group

HALAKHAH: Why? Because they did not think of it or because midnight had passed? Think of it, if there was another group and midnight had not passed? Therefore the reason only is because they did not think of it.

MISHNAH: Also they agree that one lets the water in a stone vessel touch but not immerse. One immerses from stage to stage and from group to group on the holiday.

MISHNAH: Also they agree that one lets the water in a stone vessel touch but not immerse. One immerses from stage to stage and from group to group on the holiday.

How is from stage to stage? If he wants to work his dough but then his wine press, or his wine press and then his dough; he has to immerse his implements. How is from group to group? He was eating with one group and then changed his mind to eat with another group, then he has to immerse.

How is from stage to stage? If he wants to work his dough but then his wine press, or his wine press and then his dough; he has to immerse his implements. How is from group to group? He was eating with one group and then changed his mind to eat with another group, then he has to immerse.

How is from stage to stage? If he wants to work his dough but then his wine press, or his wine press and then his dough; he has to immerse his implements. How is from group to group? He was eating with one group and then changed his mind to eat with another group, then he has to immerse.

How is from stage to stage? If he wants to work his dough but then his wine press, or his wine press and then his dough; he has to immerse his implements. How is from group to group? He was eating with one group and then changed his mind to eat with another group, then he has to immerse.

What is the Great Hallel? Rebbi Parnakh in the name of Rebbi Ḥaninah; Give thanks to the supreme Power; truly, His kindness is forever. Give thanks to the Master of masters; truly, His kindness is forever. Rebbi Joḥanan said, on condition of who stand in the Eternal’s house. Why these two chapters? Because rainfall is included in them. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan it is understandable, for it is written, He brings up vapors from the ends of the earth. How is it for Rebbi Ḥaninah? Because it is written, He gives nourishment to all flesh; truly, His kindness is forever. Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Simon, both are saying, ours. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, ours. Bar Qappara said, ours. Bar Qappara follows his opinion, as it was stated: “during the existence of a third group they never reached I am loving; truly the Eternal listened to my voice, my supplication, since its people were few.” Bar Qappara stated, this is the Great Hallel. A patrician stood before the Ark; he said to them, repeat after me what I am saying. This implies that it is not ours. [Rebbi Mana said, it is ours.] The miracle was great; therefore he said to them, repeat after me what I am saying

Rebbi Jonah said, these daily sacrifices are the offerings of all of Israel. Could all of Israel ascend to Jerusalem? Is it not written, three times a year all your males shall be seen? If all of Israel would sit there and do nothing, is there not written, you shall harvest your grain? Who would harvest their grain? But the early prophets instituted 24 watches; from each watch there were [Cohanim, Levites, and Israel] present in Jerusalem. It was stated, twenty-four thousand. A stand-by group from Jerusalem, and half a stand-by group from Jericho. Jericho also could have produced a full stand-by group, but to give precedence to Jerusalem it only produced half a stand-by group. The Cohanim for service, the Levites for the podium, and the Israel as proof that they are the agents for all of Israel.

Rebbi Jonah said, these daily sacrifices are the offerings of all of Israel. Could all of Israel ascend to Jerusalem? Is it not written, three times a year all your males shall be seen? If all of Israel would sit there and do nothing, is there not written, you shall harvest your grain? Who would harvest their grain? But the early prophets instituted 24 watches; from each watch there were [Cohanim, Levites, and Israel] present in Jerusalem. It was stated, twenty-four thousand. A stand-by group from Jerusalem, and half a stand-by group from Jericho. Jericho also could have produced a full stand-by group, but to give precedence to Jerusalem it only produced half a stand-by group. The Cohanim for service, the Levites for the podium, and the Israel as proof that they are the agents for all of Israel.

Rebbi Jonah said, these daily sacrifices are the offerings of all of Israel. Could all of Israel ascend to Jerusalem? Is it not written, three times a year all your males shall be seen? If all of Israel would sit there and do nothing, is there not written, you shall harvest your grain? Who would harvest their grain? But the early prophets instituted 24 watches; from each watch there were [Cohanim, Levites, and Israel] present in Jerusalem. It was stated, twenty-four thousand. A stand-by group from Jerusalem, and half a stand-by group from Jericho. Jericho also could have produced a full stand-by group, but to give precedence to Jerusalem it only produced half a stand-by group. The Cohanim for service, the Levites for the podium, and the Israel as proof that they are the agents for all of Israel.

Rebbi Jonah said, these daily sacrifices are the offerings of all of Israel. Could all of Israel ascend to Jerusalem? Is it not written, three times a year all your males shall be seen? If all of Israel would sit there and do nothing, is there not written, you shall harvest your grain? Who would harvest their grain? But the early prophets instituted 24 watches; from each watch there were [Cohanim, Levites, and Israel] present in Jerusalem. It was stated, twenty-four thousand. A stand-by group from Jerusalem, and half a stand-by group from Jericho. Jericho also could have produced a full stand-by group, but to give precedence to Jerusalem it only produced half a stand-by group. The Cohanim for service, the Levites for the podium, and the Israel as proof that they are the agents for all of Israel.

And similarly, Amen Amen, hear hear. An interpreter who stands in front of a Sage is permitted neither to change, nor to circumlocute, nor to add unless he was his father or his teacher. Rebbi Pedat was the speaker of Rebbi Yasa. Things which he had heard from his father he referred to: so says my teacher in my father’s name. Things which he had not heard from his father he referred to: so says my teacher in Rebbi Eleazar’s name. Bar Yashita was the speaker of Rebbi Aḥa. Things which he had heard from his father he referred to: so says my teacher in my father’s name. Things which he had not heard from his father he referred to: so says my teacher in Rebbi Ḥinena’s name. When Rebbi Mana was instructing in a group, things which he had heard from his father in his house he referred to: so says my teacher in Rebbi Jonah’s name. Things which he had heard from his father in the Academy he referred to: so says Rebbi Jonah.

It happened that Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai was on the road, riding on a donkey, and Rebbi Eleazar ben Arakh was walking behind him. He said to him, my teacher, instruct me in a Chapter about the Work of the Chariot. He told him, did the Sagen not state, “nor the Chariot unless he was wise and understood by himself.” He said to him, my teacher, permit me to say it before you. He told him, say. When Rebbi Eleazar ben Arakh started about the Work of the Chariot, Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai descended from the donkey. He said, it is not appropriate that I should hear about the glory of my Creator riding on a donkey. They went and sat under a tree, when fire descended from Heaven and surrounded them, and the angels of Service were dancing before them like wedding guests happy with the bridegroom. An angel addressed from inside the fire and said, the Work of the Chariot is as you said, Eleazar ben Arakh. Then all trees (around them) [opened their mouths] and sang; then all trees of the forest will sing. When Rebbi Eleazar ben Arakh finished with the Work of the Chariot, Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai rose, kissed him on his head, and said: Praised be the Eternal, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, who gave a wise son to our father Abraham who knows to speak of the Glory of our Father in Heaven. They are good speakers who do not act well, those who act well but are no good speakers. Eleazar ben Arakh speaks well and acts well. Hail to you, our father Abraham, that Eleazar ben Arakh came from your loins. When Rebbi Yosef Hakohen and Rebbi Simeon ben Nethanael heard, they also started with the Work of the Chariot. They said, it was one day after the summer solstice; the earth trembled and the Arc appeared in the cloud. An unembodied voice came and said to them, the place is free and the triclinium prepared for you. You and your students are invited to the third group. This parallels him who said, seven enjoyments are before Your presence, there are seven groups of just people in the Future World.

All the time that his deceased is lying before him, he eats at his neighbor’s. If he has no neighbor, he eats in another room. If he has no other room, he makes a wall of separation and eats. If he is unable to make a wall of separation, he turns his face towards the wall and eats. He does not eat reclining; he does neither eat nor drink his fill. He eats neither meat nor drinks wine. One does not allow him to participate in a group to say Grace. If he recited Grace, one does not answer “amen” after him. If others recited Grace, he does not answer “amen”. That is on weekdays. But on the Sabbath, he does eat reclining; he eats meat and drinks wine, eats and drinks his fill. One lets him participate in a group to say Grace. If he recited Grace, one does answer “amen” after him. If others recited Grace, he answers “amen”. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said: Because you allowed all of these, oblige him for all other obligations of the Torah. If you permitted him temporary life, so much more eternal life. Rebbi Judah ben Pazi in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Practice follows Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. If he was handed over to the public, he may eat meat and drink wine. If he was handed over to the carriers it is as if he was handed to the public.

All the time that his deceased is lying before him, he eats at his neighbor’s. If he has no neighbor, he eats in another room. If he has no other room, he makes a wall of separation and eats. If he is unable to make a wall of separation, he turns his face towards the wall and eats. He does not eat reclining; he does neither eat nor drink his fill. He eats neither meat nor drinks wine. One does not allow him to participate in a group to say Grace. If he recited Grace, one does not answer “amen” after him. If others recited Grace, he does not answer “amen”. That is on weekdays. But on the Sabbath, he does eat reclining; he eats meat and drinks wine, eats and drinks his fill. One lets him participate in a group to say Grace. If he recited Grace, one does answer “amen” after him. If others recited Grace, he answers “amen”. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said: Because you allowed all of these, oblige him for all other obligations of the Torah. If you permitted him temporary life, so much more eternal life. Rebbi Judah ben Pazi in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Practice follows Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. If he was handed over to the public, he may eat meat and drink wine. If he was handed over to the carriers it is as if he was handed to the public.

HALAKHAH: “Three brothers, two of them married to two sisters,” etc. Ulla bar Ismael said, so explained Rebbi Hoshaia, the father of the Mishnah: Rebbi Simeon frees the second one from ḥalîṣah and levirate. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the group asked, would anybody think that a man could acquire two sisters together? Rebbi Ḥanina said before Rebbi Mana and disagreed: Why does Rebbi Simeon free the second one from ḥalîṣah and levirate? He said to him, because nobody thinks that a man could acquire two sisters together. There they said, the words of Rebbi Simeon imply that no candidacy can come after another candidacy. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Only if he sinned and had intercourse. What is the difference? If somebody from the market gave qiddushin to the second sister. Following the rabbis, perfect qiddushin. Following Rebbi Eleazar, suspended qiddushin. When he has intercourse with the first, the qiddushin become valid for the second. If he had intercourse with the second, following the rabbis it is an incestuous act. Following Rebbi Eleazar, it is not an incestuous act. If the first one died, following the rabbis the second is permitted to him.

Samuel said, one can transfer benefits to fetuses; Rebbi Eleazar said, one cannot transfer benefits to fetuses. Rebbi Yose said, even though Samuel said, one can transfer benefits to fetuses, he agrees that most of [the fetus’s] head and body must come out alive. That is the Mishnah, “if somebody performed ḥalîṣah with his sister-in-law but she turns out to have been pregnant,” as you say here, retroactively ḥalîṣah did not touch her, so retroactively the child is a son and receives the benefit. There, we have stated: “If somebody says, if my wife gives birth to a male, he shall take a mina, if she gave birth to a male, [the male baby] will take a mina. If a female, 200 [drachmae], if she gave birth to a female, that one will take 200.” Rebbi Eleazar said, this is only for his son, but not for any other. Rebbi Yasa said, even any other. In the opinion of Rebbi Eleazar, only from a sick person, but not a healthy one; only movables but not real estate. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Eleazar. “ If a proselyte died and Jews plundered his estate, then it became known that he had a son overseas or that [his wife] was pregnant, everybody is required to return [what he took].” What does Rebbi Eleazar do with this? There is a difference because it is his child. The second part [of the Mishnah] disagrees with Samuel in the interpretation of Rebbi Yose: “If they returned everything and then the son died or she had a miscarriage, anybody who takes first after that acquires it.” The first group did not acquire. Even at the beginning they should not have acquired! Did not Rebbi Yose say, even though Samuel said, one can transfer benefits to fetuses, he agrees that most of [the fetus’s] head and body must come out alive. He was not living! Rebbi Isaac bar Eleazar said, because of abandoning. The rabbis of Caesarea, R. Ḥiyya bar Abba, Rebbi Abba bar Natan: Rebbi Natan changed his mind because of that Mishnah: “If a male, a mina, if a female, 200.” Is a female in this situation not like an outsider? Bar Qappara stated: “On transfers benefit to a one day old.”

HALAKHAH: “The uncircumcised and any impure persons,” etc. “Every man”, to include the uncircumcised. Or “every man” to include the mourner? Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, it is written, “no outsider shall eat sanctified [food]”. I forbade to you because of outside status, I did not forbid because of prepuce. The reddish Rebbi Tiufa asked before Rebbi Yose: may we not say, I did not forbid because of prepuce and because of mourning? He said to him, since one verse includes and the other excludes, I am including the uncircumcised who is missing some procedure performed on his body and excluding the mourner who is not missing some procedure performed on his body. So far following Rebbi Aqiba. Following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Ismael stated: It said “sojourner and hireling” with regard to Passover and “sojourner and hireling” with regard to heave. Since “sojourner and hireling” with regard to Passover implies disabling the uncircumcised, so “sojourner and hireling” with regard to heave must imply disabling the uncircumcised. Rebbi Ḥaggai questioned: If “sojourner and hireling” with regard to Passover is in a group of laws disabling the mourner, also “sojourner and hireling” with regard to heave should imply disabling the mourner. Rebbi Hila answered: They inferred from “under, under” only items mentioned in the paragraph. The sexless and the hermaphrodite came under another category. The mourner comes from second tithe.

Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi in the name of Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, only from the place of masculinity. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: even from the female place. Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: Rebbi Joshua ben Levi retracted this, from the following verse: “And with a male you should not lie in the way of a woman’s beddings”, one who may lie in two ways, including the female. Who is that? That is the hermaphrodite. Rebbi said, I looked for but did not find words of Ben Shamua about the hermaphrodite, for the entire group ganged up on me. Why? Not to make it public or because he was not worth it? What difference does it make? He usually made public. If you say, it was not to make it public, the publicity is already in his hand. The reason must be that he was not worth it. What could he made public? He inherits, he testifies, his grain offering is burnt completely, one says grace with him as with a male.

There, we have stated: “If two groups of witnesses testified about him, one group testifying that he vowed two periods of nezirut, the other group testifying that he vowed five periods of nezirut.” Rav said, they differ in the overall testimony. But in detail, everybody agrees that five contains two, that he has to be a nazir for two periods. Rebbi Joḥanan said, they differ in counting. But in an overall testimony, everybody agrees that the testimonies contradict one another and there is no nezirut. What is overall and what is counting? Overall, this one says two, the other one says five. Counting, this one says one, two, the other one says three, four, five.

There, we have stated: “If two groups of witnesses testified about him, one group testifying that he vowed two periods of nezirut, the other group testifying that he vowed five periods of nezirut.” Rav said, they differ in the overall testimony. But in detail, everybody agrees that five contains two, that he has to be a nazir for two periods. Rebbi Joḥanan said, they differ in counting. But in an overall testimony, everybody agrees that the testimonies contradict one another and there is no nezirut. What is overall and what is counting? Overall, this one says two, the other one says five. Counting, this one says one, two, the other one says three, four, five.

HALAKHAH: Did not Rebbi Ḥiyya state: Nobody could sit in the Temple courtyard except for kings of the Davidic dynasty, and Rebbi Immi said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, even the kings of the Davidic dynasty could not sit in the Temple courtyard! Explain it, that he was leaning on the wall in a kind of sitting. But is it not written: “King David came and sat before the Eternal”? Rebbi Ayvo bar Naggari said, he concentrated on his prayer. There, we have stated: The first group left and sat on the Temple Mount, the second in the Ḥel, and the third at its place! Rebbi Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Mana: Did we state that the third sat at its place? It stood at its place!

HALAKHAH: “If she was pregnant,” etc. Rebbi Eleazar said, everybody agrees that the child is of unknown paternity. It was stated thus: “Where was this said, for the testimony of the woman in her own behalf. But everybody agrees that the child is of unknown paternity.” Rebbi Joḥanan said to him, simply of unknown paternity! We find that a child of unknown paternity can be High Priest. How is this possible? A group of Cohanim was passing by, one of them came and had sexual relations; it turns out that the child of unknown paternity can be High Priest.

Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ze‘ira had a different version: Rebbi Eleazar asked Rebbi Joḥanan, what is the rule about a dough widow? He said to him, she is qualified. What about her daughter? He said to him, the one who declares her to be qualified, declares her daughter to be qualified. They wanted to say, according to Rebbi Eleazar, a child of unknown paternity is disqualified; according to Rebbi Joḥanan, a child of unknown paternity is qualified. Rebbi Joḥanan also holds that in some cases a child of unknown paternity is disqualified; he answered [Rebbi Eleazar] following the latter’s reasoning: Since you reason that the child is simply of unknown paternity, we find that a child of unknown paternity can be High Priest! How is this possible? A group of Cohanim was passing by, one of them came and had sexual relations; it turns out that the child of unknown paternity can be High Priest.

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

One day, she said, I am married. The next day, she said, I am divorced. We asked her, yesterday you said this, today you say otherwise? She said to them, because of a group of amoral people who wanted to start up with me. Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Ila: Since she provided an explanation for her words, she can be believed. A similar case: Samuel wanted to sleep with his wife, but she said to him, I am impure. The next day, she said, I am pure. He said to her, yesterday, you said impure, today pure? She said to him, I did not feel well enough at that moment. He came and asked Rav, who told him, since she provided an explanation for her words, she can be believed.

It is written, “to the outstanding Elders of the diaspora”. The Holy One, praise to Him, said: The Elders of the diaspora are very dear to me. More beloved by me is a small group in the Land of Israel than a great Synhedrion outside the Land. It is written: “The craftsmen and the smiths one thousand,” and you say so? Rebbi Berekhiah in the name of Rebbi Ḥelbo and the rabbis. Rebbi Berekhiah said, one thousand craftsmen and one thousand smiths. But the rabbis say, together one thousand. Rebbi Berekhiah in the name of Rebbi Ḥelbo said, these are the fellows; but the rabbis say, these are the councilmen.

HALAKHAH: “And when Rebbi Ismael died,” etc. It is written, ““Daughters of Israel, cry about Saul, etc.” Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Neḥemiah. One said, really daughters of Israel. For their husbands went to war and he provided them with food. Why does the verse say “who puts a golden jewel on your garments”? Jewellery looks good only on a supple body. The other one said, “the daughters of Israel” means the builders of Israel, the councils of Israel. When he saw a group of fellows, he gave them to eat and drink. What does the verse mean by “who puts a golden jewel on your garments”? That he heard the reason for a practice from a Sage and praised him.

MISHNAH: If two groups of witnesses were testifying against a person, one group say that he vowed nazir two times, the others say that he vowed nazir five times. The House of Shammai say, the testimony is split and there is no nezirut here. But the House of Hillel say, five contains two; he should be a nazir twice.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody says to another: go and marry me preliminarily to woman X,” etc. He looks out for himself and is rewarded since his acquisition is valid, but he behaved treacherously. The same holds for monetary transactions. If somebody says to another: go and buy for me goods X, and [the agent] went and bought [the merchandise] for himself, he looks out for himself and is rewarded since his acquisition is valid, but he behaved treacherously. Rebbi Ze‘ira cursed those who saw another person trying to buy certain goods and outbid him. Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Ze‘ira: Also about one who organizes a group against another, the rabbis quote: “A person who prevents a good thing coming to his neighbor abandons the fear of the Almighty.”

HALAKHAH: “If somebody has two groups of daughters,” etc. Rav Ḥama said, two of two. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, for example I, who have two of two. The Mishnah [speaks of] him who has two groups of daughters from two wives, but if he has only one group and he said, the older, he married off only the oldest; if he said, the younger, he married off only the youngest.

MISHNAH: One was convicted of theft on the testimony of two witnesses and of slaughtering or selling on their testimony; if they are found perjured they pay everything to him. If he was convicted of theft on the testimony of two witnesses and of slaughtering or selling on the testimony of two others who all were found perjured, the first group pays double restitution and the second group triple. If the second group were found perjured, he pays double restitution while they pay triple. If one of the second group was found perjured, the second testimony is invalidated. If one of the first group is found perjured, the entire testimony is invalidated since if there is no theft there is no slaughter or sale.

MISHNAH: One was convicted of theft on the testimony of two witnesses and of slaughtering or selling on their testimony; if they are found perjured they pay everything to him. If he was convicted of theft on the testimony of two witnesses and of slaughtering or selling on the testimony of two others who all were found perjured, the first group pays double restitution and the second group triple. If the second group were found perjured, he pays double restitution while they pay triple. If one of the second group was found perjured, the second testimony is invalidated. If one of the first group is found perjured, the entire testimony is invalidated since if there is no theft there is no slaughter or sale.

MISHNAH: One was convicted of theft on the testimony of two witnesses and of slaughtering or selling on their testimony; if they are found perjured they pay everything to him. If he was convicted of theft on the testimony of two witnesses and of slaughtering or selling on the testimony of two others who all were found perjured, the first group pays double restitution and the second group triple. If the second group were found perjured, he pays double restitution while they pay triple. If one of the second group was found perjured, the second testimony is invalidated. If one of the first group is found perjured, the entire testimony is invalidated since if there is no theft there is no slaughter or sale.

MISHNAH: One was convicted of theft on the testimony of two witnesses and of slaughtering or selling on their testimony; if they are found perjured they pay everything to him. If he was convicted of theft on the testimony of two witnesses and of slaughtering or selling on the testimony of two others who all were found perjured, the first group pays double restitution and the second group triple. If the second group were found perjured, he pays double restitution while they pay triple. If one of the second group was found perjured, the second testimony is invalidated. If one of the first group is found perjured, the entire testimony is invalidated since if there is no theft there is no slaughter or sale.

MISHNAH: One was convicted of theft on the testimony of two witnesses and of slaughtering or selling on their testimony; if they are found perjured they pay everything to him. If he was convicted of theft on the testimony of two witnesses and of slaughtering or selling on the testimony of two others who all were found perjured, the first group pays double restitution and the second group triple. If the second group were found perjured, he pays double restitution while they pay triple. If one of the second group was found perjured, the second testimony is invalidated. If one of the first group is found perjured, the entire testimony is invalidated since if there is no theft there is no slaughter or sale.

HALAKHAH: “A person convicted of theft on the testimony of two witnesses,” etc. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, this implies that a perjured witness is not disqualified by the court but is disqualified by himself. Explain it by warning, as it was stated: “Rebbi Yose said, when has this been said? For two testimonies with two warnings. But for one testimony and one warning any testimony which is partially disqualified is totally disqualified.” What does it mean that if it is partially disqualified it is totally disqualified? If they were standing and testifying against him on then tenth of Nisan that he had stolen an ox on the first of Nisan. He slaughtered or sold on the tenth of Nisan. They were shown to be perjured on the fifteenth of Nisan. Any testimony which they delivered between the tenth and the fifteenth of Nisan is retroactively disqualified. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, explain it if they deliver their testimony in one group and you cannot infer anything, as we have stated: “They were the first and they were the later [witnesses]. If they were shown to be perjured at first, there is nothing. At the second time, there is one testimony. At the third time, there are two testimonies.” And how is that if they give testimony in one group, you cannot infer anything? It comes only based on multiple testimony.

HALAKHAH: “A person convicted of theft on the testimony of two witnesses,” etc. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, this implies that a perjured witness is not disqualified by the court but is disqualified by himself. Explain it by warning, as it was stated: “Rebbi Yose said, when has this been said? For two testimonies with two warnings. But for one testimony and one warning any testimony which is partially disqualified is totally disqualified.” What does it mean that if it is partially disqualified it is totally disqualified? If they were standing and testifying against him on then tenth of Nisan that he had stolen an ox on the first of Nisan. He slaughtered or sold on the tenth of Nisan. They were shown to be perjured on the fifteenth of Nisan. Any testimony which they delivered between the tenth and the fifteenth of Nisan is retroactively disqualified. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, explain it if they deliver their testimony in one group and you cannot infer anything, as we have stated: “They were the first and they were the later [witnesses]. If they were shown to be perjured at first, there is nothing. At the second time, there is one testimony. At the third time, there are two testimonies.” And how is that if they give testimony in one group, you cannot infer anything? It comes only based on multiple testimony.

Samuel said, one can transfer benefits to the fetus; Rebbi Eleazar said, one cannot transfer benefits to the fetus. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Eleazar. “If a proselyte died and Jews plundered his estate, then it became known that he had a son or that his wife was pregnant, everybody is required to return [what he took]. If they returned everything and then the son died or his wife had a miscarriage, the last one in possession acquires it.” Did the first group acquire or not? Explain it, because of hopelessness and it does not even disagree with Samuel. Or should the last one not have acquired it? Still it is because of hopelessness.

It is written: to the outstanding Elders in the diaspora. The Holy One, praise to Him, said: The Elders of the diaspora are very dear to me. But more beloved by Me is a small group in the Land of Israel than a great Synhedrion outside the Land. It is written: The craftsmen and the smiths one thousand, and you say so? Rebbi Berekhiah in the name of Rebbi Ḥelbo and the rabbis. Rebbi Berekhiah said, one thousand craftsmen and one thousand smiths. But the rabbis say, together one thousand. Rebbi Berekhiah in the name of Rebbi [Ḥelbo said], these are the Fellows; but the rabbis say, these are the councilmen.

There, we have stated: “If two groups of witnesses were testifying against a person, one group say that he vowed nazir twice, the others say that he vowed nazir five times. The House of Shammai say, the testimony is split and there is no nezirut there. But the House of Hillel say, five contains two; he should be a nazir twice.” Rav said, they differ in the overall testimony. But in detail, everybody agrees that the testimony is split. Rebbi Joḥanan said, they differ in counting. But in an overall testimony, everybody agrees that five contains two. What is overall and what is counting? Overall, this one says two, the other one says five. Counting, this one says one, two, the other one says three, four.

Simeon ben Sheṭaḥ’s hands were hot. There came a group of scoffers who said, let us take counsel, testify against his son, and kill him. They testified against him. He was sentenced to be executed. When he was taken to be killed, they told him, our Master, we are liars. His father wanted to return him; he told him, my father, if you want that salvation come through you, treat me as a target.

Rebbi Simeon says, those of the House of Rebbi state: even if he intended to kill one person but killed another, he is not criminally liable. The House of Rebbi follows Rebbi Nathan, as it was stated in the name of Rebbi Nathan: If one was standing next to a group of people and said, I am intending to kill one of you. Even if he intended to kill one person but killed another, he is not criminally liable.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, the group of Joḥanan ben Qareaḥ has no part in the World to Come. What is the reason? They were traitors to the Eternal for they produced foreign children. Now a new Moon shall eat their parts.

MISHNAH: If both of them disavowed simultaneously, both of them are liable; one after the other, the first is liable but the second is not liable. If one reneged but one confessed, the one who disavowed is liable. If there were two groups of witnesses, if the first group disavowed and after this the second, both are liable since testimony could be upheld by either one of them.

Rebbi La: Both Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both are saying, there is no ”witnesses “here. Why? Because they might die. But might not a document be lost? Therefore, the reason can only be that they might forget their testimony. There, we have stated: “Where is my ox? He told him, it is lost. I want you to swear, he said, Amen. But witnesses testify that he ate it. He has to pay the value. If he confessed himself, he has to pay the value, and the fifth, and the reparation sacrifice.” The Mishnah [applies] if he does not know that there are witnesses. He comes to tell you, even if he knows that there are witnesses. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah says so: “If there were two groups of witnesses, if the first group reneged and after this the second, both are liable.” One understands that the first group becomes liable. Why the second? Not because they might forget their testimony? [Here also, because they (are commanded) to forget their testimony.]

Rebbi La: Both Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both are saying, there is no ”witnesses “here. Why? Because they might die. But might not a document be lost? Therefore, the reason can only be that they might forget their testimony. There, we have stated: “Where is my ox? He told him, it is lost. I want you to swear, he said, Amen. But witnesses testify that he ate it. He has to pay the value. If he confessed himself, he has to pay the value, and the fifth, and the reparation sacrifice.” The Mishnah [applies] if he does not know that there are witnesses. He comes to tell you, even if he knows that there are witnesses. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah says so: “If there were two groups of witnesses, if the first group reneged and after this the second, both are liable.” One understands that the first group becomes liable. Why the second? Not because they might forget their testimony? [Here also, because they (are commanded) to forget their testimony.]

Rebbi Abba, Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: In any case where two [witnesses] make him liable to pay money, a single witness sets him up for an oath. But do not two [witnesses] make him liable for real estate? It is a difference since one does not swear about real estate. But do not two [witnesses] make him liable for a fine? There is a difference since one does not swear about a fine. But do not two [witnesses] make him liable for a peruṭah? Is it so? Have we not stated: “A judicial oath is about a claim of two silver coins and the acknowledgment of one peruṭah.” Our Mishnah, when he swears by his own formulation. What (Rebbi) Samuel said, when he swears by the formulation of others. Rav Ḥisda and his group disagree. “A judicial oath”, any judicial oath. There is no difference whether he swears by his own formulation or he swears by the formulation of others, he cannot be liable except for a claim.

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If one bartered an animal for an idol it becomes forbidden. Rav Ḥisda asked: If he had worshipped it he would not have made it forbidden. Because he bartered an animal for an idol he made it forbidden? Maybe it was said about merchandise assembled before the fair. There came Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If one bartered an animal for an idol it becomes forbidden. This was said about merchandise assembled before the fair. Rebbi Abbahu said, it is forbidden to make a group visit to a fair, as we have stated: “One should not greet him at a place where it gives him prestige. If he meets him on his way, he greets him gravely.”

MISHNAH: Witnesses become plotters only by their own testimony. How is this? If they said, we testify against this man that he killed a person; [others] told them, how can you testify, for this murder victim or this murderer was with us at such place on that day; they are not plotters. But if they told them, how can you testify, for you were with us at such place on that day; they are plotters and are executed on their testimony. If others came and they showed them to be plotters, if others came and they showed them to be plotters, even a hundred, all should be executed. Rebbi Jehudah says, this is איסטיסית; only the first group is executed.

HALAKHAH: “Witnesses become plotters,” etc. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: Only if he was killed. But not if he was not killed. That is what we have stated: “Only the first group is executed.” Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Zeˋira: If they were standing, testifying that he killed a person in Lydda. Others came and told them, how can you testify since you were with us in Caesarea on the fifth of the month? Then others came and told them, how can you testify since you were with us in Sepphoris on the tenth of the month? The murderer cannot be executed since possibly they are plotting witnesses. The witnesses cannot be executed since possibly they are telling the truth.

HALAKHAH: “Plotting witnesses cannot be”. Rebbi Zeˋira said, this implies that a plotting witness is not disqualified by the court but is disqualified by himself. Explain it by warning, as it was stated: “Rebbi Yose said, when has this been said? For two testimonies with two warnings. But for one testimony and one warning any testimony which is partially disqualified is totally disqualified.” What does it mean, “if it is partially disqualified it is totally disqualified”? If they were standing and testifying against him on the tenth of Nisan that he had stolen an ox on the first of Nisan, and slaughtered or sold it on the fifth of Nisan. They were shown to be plotting on the eleventh of Nisan. Any testimony which they delivered between the second and the fifth of Nisan is retroactively disqualified. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, explain it if they deliver their testimony in one group and you cannot infer anything, as we have stated: “They were the first and they were the later [witnesses]. If they were shown to be plotting at first, there is nothing. At the second time, there is one testimony. At the third time, there are two testimonies. How? If they testify on one occasion, you could not infer anything. It only comes based on multiple testimonies. Rebbi Zeˋira said, this implies that a plotting witness is not disqualified by the court but is disqualified by himself.

MISHNAH: If two [witnesses] saw him from one window, two from another window, and a person in the middle gives the warning, if partially they can see one another then this is one testimony. Otherwise, these are two testimonies. Therefore, if one [group] of them is found plotting, he and they are executed; the second [group] is not prosecutable.

MISHNAH: If two [witnesses] saw him from one window, two from another window, and a person in the middle gives the warning, if partially they can see one another then this is one testimony. Otherwise, these are two testimonies. Therefore, if one [group] of them is found plotting, he and they are executed; the second [group] is not prosecutable.

HALAKHAH: “If two [witnesses] saw him,” etc. Rebbi Jeremiah said, look how we are stating here: “If two [witnesses] saw him from one window, two from another window, and a person in the middle gives the warning, if partially they can see one another then this is one testimony. Otherwise, these are two testimonies.” Therefore, if they were three each, this does not apply. Rebbi Yose said, we stated “three each not so.” We state here what was not stated in all of Sanhedrin: “he and they are executed; the second [group] is not prosecutable.”

Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. For instructions they considered the settlement of the Land of Israel. For impurity they considered the majority of those coming to the Temple precinct. How? Do they estimate every group or only the first group? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, when they are still outside they estimate themselves. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: For appearance they consider from Levo- Ḥamat to the brook of Egypt. Rebbi Tanḥuma in the name of Rebbi Ḥuna: The reason of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi is, at that time Solomon celebrated the holiday, and all of Israel, etc.

Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. For instructions they considered the settlement of the Land of Israel. For impurity they considered the majority of those coming to the Temple precinct. How? Do they estimate every group or only the first group? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, when they are still outside they estimate themselves. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: For appearance they consider from Levo- Ḥamat to the brook of Egypt. Rebbi Tanḥuma in the name of Rebbi Ḥuna: The reason of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi is, at that time Solomon celebrated the holiday, and all of Israel, etc.

A Master said, "Just like we do not take away from the [four species], so too we do not add to them." This is obvious [seeing as we are not allowed to add to commandments]! You might have said, Seeing as Rabbi Yehudah said that a Lulav [bundle] needs binding, if you bring another species [outside of the bundle], than [you might think that] this [i.e. the Lulav bundle] is one group, and this [i.e. the new species] is one group. We learn from the [above statement that you cannot add to the four species].

A Master said, "Just like we do not take away from the [four species], so too we do not add to them." This is obvious [seeing as we are not allowed to add to commandments]! You might have said, Seeing as Rabbi Yehudah said that a Lulav [bundle] needs binding, if you bring another species [outside of the bundle], than [you might think that] this [i.e. the Lulav bundle] is one group, and this [i.e. the new species] is one group. We learn from the [above statement that you cannot add to the four species].

If [the omission is to be justified] on account of the omission of the eve of the Pesah, this is not really an omission, for this statement is made according to R. Judah who stated: Never did the third group reach the verse, “I love the Lord, for He hears my voice” (Psalms 116:1) for they were few in number.

If others [a third set] came and were found to be zomemim [by the testimony of the second set], if others came and were found to be zomemim, even if there were one hundred [sets of witnesses], they all get executed. Rebbi Yehudah says, this group [the second set] is considered to be a 'plotting group' and no one gets executed besides for the first set of witnesses.

If others [a third set] came and were found to be zomemim [by the testimony of the second set], if others came and were found to be zomemim, even if there were one hundred [sets of witnesses], they all get executed. Rebbi Yehudah says, this group [the second set] is considered to be a 'plotting group' and no one gets executed besides for the first set of witnesses.

And Rava said, If two [witnesses] come and say that they witnessed a murder on Sunday, and two [other witnesses] come and say that you [the first group] were with us on Sunday, but the murder did happen on Monday, and even if they [the second group of witnesses] say that the murder occurred on [the previous] Friday, they [the first group of witnesses] are executed [as zomemim] because at the time that they testified, the man [the accused] was not yet found guilty of death.

And Rava said, If two [witnesses] come and say that they witnessed a murder on Sunday, and two [other witnesses] come and say that you [the first group] were with us on Sunday, but the murder did happen on Monday, and even if they [the second group of witnesses] say that the murder occurred on [the previous] Friday, they [the first group of witnesses] are executed [as zomemim] because at the time that they testified, the man [the accused] was not yet found guilty of death.

And Rava said, If two [witnesses] come and say that they witnessed a murder on Sunday, and two [other witnesses] come and say that you [the first group] were with us on Sunday, but the murder did happen on Monday, and even if they [the second group of witnesses] say that the murder occurred on [the previous] Friday, they [the first group of witnesses] are executed [as zomemim] because at the time that they testified, the man [the accused] was not yet found guilty of death.

What is this [statement of Rava] coming to reach us? We [already] learned this in a mishna. "Therefore, if one of the [two groups that testified someone was liable for the death penalty] is found to be zomemim, he [the person they were testifying against] and they [the zomemim] are executed, and the second [group of witnesses, who haven't been found to be zomemim] is free.

He [Rava] needs to say it for its ending which talks about [after the] verdict having a different rule If two [witnesses] come and say that they witnessed the court issue a guilty verdict [for the death penalty] on Sunday, and two [other witnesses] come and say that you [the first group] were with us on Sunday, but the verdict was given on [the previous] Friday, and even if they [the second group of witnesses] say, the verdict occurred on Monday, they [the first group of witnesses] are not executed [as zomemim] because at the time that they testified, the man [the accused] was already found guilty of death.

He [Rava] needs to say it for its ending which talks about [after the] verdict having a different rule If two [witnesses] come and say that they witnessed the court issue a guilty verdict [for the death penalty] on Sunday, and two [other witnesses] come and say that you [the first group] were with us on Sunday, but the verdict was given on [the previous] Friday, and even if they [the second group of witnesses] say, the verdict occurred on Monday, they [the first group of witnesses] are not executed [as zomemim] because at the time that they testified, the man [the accused] was already found guilty of death.

He [Rava] needs to say it for its ending which talks about [after the] verdict having a different rule If two [witnesses] come and say that they witnessed the court issue a guilty verdict [for the death penalty] on Sunday, and two [other witnesses] come and say that you [the first group] were with us on Sunday, but the verdict was given on [the previous] Friday, and even if they [the second group of witnesses] say, the verdict occurred on Monday, they [the first group of witnesses] are not executed [as zomemim] because at the time that they testified, the man [the accused] was already found guilty of death.

And [we find a] similar [rule] with regard to paying a fine. If two [witnesses] come and say that a person stole [an animal], and slaughtered or sold it on Sunday, and two [other witnesses] come and say that you [the first group] were with us on Sunday, but the person did steal the animal and slaughter or sell it on Monday,

and even if they [the second group of witnesses] say that the person stole [the animal] and slaughtered or sold it on [the previous] Friday, they [the first group of witnesses] are found liable to pay [the intended fine as zomemim] because at the time that they testified, the man [the accused] was not yet found liable to the fine.

and even if they [the second group of witnesses] say that the person stole [the animal] and slaughtered or sold it on [the previous] Friday, they [the first group of witnesses] are found liable to pay [the intended fine as zomemim] because at the time that they testified, the man [the accused] was not yet found liable to the fine.

If two [witnesses] come and say, A person stole [an animal], slaughtered or sold it, and had a [guilty] verdict on Sunday, and two [other witnesses] come and say that you [the first group] were with us on Sunday, but the person did steal the animal, slaughter or sell it, and receive a [guilty] verdict on [the previous] Friday, and even if they [the second group of witnesses] say that the person stole [the animal], slaughtered or sold it, and received a [guilty] verdict on Monday, they [the first group of witnesses] are not found liable to pay [the intended fine as zomemim] because at the time that they testified, the man [the accused] was already found liable to the fine.

If two [witnesses] come and say, A person stole [an animal], slaughtered or sold it, and had a [guilty] verdict on Sunday, and two [other witnesses] come and say that you [the first group] were with us on Sunday, but the person did steal the animal, slaughter or sell it, and receive a [guilty] verdict on [the previous] Friday, and even if they [the second group of witnesses] say that the person stole [the animal], slaughtered or sold it, and received a [guilty] verdict on Monday, they [the first group of witnesses] are not found liable to pay [the intended fine as zomemim] because at the time that they testified, the man [the accused] was already found liable to the fine.

If two [witnesses] come and say, A person stole [an animal], slaughtered or sold it, and had a [guilty] verdict on Sunday, and two [other witnesses] come and say that you [the first group] were with us on Sunday, but the person did steal the animal, slaughter or sell it, and receive a [guilty] verdict on [the previous] Friday, and even if they [the second group of witnesses] say that the person stole [the animal], slaughtered or sold it, and received a [guilty] verdict on Monday, they [the first group of witnesses] are not found liable to pay [the intended fine as zomemim] because at the time that they testified, the man [the accused] was already found liable to the fine.

Rabbi Yehuda says this is a plotting group etc.:

If this [the second group of witnesses] is a plotting group, and even the first group shouldn't be executed. Rebbi Abahu says, [The case in the mishna is] when they were already executed.

If this [the second group of witnesses] is a plotting group, and even the first group shouldn't be executed. Rebbi Abahu says, [The case in the mishna is] when they were already executed.

If this [the second group of witnesses] is a plotting group, and even the first group shouldn't be executed. Rebbi Abahu says, [The case in the mishna is] when they were already executed.

But what happened already happened? [and there isn't anything else that we could do either-way] Rather Rava says that this this is what the mishna is saying, If there is only one group it gets executed, if there are more than they don't get executed. But the mishna used the word "belvaad" [only]? It's a question.

Let's say that Reish Lakash [the woman is established to bring in false witnesses] holds like Rebbi Yehudah [It's a plotting group] and Rebbi Yochanon [not all of Israel has been established] holds like the Rabbis [all the witnesses are executed].

GEMARA:Rava says, and this [that one can disqualify the whole group of witnesses] is only when they all testified בתוך כדי דיבור. Rav Acha mDifti said to Revina, let's see, how long is בתוך כדי דיבור? The amount of time that it takes for a student to greet his teacher. A hundred [witnesses] is too many [to all give testimony in this time slot]?!

Rebbi Akiva says the third on didn't come etc. and just as by two [one could disqualify the group] etc. Rav said to Rav Papa But now, let the victim [who is a witness to his own murder] save [the murderer from being executed]? [The case] is where he was killed from behind.

Rava answered, this is what we say to them, Did you come to see or did you come to testify? If they respond that they came to testify, then if one of them is found to be a relative or a disqualified [witness], the whole [group of] testimony is dismissed. But if they respond that they came to see, [then they can't disqualify the whole group because otherwise] what should two brothers do who together witnessed a murder?

Rava answered, this is what we say to them, Did you come to see or did you come to testify? If they respond that they came to testify, then if one of them is found to be a relative or a disqualified [witness], the whole [group of] testimony is dismissed. But if they respond that they came to see, [then they can't disqualify the whole group because otherwise] what should two brothers do who together witnessed a murder?

MISHNA: If there were two [witnesses] observing from this window, and two [witnesses] observing from this window, and one warner in the middle, In a time where some of them [the witnesses] saw one another, it is considered one [group] of witnesses. And if [they do] not [see one another] then it is considered two [groups of] witnesses. Therefore, if one [of the two groups of witnesses] becomes zomemim, then he [the murderer] and they [the zomemim] are executed, but the second [group of witnesses] are exonerated.

MISHNA: If there were two [witnesses] observing from this window, and two [witnesses] observing from this window, and one warner in the middle, In a time where some of them [the witnesses] saw one another, it is considered one [group] of witnesses. And if [they do] not [see one another] then it is considered two [groups of] witnesses. Therefore, if one [of the two groups of witnesses] becomes zomemim, then he [the murderer] and they [the zomemim] are executed, but the second [group of witnesses] are exonerated.

There is a single plowing... etc.: Rav Yanai said, In the group, they voted and decided that one who [merely] covers Kilayim [mixed seeds] incurs malkus. Rebbi Yochanon asked him, Wasn't that already stated in our Mishna? There is a case of where on plows a single row, and is liable on it due to eight separate prohibitions. One who plows with an ox and a donkey, which are sanctified, over mixed seeds in a vineyard" This plowing that one is liable on because of Kilayim, how would [such a case] be found? Would it not be where he covers them as he is plowing?