of Rav the son, the son’s daughter, the daughter’s son, and the daughter are forbidden. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan the son’s daughter is forbidden, the daughter’s son is permitted. The Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “The daughter of an Israel who married a desecrated woman is qualified for the priesthood.” He explains it, a broomstick desecrated one. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “Rebbi Jehudah says, the daughter of a male proselyte is like the daughter of a desecrated priest.” He explains that Rebbi Jehudah only comes to add. If he had said that the daughter of a desecrated priest is like the daughter of a male proselyte, you would have had a point.

It was stated: He is believed about the adult but is not believed about the young. Who is adult? Rebbi Ze‘ira said, any one who has a wife and children; Rebbi Abbahu, any one who has a wife. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Abbahu: A proselyte who was circumcised but did not immerse himself but has children; if he said, I was circumcised but did not immerse, he is believed and one immerses him even on the Sabbath because of parsimony, the words of Rav Jehudah. What does Rebbi Abbahu do with this? He explains it, because who cares?

HALAKHAH: “Similarly, if a woman empowered her agent,” etc. Does this not disagree with Rebbi Joḥanan, since Rebbi Joḥanan said that a person invalidates agency by a declaration? He explains it by the stringency of the rules of adultery and incest. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun understood this from the latter part: “Similarly, if a woman empowered her agent to contract preliminary marriage for her and then went and contracted for herself.” Does this not disagree with Rebbi Joḥanan, since Rebbi Joḥanan said that a person invalidates agency by a declaration? He explains it by the stringency of the rules of adultery and incest.

HALAKHAH: “Similarly, if a woman empowered her agent,” etc. Does this not disagree with Rebbi Joḥanan, since Rebbi Joḥanan said that a person invalidates agency by a declaration? He explains it by the stringency of the rules of adultery and incest. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun understood this from the latter part: “Similarly, if a woman empowered her agent to contract preliminary marriage for her and then went and contracted for herself.” Does this not disagree with Rebbi Joḥanan, since Rebbi Joḥanan said that a person invalidates agency by a declaration? He explains it by the stringency of the rules of adultery and incest.

HALAKHAH: “Which one is tame and which one is notorious,” etc. What is Rebbi Jehudah’s reason? “From yesterday and the day before.” How does Rebbi Meїr confirm “from yesterday and the day before”? He explains it by separate gorings, that if it was let out the first day and gored, the second day and it did not gore, the third day it gored, it is not declared a notorious bull unless it gored on three consecutive days. If it was let out the first day and gored bulls, the second it gored dogs, the third it gored pigs: would it be declared a notorious bull for three different kinds on three days? If it was let out the first day and gored, the second day it was not let out, the third day it was let out and gored, we come to the disagreement between Rav Ada bar Aḥawa and Rav Huna, who disagreed: A menstruating woman checked herself the first day and found herself impure. The second day she did not check. On the third day she checked and found herself impure. Rav Ada bar Aḥawa said in the name of Rav: she certainly is niddah. Rav Huna said in the name of Rav: it is doubtful whether she is niddah. Rav Huna said, I was there at the beginning, I was there at the end, and I was there in the middle when Rav was asked, and he said, it is doubtful. Rav was asked and he said, it is certain; then he reversed himself and said, it is doubtful. Rav Ada bar Aḥawa was only there when he said, it is certain.

It was stated: He takes a day garment as pledge during the night and a night garment during the day. He returns a day garment during the day and a night garment during the night. Pillow and bed sheet which are used as cover during the night he may take as pledge during the day and return for the night. An axe and a plough which usually are used for work during the day he may take as pledge during the night and return for the day. Rebbi La said: Sometimes one explains the verse “the sun shall not come onto it,” as “the sun shall not rise upon it”, but sometimes one explains as “the sun shall not set upon it” since it is written “returning you shall return the pledge to him when the sun comes,” at sunrise, “until the going of the sun return it to him,” until sundown.

It was stated: He takes a day garment as pledge during the night and a night garment during the day. He returns a day garment during the day and a night garment during the night. Pillow and bed sheet which are used as cover during the night he may take as pledge during the day and return for the night. An axe and a plough which usually are used for work during the day he may take as pledge during the night and return for the day. Rebbi La said: Sometimes one explains the verse “the sun shall not come onto it,” as “the sun shall not rise upon it”, but sometimes one explains as “the sun shall not set upon it” since it is written “returning you shall return the pledge to him when the sun comes,” at sunrise, “until the going of the sun return it to him,” until sundown.

[I could think that] they should be giving lashes for the addition. Rebbi Joḥanan explains the baraita: I could think that one gives lashes for ploughing during the Sabbatical year, but Rebbi Eleazar explains the baraita: I could think that one gives lashes for the first two terms. Some Tannaïm state: Six years you shall sow your field, and six years you shall prune your vineyard; but some Tannaïm state: Your field you shall not sow, etc. He who says six years supports Rebbi Joḥanan; he who says your field you shall not sow supports Rebbi Eleazar.

[I could think that] they should be giving lashes for the addition. Rebbi Joḥanan explains the baraita: I could think that one gives lashes for ploughing during the Sabbatical year, but Rebbi Eleazar explains the baraita: I could think that one gives lashes for the first two terms. Some Tannaïm state: Six years you shall sow your field, and six years you shall prune your vineyard; but some Tannaïm state: Your field you shall not sow, etc. He who says six years supports Rebbi Joḥanan; he who says your field you shall not sow supports Rebbi Eleazar.

There, we have stated: Rebbi Jehudah says, if his mother was not fit for his father, he is liable only for one [sacrifice]. Therefore, if his mother was fit for his father, he is liable for two. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: There is no difference. Whether his mother was fit for his father or unfit for his father, he is liable only once. The reason of Rebbi Joḥanan: Your mother is she, you find him guilty because of his mother; this directs the entire chapter towards his mother. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Zeˋira: What caused Rebbi Joḥanan to concentrate on the mother and to leave the father’s wife aside? He told him, for he argues with Rebbi Ismael, as Rebbi Ismael explained: Your father’s wife’s nakedness; the verse refers to the male. Is not his father included in the category of the male? Only to make him liable twice, as we have stated: A person having sexual relations with his father is doubly liable about him. Then should we not state “thirty-seven extirpations in the Torah”? Rebbi Mana said, all denotations of males are one. Your father’s wife’s nakedness; the verse refers to the father’s wife. Your mother’s nakedness, that is his mother who is his father’s wife. From where his mother who is not his father’s wife? Your mother is she; do not uncover her nakedness. How does Rebbi Ismael treat this? He explains it to apply after [the father’s] death. Does Rebbi Aqiba not explain she is your father’s nakedness? There is no difference whether during lifetime or after death. Rebbi Aqiba explains: Your father’s wife’s nakedness, the verse refers to the father’s wife. Your mother’s nakedness, that is his mother who is his father’s wife. From where his mother who is not his father’s wife? Your mother is she; do not uncover her nakedness. How does Rebbi Ismael treat this? He explains it to apply after [the father’s] death. Does not Rebbi Aqiba treat your father’s nakedness, your mother’s nakedness? Since your father refers to your father in any capacity both for punishment and warning, so also your mother refers to one’s mother in any capacity both for punishment and warning. Is it not reasonable to explain that verse except following Rebbi Jehudah who because he does not accept “his mother who is his father’s wife” must explain that your father’s nakedness, your mother’s nakedness refers to your father in any capacity both for punishment and warning, so also your mother refers to your mother in any capacity both for punishment and warning. Rebbi Zeˋira said, this implies that one infers from parallel language even if it is free only from one side. Rebbi Yudan said to him, this is obvious for Rebbi Aqiba since Rebbi Aqiba infers from parallel language even if it is not free.

There, we have stated: Rebbi Jehudah says, if his mother was not fit for his father, he is liable only for one [sacrifice]. Therefore, if his mother was fit for his father, he is liable for two. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: There is no difference. Whether his mother was fit for his father or unfit for his father, he is liable only once. The reason of Rebbi Joḥanan: Your mother is she, you find him guilty because of his mother; this directs the entire chapter towards his mother. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Zeˋira: What caused Rebbi Joḥanan to concentrate on the mother and to leave the father’s wife aside? He told him, for he argues with Rebbi Ismael, as Rebbi Ismael explained: Your father’s wife’s nakedness; the verse refers to the male. Is not his father included in the category of the male? Only to make him liable twice, as we have stated: A person having sexual relations with his father is doubly liable about him. Then should we not state “thirty-seven extirpations in the Torah”? Rebbi Mana said, all denotations of males are one. Your father’s wife’s nakedness; the verse refers to the father’s wife. Your mother’s nakedness, that is his mother who is his father’s wife. From where his mother who is not his father’s wife? Your mother is she; do not uncover her nakedness. How does Rebbi Ismael treat this? He explains it to apply after [the father’s] death. Does Rebbi Aqiba not explain she is your father’s nakedness? There is no difference whether during lifetime or after death. Rebbi Aqiba explains: Your father’s wife’s nakedness, the verse refers to the father’s wife. Your mother’s nakedness, that is his mother who is his father’s wife. From where his mother who is not his father’s wife? Your mother is she; do not uncover her nakedness. How does Rebbi Ismael treat this? He explains it to apply after [the father’s] death. Does not Rebbi Aqiba treat your father’s nakedness, your mother’s nakedness? Since your father refers to your father in any capacity both for punishment and warning, so also your mother refers to one’s mother in any capacity both for punishment and warning. Is it not reasonable to explain that verse except following Rebbi Jehudah who because he does not accept “his mother who is his father’s wife” must explain that your father’s nakedness, your mother’s nakedness refers to your father in any capacity both for punishment and warning, so also your mother refers to your mother in any capacity both for punishment and warning. Rebbi Zeˋira said, this implies that one infers from parallel language even if it is free only from one side. Rebbi Yudan said to him, this is obvious for Rebbi Aqiba since Rebbi Aqiba infers from parallel language even if it is not free.

There, we have stated: Rebbi Jehudah says, if his mother was not fit for his father, he is liable only for one [sacrifice]. Therefore, if his mother was fit for his father, he is liable for two. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: There is no difference. Whether his mother was fit for his father or unfit for his father, he is liable only once. The reason of Rebbi Joḥanan: Your mother is she, you find him guilty because of his mother; this directs the entire chapter towards his mother. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Zeˋira: What caused Rebbi Joḥanan to concentrate on the mother and to leave the father’s wife aside? He told him, for he argues with Rebbi Ismael, as Rebbi Ismael explained: Your father’s wife’s nakedness; the verse refers to the male. Is not his father included in the category of the male? Only to make him liable twice, as we have stated: A person having sexual relations with his father is doubly liable about him. Then should we not state “thirty-seven extirpations in the Torah”? Rebbi Mana said, all denotations of males are one. Your father’s wife’s nakedness; the verse refers to the father’s wife. Your mother’s nakedness, that is his mother who is his father’s wife. From where his mother who is not his father’s wife? Your mother is she; do not uncover her nakedness. How does Rebbi Ismael treat this? He explains it to apply after [the father’s] death. Does Rebbi Aqiba not explain she is your father’s nakedness? There is no difference whether during lifetime or after death. Rebbi Aqiba explains: Your father’s wife’s nakedness, the verse refers to the father’s wife. Your mother’s nakedness, that is his mother who is his father’s wife. From where his mother who is not his father’s wife? Your mother is she; do not uncover her nakedness. How does Rebbi Ismael treat this? He explains it to apply after [the father’s] death. Does not Rebbi Aqiba treat your father’s nakedness, your mother’s nakedness? Since your father refers to your father in any capacity both for punishment and warning, so also your mother refers to one’s mother in any capacity both for punishment and warning. Is it not reasonable to explain that verse except following Rebbi Jehudah who because he does not accept “his mother who is his father’s wife” must explain that your father’s nakedness, your mother’s nakedness refers to your father in any capacity both for punishment and warning, so also your mother refers to your mother in any capacity both for punishment and warning. Rebbi Zeˋira said, this implies that one infers from parallel language even if it is free only from one side. Rebbi Yudan said to him, this is obvious for Rebbi Aqiba since Rebbi Aqiba infers from parallel language even if it is not free.

HALAKHAH: “If one of them was one-armed.” etc. Just as one explains for his father and mother, so one explains for the Elders of the Court, as it is said : They shall go out, to exclude lame ones; and say , to exclude mute ones; our hands did not spill, to exclude one-armed ones; and our eyes did not see, to exclude blind ones. The verse tells you that just as the Elders of the Court must be unblemished morally, so they must be unblemished physically.

HALAKHAH: “If one of them was one-armed.” etc. Just as one explains for his father and mother, so one explains for the Elders of the Court, as it is said : They shall go out, to exclude lame ones; and say , to exclude mute ones; our hands did not spill, to exclude one-armed ones; and our eyes did not see, to exclude blind ones. The verse tells you that just as the Elders of the Court must be unblemished morally, so they must be unblemished physically.

HALAKHAH: “What is an oath about testimony,” etc. A person, a person. Since there it is from his own words, also here from his own words. Since here it is from others’ words, also there it is from others’ words. Rebbi Meїr explains the equal cut which was said here: Since there it is said about his own words, so also here about his own words. Also the rabbis explain the equal cut which was said here. Since others’ words said there are in court, also others’ words said here are in court.

“I am putting an oath on you,” etc. Does this not disagree with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish who said, there is no money when there is flogging. He explains it following Rebbi Meїr who said, he is flogged and he pays. In any case he did not make him lose money. Is it not that since he wanted to give him but did not give to him; it is as if he made him lose money.

HALAKHAH: “What is an oath about a deposit,” etc. A person, a person. Since here it is from his own words, also there from his own words. Since there it is from others’ words, also here it is from others’ words. Rebbi Meїr explains the equal cut at the place it comes from: Since here it is said about his own words, so also here about his own words. Also the rabbis explain the equal cut which was said about it. Since others’ words said there are in court, also others’ words said here are in court.

HALAKHAH: “The following Gentile properties are forbidden,” etc. Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Bitter, sweet, and hot are not under the rules of being uncovered. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: The hot, the bitter, and the sweet are not under the rules of being uncovered or under those of libation wine. Rebbi Simon explains: The hot, spice wine. The bitter, vermouth wine. And the sweet, cooked wine. Rebbi Joshua ben Zeidal had cooked wine which was left unsupervised in the custudy of a Gentile. He asked Rebbi Yannai ben Rebbi Ismael who said to him, so says Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: The sweet is not under the rules of being uncovered or under those of libation wine. Rebbi Yannai ben Rebbi Ismael fell ill. Rebbi Ze`ira, Rebbi (Joshua) [Hoshaia], Rebbi Abun bar Cahana, and Rebbi Ḥanianiah the colleague of the rabbis, went to visit him. They saw Rebbi Joshua ben Zeidal sitting there. They said, there is the master of the decision and the person of the happening, let us ask him. He said to them, so says Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, the sweet is not under the rules of being uncovered or under those of libation wine. One said to him, maybe that of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is for argument’s sake? He told them, it is for action and you can rely on it. When (they got up) [returned], Rebbi Ila was standing with Rebbi Abun bar Cahana and told him, if you did not prefer decisions, is this not a baraita? As Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, “why is cooked wine of Gentiles forbidden? Because it started out as wine.” Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah says so, “wine and vinegar which originally was wine.”

HALAKHAH: “There are three houses,” etc. Rav and Rebbi Joḥanan both are saying, the Mishnah treats their entry into the Land. The opinion of Rav, who said that one who worships a house makes it forbidden, is the reason that he explains it by their entry into the Land. Following the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan, who said that if somebody dedicates a house one does not commit larceny with it, could he not have explained it by somebody who was worshipping the house? {The effect of] one who worships a house can be voided. At their entry into the Land it could not be voided. What could he do? He removes its clapboards and it is permitted.

The colleagues in the name of Samuel. The Mishnah deals with an individual who complements the multitude. But any individual who acted on his own is not liable. Rebbi Joḥanan said, even any single individual who acted on his own brings a female sheep or goat. It is difficult. In Samuel’s opinion, would any single individual be atoned by two sacrifices? Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Samuel: The individual is suspended. If a majority ate, the court brings. If a minority ate, each individual brings. For any ruling for which the court [bring] a bull, the individual does not bring a female sheep or goat. For any ruling for which the court bring a bull, the individual does not bring a female sheep; for any ruling for which the court does not bring a bull, the individual brings a female sheep or goat. Samuel explains the Mishnah by majority and minority. If a majority ate, since the court does not bring a bull, an individual brings a female sheep or goat.

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

Samuel spoke about the Mishnah: “I still am saying, if a minority acted they are liable because the Court will not bring a bull for them. The verse says, [from] the people of the Land. Even [all of them] (part of them), even most of them.” Rebbi Joḥanan explains the Mishnah: I still am saying, if a minority acted without ruling they are liable because with instruction the Court will not bring a bull. Samuel said, but they bring a female sheep or goat. Rebbi Joḥanan said, they do not bring a female sheep or goat. According to Samuel, who infers liability from liability, it is understandable. According to Rebbi Joḥanan, who infers liability from exemption? The statement of a baraita disagrees with Samuel. Or his transgression in which he sinned was made known to him; this excludes the apostate. A baraita disagrees with Samuel, “A person who would transgress; one would transgress; acting he would transgress; these are restrictions: the person depending on himself is liable, but one dependent on the Court is not liable.” This disagrees with Samuel and cannot be confirmed.

HALAKHAH: “If the Court gave an instruction; then they realized that they erred,” etc. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Our Mishnah, for example, if Simeon ben Azzai was sitting before them. Where do we hold? If he removed them, their instruction would be invalid. If they removed him, his instruction would be invalid. But we hold in the case that each side stands by its answer. For him, their instruction is no instruction, for they did not remove him. For others it is an instruction, for he did not remove them. Does this not disagree with Rebbi Mana bar Tanḥum, since Rebbi Mana bar Tanḥum said, if a hundred came together, only if they instructed unanimously? One explains it, that he was not present. Does this invalidate? He explains it following Rebbi, since Rebbi said, no one invalidates but the distinguished member of the Court (at Lydda) [only]. Since Rebbi Mana bar Tanḥum said, if a hundred came together, only if they instructed unanimously; is it the same in retraction or by majority? If it is obvious for you by majority, what kind of majority? The majority of those who instructed or the majority of those remaining? How is this? If there were a hundred but ten of them had died. If you say, a majority of those who instructed, 51. If you say, a majority of those remaining, 46.

HALAKHAH: “If the Court gave an instruction; then they realized that they erred,” etc. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Our Mishnah, for example, if Simeon ben Azzai was sitting before them. Where do we hold? If he removed them, their instruction would be invalid. If they removed him, his instruction would be invalid. But we hold in the case that each side stands by its answer. For him, their instruction is no instruction, for they did not remove him. For others it is an instruction, for he did not remove them. Does this not disagree with Rebbi Mana bar Tanḥum, since Rebbi Mana bar Tanḥum said, if a hundred came together, only if they instructed unanimously? One explains it, that he was not present. Does this invalidate? He explains it following Rebbi, since Rebbi said, no one invalidates but the distinguished member of the Court (at Lydda) [only]. Since Rebbi Mana bar Tanḥum said, if a hundred came together, only if they instructed unanimously; is it the same in retraction or by majority? If it is obvious for you by majority, what kind of majority? The majority of those who instructed or the majority of those remaining? How is this? If there were a hundred but ten of them had died. If you say, a majority of those who instructed, 51. If you say, a majority of those remaining, 46.

Rebbi Joḥanan asked: If one of the public died, can it be brought in his stead? They answered, is it not written, those who came from captivity? Is a purification offering an elevation offering? But just as an elevation offering is not eaten, this purification offering was not eaten. Rebbi Jehudah says, they brought it for idolatry; Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, it was a temporary ruling. Rebbi Jeremiah (learned) [did not say] so but the bull needs laying on of hands by the Elders while the goats of idolatry do not need laying on of hands by the Elders. By whom? Rebbi Jeremiah wanted to say, by Aaron and his sons. Rebbi Yose told him, Rebbi Ḥiyya also stated, he shall put his hands on, they shall put their hands on, to include the goats of idolatry for laying on hands but not by the Elders. Rebbi Yose (learned) [did not say] so but the living [goat] needs laying on of hands by Aaron, but the goats of idolatry do not need laying on of hands by Aaron. It is written so, “Aaron shall lean with both his hands on the living goat’s head; the living [goat] needs laying on of hands by Aaron, but he goats of idolatry do not need laying on of hands by Aaron.” What does Rebbi Jeremiah do with this? He explains it, for a common priest.

HALAKHAH: “Every hand which checks frequently is praiseworthy for women,” etc. So is the baraita: “Any one who frequently puts his hand on his eye will frequently have tears. Rebbi Ṭarphon says, it should be cut off on his navel. One said to him, does that not split open his belly? He said to them, that is what I said, for such a person’s death is better than his life.” The colleagues say, Rebbi Ṭarphon curses him in his body. Rebbi Yose said, he only explains that it is forbidden to manipulate lower than the navel. “That is, in the matter of semen. But in a case of gonorrhea, every hand which checks more frequently than another is more praiseworthy than the other.”

If she checked and deposited it in a glass box, Rebbi Ḥiyya said, a stain; Rebbi said, an episode of bleeding. Rebbi Ḥiyya objected to Rebbi: Do you not give her the possibility of an explanation? Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, Rebbi’s reason is that a box is safe from crawling things, it is not safe from lice. Up to the size of a broken bean she explains it; if it is larger, by what can it be explained?

HALAKHAH: Abba bar Jeremiah, Cahana in the name of Samuel: Any woman without a definite period is forbidden to her house unless she checked herself. But did we not state: “All women are presumed pure for their husbands.” He explains it, for those who come from a trip. But did we not state: “The wives of men coming from a trip are presumed pure”? Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, explain it if he came and found her awake. But was it not stated: Whether he found her awake or found her sleeping. Rebbi Abba said, explain it if he left her in a state of purity. {What is the period that is counted for her? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said: One gives her 30 days as average period.} Rebbi Joḥanan said, I am stating that it is permitted even after three years, but only for a woman who has a regular period. Rebbi Abbahu said, only if it was seven days after the onset of her period. Are you not worried that maybe she did not immerse herself? Rebbi Ḥanina said, that means that it is forbidden for a woman to stay in her impurity. Samuel bar Abba asked: Even if it was certain that she had given birth? Rebbi Yose said, so we are saying, even if she became impure. But since her prior state was invalidated when she gave birth, so her prior state was invalidated when she became impure.

If a woman miscarried dry blood, Rebbi Eleazar says, she is impure; Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, she is pure. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: “Menstrual blood and flesh from a corpse make impure moist and dry.” He explains it that it was moist and then became dry. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Eleazar: “If a woman had a miscarriage in the form of a lump, a hair, dust, or red mosquitoes, it should be soaked in water; if it dissolves she is impure.” He explains it, because of a creature. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, even there you can object about dust. Is dust a creature? Rebbi Abba said, You even may mention dust. The dust from a pregnant woman exists as a creature. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: “It happened that a woman miscarried with a kind of red membranes. The case came before the Sages who sent and called the doctors who told them, she has an internal wound. Also it happened that a woman miscarried with a kind of red hairs. The case came before the Sages who sent and called the doctors who told them, she has an internal wart.” Only because of a wart and a wound. Therefore, if there is no wart or no wound, it does not apply. This disagrees with him and [his opinion] cannot be upheld.

If a woman miscarried dry blood, Rebbi Eleazar says, she is impure; Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, she is pure. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: “Menstrual blood and flesh from a corpse make impure moist and dry.” He explains it that it was moist and then became dry. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Eleazar: “If a woman had a miscarriage in the form of a lump, a hair, dust, or red mosquitoes, it should be soaked in water; if it dissolves she is impure.” He explains it, because of a creature. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, even there you can object about dust. Is dust a creature? Rebbi Abba said, You even may mention dust. The dust from a pregnant woman exists as a creature. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: “It happened that a woman miscarried with a kind of red membranes. The case came before the Sages who sent and called the doctors who told them, she has an internal wound. Also it happened that a woman miscarried with a kind of red hairs. The case came before the Sages who sent and called the doctors who told them, she has an internal wart.” Only because of a wart and a wound. Therefore, if there is no wart or no wound, it does not apply. This disagrees with him and [his opinion] cannot be upheld.

The Tanna commenced with the evening and then treats of the morning; but while on the subject of the morning, he explains matters connected with the morning, and afterwards explains matters connected with the evening.

The Tanna commenced with the evening and then treats of the morning; but while on the subject of the morning, he explains matters connected with the morning, and afterwards explains matters connected with the evening.

David prayed, "Keep my soul, for I am godly" (Ps. Ixxxvi. 2). [R.] Levi and R. Isaac differ in their interpretation. One explains : Thus spake David before the Holy One, blessed be He, "Lord of the Universe, am I not godly, seeing that all the kings of the East and West sleep unto the third hour of the day, but as for me, 'At midnight I rise to give thanks unto Thee' (Ps. cxix. 62)?"

The other explains : Thus spake David before the Holy One, blessed be He, "Lord of the Universe, am I not godly, seeing that all the kings of the East and West sit in companies in all their pomp, whereas my hands are stained with the blood of a foetus or with the placenta in order to pronounce a woman clean to her husband ? Moreover, whatever I do I discuss with my teacher Mephibosheth, saying to him, 'Mephibosheth, my teacher, have I decided well ? Have I convicted correctly or acquitted correctly ? Did I rightly pronounce clean or rightly pronounce unclean?' And I was not ashamed [so to do]."

(R. Johanan, however, explains : "Neither have I forgotten," i.e. to mention Thy Name and Kingship thereby.)

Have we not learned, a lulav which is three handbreadths in length, long enough to wave, is valid? Say " and long enough to wave"; and each one explains it according to his own view.

What is the reason? R. Hiyya b. Avin and R. Assi disagree on this point. One explains because there is no permission to eat it, and the other explains because it has no monetary value.

What is the reason? R. Hiyya b. Avin and R. Assi disagree on this point. One explains because there is no permission to eat it, and the other explains because it has no monetary value.

Now you should think that the one who insists on permission to eat it [in order for it to be valid] does not insist upon [its having] monetary value, and that the one who insists upon monetary value does not insist upon permission to eat it It was taught: [An etrog] of unclean terumah, is invalid. This goes well according to him who explains, because there is no permission to eat it, but according to him who explains [that it can't be used] because it has no monetary value, why not? Behold he can kindle it under his cooking!

Now you should think that the one who insists on permission to eat it [in order for it to be valid] does not insist upon [its having] monetary value, and that the one who insists upon monetary value does not insist upon permission to eat it It was taught: [An etrog] of unclean terumah, is invalid. This goes well according to him who explains, because there is no permission to eat it, but according to him who explains [that it can't be used] because it has no monetary value, why not? Behold he can kindle it under his cooking!

The difference is ... the case of second tithe in Jerusalem according to R. Meir According to the one who explains, because there is no permission to eat it, [second tithe is valid, since] there is permission to eat it.

If it was of clean terumah, he should not take it. R. Ammi and R. Assi disagree: One explains: Because he renders it susceptible [to ritual uncleanness], while the other explains because he diminishes it

If it was of clean terumah, he should not take it. R. Ammi and R. Assi disagree: One explains: Because he renders it susceptible [to ritual uncleanness], while the other explains because he diminishes it

What is the practical difference between them? For instance in a case where he called it terumah except for its outer peel. According to the one who explains: Because he renders it susceptible [to ritual uncleanness], the prohibition does apply. According to the one who explains, because he diminishes it, the prohibition does not apply.

What is the practical difference between them? For instance in a case where he called it terumah except for its outer peel. According to the one who explains: Because he renders it susceptible [to ritual uncleanness], the prohibition does apply. According to the one who explains, because he diminishes it, the prohibition does not apply.

But if he did take it, it is valid. According to him who explains, because there is no permission to eat it, this is permitted to be eaten, and according to him who explains, because it has no monetary value, this has monetary value.

But if he did take it, it is valid. According to him who explains, because there is no permission to eat it, this is permitted to be eaten, and according to him who explains, because it has no monetary value, this has monetary value.

But if he took it, it is valid. According to him who explains: Because there is no permission to eat it, [the ruling] is according to all. According to him who explains: Because it has no monetary value, according to whom [is the ruling]? It is according to the rabbis.

But if he took it, it is valid. According to him who explains: Because there is no permission to eat it, [the ruling] is according to all. According to him who explains: Because it has no monetary value, according to whom [is the ruling]? It is according to the rabbis.

It goes well according to him who explains that the cause is the slaying of Messiah the son of Joseph, as it is written, “And they shall look upon me because they have thrust him through, and they shall mourn for him as one mourns for his only son,” but according to him who explains the cause to be the slaying of the Evil Inclination, was this an occasion for mourning? Is it not rather an occasion for rejoicing? Why then should they weep?

It goes well according to him who explains that the cause is the slaying of Messiah the son of Joseph, as it is written, “And they shall look upon me because they have thrust him through, and they shall mourn for him as one mourns for his only son,” but according to him who explains the cause to be the slaying of the Evil Inclination, was this an occasion for mourning? Is it not rather an occasion for rejoicing? Why then should they weep?

R. 'Osha'ya said: Why are the words of the Torah likened unto these three liquids: water, wine, and milk?—As to water, it is written (Is., 55.1): "Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters"; as to wine and milk, it is written (ibid.): "And he that hath no money come ye, buy, and eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk without money and without price"?—To indicate to you that just as these three liquids can be preserved only in the cheapest kind of vessels, so will the words of the Torah be preserved only in him whose mind is lowly. This explains the story of the daughter of a Roman emperor, who said to R. Joshua b. Ḥananiah: "What brilliant wisdom in such an ugly vessel!" Whereupon he exclaimed: "Oh, you daughter of a man who puts wine in vessels of clay!" "Wherein should he put it?" she asked. "You nobles should put it in vessels of gold and silver!" Whereupon she went home and told her father, who ordered the wine to be put into vessels of gold and silver, and the wine became sour. They then went to R. Joshua and asked him, "Why did you give her such advice?" "As she spoke to me, so I spoke to her," R. Joshua replied. "But there are also handsome people that are learned!" they said.

R. 'Ami further said: What is the meaning of the verse (Eccl., 10.10): "If the iron be blunt and one do not whet the edge"? If thou seest a generation over which the heavens are as tough as iron, sending neither dew nor rain, it is due to the people's corrupt deeds, as it is said, "and one do not whet the edge." What is the remedy? They should pray much, as it is said (ibid.): "Then must he put to more strength, but wisdom is profitable to direct," the latter part of which means to say that the additional praying will prove more profitable if the people's deeds are still good. Resh Laḳish explains it thus: When thou seest a scholar

It has been said above: "R. Eliezer said, it gets sweetened in the clouds"—whence did he derive this? He derived it in the way reported by R. Isaac b. Joseph in the name of R. Johanan: In one passage we find it written (Ps., 18.12): "darkness (ḥeshkat) of waters," in another we find (II Sam., 22.12): "gathering (ḥashrat) of waters"; take the kaf (of ḥeshkat) and add it to the resh (in ḥashrat) and then read hakshārat (=improvement) of waters. What use does R. Joshua make of these two verses? He explains the matter on the basis of what was later reported by R. Dimi who, upon returning from Palestine to Babylon, said that the Palestinians used to say: when the clouds are dark they contain much water, but when they are light they contain little water.

But at the time of the vintage...[they are believed] with regard to the heave-offering also. But against this I adduce the following Baraitha, viz., He who finishes his olives shall leave aside one box and place it before the eyes of the priest. R. Nachman said, There is no difficulty. The one is the case of new, the other of old ones. R. Ada bar Ahăba said to him, For instance things like those belonging to the house of thy father. R. Joseph said, The teaching refers to Galilee. Abai replied to him, The other side of Jordan and Galilee, lo, these are as Judea. Another explains, They are believed about wine at the time of wine, and oil at the time of oil, but not about wine at the time of oil, and not about oil at the time of wine. But it is perfectly clear that it is as originally explained.

Which Tanna holds that it is atonement? R' Hisda said, R' Yishmael, the son of R' Yohanan ben Broka, as it is taught, 'he gave a ransom from his life', that is the money of the victim. [However] R' Yishmael, the son of R' Yohanan son of Broka says, it means the money of the owner. Is it not that the difference here is that one [the Rabbis] explains it is monetary compensation, and the other [R' Yishmael] explains it is an atonement

Which Tanna holds that it is atonement? R' Hisda said, R' Yishmael, the son of R' Yohanan ben Broka, as it is taught, 'he gave a ransom from his life', that is the money of the victim. [However] R' Yishmael, the son of R' Yohanan son of Broka says, it means the money of the owner. Is it not that the difference here is that one [the Rabbis] explains it is monetary compensation, and the other [R' Yishmael] explains it is an atonement

R' Papa said, no. Everybody agrees that it is atonement, where they disagree is that, one explains the value is according to the victim, and one explains the value is according to the owner

R' Papa said, no. Everybody agrees that it is atonement, where they disagree is that, one explains the value is according to the victim, and one explains the value is according to the owner

And R' Yehudah said in the name of R' Shmuel, He says to his fellow, [I will lend money] only on condition that the Sabbatical year does not cancel, the Sabbatical still cancels. Is this to say that Shmuel explains this as a condition that is against the Torah? And all conditions that contradict the Torah are null and void.

Rava[, who explains the dispute between Rebbi Akiva and Rebbi Yishmael differently,] says, If [the witnesses] warned him [the sinner that he would be liable] to court execution, then everyone would agree that he is not both flogged and executed. When do they disagree? When [the witnesses] warned him [that he would be liable] to malkus, for Rebbi Yishmael holds that a prohibition that has a scriptural warning for court execution can also be liable to malkus, and Rebbi Akiva holds that a prohibition that has a scriptural warning for court execution cannot also be liable to malkus.