extra

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.

The amount of terumah: A generous amount: one fortieth. Beth Shammai say: one thirtieth. The average amount: one fiftieth. A stingy amount: one sixtieth. If he gave terumah and discovered that it was only one sixtieth, his terumah is valid and he need not give again. If he does go back and add to it, [the extra amount] is liable to tithes. If he found that it was only one sixty-first it is valid, but he must give terumah again according to his established practice, in measure, weight or number. Rabbi Judah says: even if it be not from produce close by.

If one rented a house to his fellow by the year and the year was made a leap year, the extra month goes to the tenant. If he rented it by the month and the year was made a leap year, the extra month goes to the owner. It once happened in Tzippori that a person leased a bath-house from his fellow at “twelve golden dinars a year, one dinar per month”, and [when the year became a leap year] the case came before Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel and Rabbi Yose, and they said: “Let them share the extra month.”

If one rented a house to his fellow by the year and the year was made a leap year, the extra month goes to the tenant. If he rented it by the month and the year was made a leap year, the extra month goes to the owner. It once happened in Tzippori that a person leased a bath-house from his fellow at “twelve golden dinars a year, one dinar per month”, and [when the year became a leap year] the case came before Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel and Rabbi Yose, and they said: “Let them share the extra month.”

If one rented a house to his fellow by the year and the year was made a leap year, the extra month goes to the tenant. If he rented it by the month and the year was made a leap year, the extra month goes to the owner. It once happened in Tzippori that a person leased a bath-house from his fellow at “twelve golden dinars a year, one dinar per month”, and [when the year became a leap year] the case came before Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel and Rabbi Yose, and they said: “Let them share the extra month.”

The characteristics of cattle and of wild animals are stated in the Torah. The characteristics of birds are not stated, but the sages said: every bird that seizes its prey is unclean. Every bird that has an extra toe, or a crop and a gizzard that can be peeled, is clean. Rabbi Elazar bar Zadok says: every bird that parts its toes is unclean.

If one said I will acquire it for twenty-one selas, then the owners must pay twenty-six. [If one said] Twenty-two, the owners must pay twenty-seven. Twenty-three, the owners must pay twenty-eight. Twenty-four, the owners must pay twenty-nine. Twenty-five, the owners must pay thirty, For they need not add one fifth to what the other bids more. If one said: I will acquire it for twenty-six, if the owners want to pay thirty-one and an extra denar, the owner comes first. And if not, we say to the other: It has become yours.

If one sold a house among the houses of a walled city, he may redeem it at once and at any time during twelve months. This is a kind of interest, yet it is not interest. If the seller died, his son may redeem it. If the purchaser died, it may be redeemed from his son. One counts the year only from the time that he sold it, as it is said, “Before a full year has elapsed” (Leviticus 25:30). When it says a “a full” [year] the extra month is included. Rabbi says: he is allowed a year and its extra month.

If one sold a house among the houses of a walled city, he may redeem it at once and at any time during twelve months. This is a kind of interest, yet it is not interest. If the seller died, his son may redeem it. If the purchaser died, it may be redeemed from his son. One counts the year only from the time that he sold it, as it is said, “Before a full year has elapsed” (Leviticus 25:30). When it says a “a full” [year] the extra month is included. Rabbi says: he is allowed a year and its extra month.

If the horns or the hoofs of the [red] cow are black they are chopped off. The eye ball, the teeth and the tongue cause do not invalidate the [red] cow. One that is dwarf-like is valid. If there was on it an extra digit and it was cut off: Rabbi Judah says that it is invalid. Rabbi Shimon says: wherever, if removed, no red hair grows in its place is it invalid.

Also if he is in error it is so. If he thought that two se’ot were due but he owed only one, Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: That [extra] seah which he separated he gives as heave for another place. But did we not state: “but not for another place”? Explain it if he increased the heave. It is acceptable if he increased the heave, but what about tithes? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish did not state about tithes. But the reason of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish must be that, since we say that all the ṭevel is now in his hands, what is the difference between taking from it its own heave or that for another place?

Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, harp and lute are the same, extra strings make the difference between one and the other. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, why is it called נֶבֶל? Because it whitens many kinds of musical instruments. Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of Rav Joseph: By untanned leather and an abundance of strings it whitens many kinds of musical instruments. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish says, עוּגָב is a water organ. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel stated, there was no water organ in Jerusalem because its sound overhangs the melody.

MISHNAH: If somebody was married to two women who both died, and then he died, and the orphans demand their mothers’ ketubot, if [the estate] is sufficient only for both ketubot they split evenly. If there was an excess denar, these take their mother’s ketubah and those take their mother’s ketubah. If the orphans say, we accept the properties of our father for the value of an extra denar in order to take their mother’s ketubah; one does not listen to them but one appraises the properties in court.

When does one appraise for them? Rebbi Mana said, one appraises at the end. Rebbi Ḥanina said to him, the words of the rabbis imply that one does not listen to you, for Nathan bar Hoshaia asked before Rebbi Joḥanan, if there was sustenance for twelve months but the estate diminished in value? He answered him, since the heirs started to eat with permission, they continue to eat until the last coin is gone! Therefore, one appraises at the start. Rav Ḥisda asked: If there was sustenance for twelve months and then the property increased in value? Let us hear from the following, for Rebbi Ḥanina, Rebbi Yasa said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If the heirs sold, they sold from their own property. So here, if it increased in value, their property value increased. If the estate was not sufficient for twelve months’ sustenance, may the sons say to the daughters, take what is yours and leave! Rebbi Abba said, is that a question? The Mishnah says that they cannot say so to them, as we have stated there: “If the orphans say, we accept the properties of our father for the value of an extra denar in order to take their mother’s ketubah; one does not listen to them but one appraises the properties in court.”

Rebbi Ḥanina and Rebbi Mana. One said, only if at the end there be sustenance for twelve months. But the other said, even from the start. If there was not sustenance for all of them for twelve months but they increased it so that how there is sustenance for all of them for twelve months? Rebbi Immi the Babylonian said, let us hear from the following: If the heirs sold, they sold from their own property. So much more, if they increased it, they should be able to divide it. If there was sustenance for all of them for twelve months and a widow to support, may the sons say to the daughters: you have sustenance only for twelve months? Rebbi Eudaimon said, let us hear from the following: “If the orphans said, we accept the properties of our father for the value of an extra denar, one does not listen to them.” Rav Ḥisda asked: if there was sustenance for all of them for twelve months and a widow to support, may the sons say to the daughters: you have sustenance only for twelve months? But this means, only if there was sustenance for all of them for twelve months, except for ketubah of the wife, except for the sustenance of the widow, except for the dowries of the daughters, except for loans by document, except for loans by witnesses, except for her burial. The widow and the daughters are of equal rank. The widow and the sons are of equal rank. The widow does not push the daughters aside and the daughters do not push the widow aside. Sometimes the widow pushes the daughters out by means of the sons. Just as the widow pushes out the daughters by means of the sons, should the widow not push out the sons? She might claim her ketubah and lose her right to sustenance.

MISHNAH: How much is he flogged? Forty minus one, as it is said: in number: forty, a number close to forty. Rebbi Jehudah says, he is flogged a full forty. Where is he flogged the extra one? Between his shoulders.

But why the extra two? R. Yitzchak said: As a reward for the closing of the doors. But [why should not the outgoing watch] say to the other, "Take less for less"? Abaye said: A young pumpkin [in hand] is better than a full grown one [in the field].

Who taught the following which has been taught: On festivals people come late to synagogue and leave early. On Yom Kippur they come early and leave late. On Sabbath they come early and leave early? Shall I say it is R. Akiva who makes an extra man [read on Yom Kippur]? You may also say it is R. Ishmael, [his reason being that] the order [of the service] of the day is very long.

And according to [Rebbi Yitzchak] also it is definitely a flawed kal v'chomer, rather then [Rebbi Yitzchak] learns out [re'shia bar re'shia] from achoso d'seifa [the extra repeated word 'sister' at the end of the verse].

from the extra word "sister" at the beginning of the verse [achoso d'reisha]

Reish Lakash says that he is liable to malkus because of b'chol kodesh lo sigah, [which teaches] that it makes no difference if it was before z'rikas hadam or after z'rikas hadam. and Rebbi Yochanon says that he is not liable to malkus because Rebbi Yochanon is saying according to his own reasoning. That the Torah says [the g'zaira shava] of טומאתו טומאתו and where is "טומאתו" written? It is written after z'rikas hadam. [Therefore one would not be liable for eating before z'rikas hadam according to Rebbi Yochanon.] [Nevertheless we see that Reish Lakash uses b'chol kodesh lo sigah to teach before z'rikas hadam and not to teach the scriptural warning for consuming sacrificial meats while one is impure. How do we resolve this contradiction?] That law is learned from "In all meats". [the extra word "all" is what teaches us even before z'rikas hadam.]

If so [that an extra commandment shouldn't detract from it, then the same argument can be made by] a lav sh'nituk l'asseh also, say that just because the Torah writes by it an extra commandment, does that make it any less stringent?! Rava explained [the difference] to him, That one [by a lav sh'nituk l'asseh the commandment] is coming to remove the prohibition.

If so [that an extra commandment shouldn't detract from it, then the same argument can be made by] a lav sh'nituk l'asseh also, say that just because the Torah writes by it an extra commandment, does that make it any less stringent?! Rava explained [the difference] to him, That one [by a lav sh'nituk l'asseh the commandment] is coming to remove the prohibition.

rather, he derives it from the existence of an extra verse. Let's see, the Torah says (Deutermony 12,6) "And bring them and eat them in front of Hashem your God in the place etc. The Torah could have just written over there "You may not eat them". Why then does the Torah repat them all in a later verse?

MISHNA: How much do we flog him? Forty minus one, as the Torah says, (Deuteronomy 25,2) "In the count of forty" the number which is next to forty. Rebby Yehudah says, He is administered forty full lashes, and where is he lashes the extra one? Between his shoulders.

The rabbis taught [in a baraisa], From (Deuteronomy 25,3) "many lashes", I only know [that it is prohibited for the attendant to add] many lashes. From where do I learn out also few lashes? The Torah says "do not add" If so, the why does the Torah say "many lashes"? to teach us a bout the first [extra lashes] that they are considered "many lashes"