halakhah

HALAKHAH: “If somebody sells grain to another,” etc. It was stated: “If somebody sells grain to another and it did not sprout, even flax seed, he is not responsible for it. But if he made it conditional from the start as seeds, he is liable. What does he pay him? The value of the seeds. Some say, he gives him his expenses.”

HALAKHAH: “If somebody sells a plot to another,” etc. It was stated: “For a large house he must provide him with twelve by twelve [cubits].”

HALAKHAH: “If somebody has a cistern,” etc. It was stated: The outer one cannot sow on the path for the other can tell him, I would walk on slippery ground. The inner one cannot sow on the path for the other can tell him, you would take care of yours and step on mine.

HALAKHAH: “If a public way was passing through somebody’s,” etc., to the end of the Mishnah. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph said, he makes them like keyholes. Rebbi Joḥanan told him, but dogs are not buried in that way! What does he do? He builds inside as if outside. Do the crossings not interfere with one another? They do not cross; he builds one higher and one lower.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody says to another: I am selling you a bet kor of dust,” etc. Rebbi Yasa said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Only if it is the smaller part of his field and enclosed in it. And a rock with a total surface area of a bet rova‘ is not measured with it. If it is in the middle, it is measured, at the side it is not measured. What is a side and what is in the middle? In the House of Rebbi Yannai they said, any place surrounded by a ploughed area is in the middle; any place not surrounded by a ploughed area is to the side. Rebbi Yose came in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If it was a majority on one side, but if you spread it, it becomes a smaller part, and it is measured with it. How wide? Rebbi Ḥaggai said, up to four cubits. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, up to ten handbreadths. If there was a depression ten handbreadths deep but less than four wide, what is the rule? Let us hear from the following, what Rebbi Yasa said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: “Only if it is the smaller part of his field and enclosed in it. And a rock with a total surface area of a bet rova‘ is not measured with it. If it was split, it is measured with it.” This means that if the greater part of it was on one side, but if you spread it, it becomes the smaller part and is not measured with it. If there was a long depression which added up to a bet rova‘? Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba asked: If it was shaped like sticks, is it measured with it or not? Rebbi Yudan bar Ismael asked: If it was like marble plates, is it measured with it or not? Rebbi Isaac bar Tebelai asked: If it was formed like chairs, does he measure from the place of its wall or does he measure from its declivity? Rav Huna in the name of Rav, [Rebbi] Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Only if the total agricultural area was four bet kor.

HALAKHAH: “I am selling you a bet kor of dust,” etc. Here, you say that “he has received it.” But there, you say that “not only the quarter [qab] he has to return but all the excess”? They said, since you exclude him from the rule of “less than measured by the surveyor’s measuring tape” you return him to the rules of “by the surveyor’s measuring tape.”

HALAKHAH: “What does he return? Money,” etc. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: If somebody sell a slave to another and he turns out to be a thief or a gambler, he received him. But if he was a robber or proscribed by the Government, he did not receive him.

HALAKHAH: It was stated: If somebody says to another: I am selling you half a field, and X and Y and half of Z surround you. Rav Huna, and Rav Jehudah, and Rebbi Jeremiah. One said, he gives him [an area shaped] like a pandur. And one said, he gives him something like a strip of cloth. And one said, he gives him something like patches.

HALAKHAH: “Some inherit and bequeath,” etc. It is written: “If a man die without a son, you shall transfer his estate to his daughter.” Rebbi Ismael stated: The verse distinguished this inheritance from all other inheritances mentioned in the Torah, since for all of them it is written “you shall give,” but here is written: “you shall transfer.” It is an extension of the law that the daughter shall inherit. The Gentile Sages say, son and daughter are equal, for they explain “if he have no son;” therefore, if he has one both are equal. One objected, is it not written “if he have no daughter;” therefore, if he has one are both equal? And you agree, if there is no child, here also, if there is no son. The Sadducees say, the son’s daughter and the daughter are equal, for they explain: Since my son’s daughter who comes by force of her father does inherit from me, would it not be logical that my daughter who comes by force of myself should inherit from me? One told them, no. If you mention the son’s daughter who only inherits by the power of the brothers, what could you say about the daughter who only inherits by the power of the old man? The verse says, “any daughter who is an heiress of the tribes.” How is it possible for a daughter to inherit from two tribes? But explain it if her father was from one tribe and her mother from another.

HALAKHAH: “Zelophehad’s daughters,” etc. Zelophehad’s daughters said before our teacher Moses: If we are Zelophehad’s daughters, we should inherit from our father. If we are not Zelophehad’s daughters, let our mother enter levirate marriage. Immediately, “ he brought their suit before the Eternal.” The Holy One, praise to Him, told him, “ Zelophehad’s daughters speak correctly. Give them possession of inheritance,” give them real estate, give them movables, give them their father’s part among their father’s brothers.

HALAKHAH: “Both son and daughter are equal for the rules of inheritance,” etc. It is written: “Of anything which will be found with him,” etc. How could he inherit the expectancy like existing property? How? If his father died during his father’s father’s lifetime, he takes a double portion of his father’s estate but not a double portion of his grandfather’s estate. But if his father was a firstborn, just as he takes from his father’s estate so he takes from his grandfather’s estate. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Abba [Cohen] bar Delaiah: It was said “a rule of law” in the matter of a double portion just as it was said “a rule of law” in the matter of a single portion. Since for a single portion one considers the son as if he were alive to take his father’s single portion so for a double portion one considers the son as if he were alive to take his father’s double portion.

HALAKHAH: “One who says, “my firstborn X shall not take a double portion,’ ” etc. Rebbi La made the right of the firstborn equal to that of the brothers. Rebbi Ḥaggai said to them: Is that not a verse, “he shall not be able to declare as firstborn.” Rebbi Eliezer said, by the Temple Service! He is able, but he is not permitted. Except that he is able designating it as a gift.

HALAKHAH: “One who says, Mr. X shall inherit from me,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa said only this about a son among sons or a daughter among daughters, but not a daughter among brothers or a brother among daughters. Rebbi Joḥanan said, practice follows Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa. Rebbi asked Rebbi Nathan; bar Abba said, so was the question: What is Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa’s reason? Rebbi Ze‘ira said, so was the question: What did they see to say that practice follows Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa? He told him, did you not teach us so: “they shall inherit”? So is the Mishnah: “they shall take.” [Rebbi] La said, even following him who said “inherit”, is not the power of the court strengthened? As you say, nobody can transfer property using the language of gift; here he may do it. Similarly, nobody can transfer property using the language of inheritance; here he may do it.

HALAKHAH: “If one writes his properties over to others,” etc. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, about one who writes his properties over to others while neglecting his children, the verse says: “their sins were on their bones.” As the following: A person deposited his properties with Rebbi Abba bar Mamal and told him, if my sons will be useful give them half and keep half. His sons came and took half. Later they came to appeal against him. He told them, your father said only: If my sons will be useful give them half and keep half. Now you are badly educated, return to me what I gave to you.

HALAKHAH: “He who says, this is my son, is to be believed,” etc. If it was the general belief that he was his son, but at the moment of his death he said, he is not my son, or about one not his son he said, he is my son, he is believed. If he stood near the toll collector and said, he is my son and then changed and said, he is my slave, he is believed. He is my slave, and then said, he is my son, he cannot be believed. Some Tannaïm state, he is to be believed. Rebbi Mana said, for example those Nabateans who particularly use their sons as slaves.

HALAKHAH: “One who writes his properties over to his sons,” etc. Rebbi Simeon ben Yaqim brought a case before Rebbi Joḥanan. “From today after his death,” his gift is a gift. “From today and after death” it is no bill of divorce. The colleagues say, so he told him: this is no condition. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, so he told him: It applies neither to bills of divorce nor to gifts. Rebbi La said, for a gift; since he said “from today”, the gift is clear. Why did he write “after death”? To reserve the yield to himself. But in bills of divorce, since he wrote “from today” in the bill, it would be a separation. Why did he write “after death”? To reserve her body to himself. Rebbi Abun bar Cahana said before Rebbi La, not to reserve her earnings for himself? He answered, we do not find a woman married to one man and her earnings belonging to another. Rebbi Ze‘ira confirmed him and called him “son of the Torah.”

HALAKHAH: “If he left adult and underage sons” etc. Rebbi Jeremiah asked before Rebbi Ze‘ira: Could the older ones take 100 barrels, each worth twenty denars, and the younger ones take 100 barrels, each worth ten denars? He told him, what these take, those should be taking.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody die and is survived by sons and daughters,” etc. So is the Mishnah: “the daughters shall be sustained and the sons shall go (begging) [peddling].

HALAKHAH: “If he is survived by sons, daughters,,” etc. It was stated: “If somebody says, he who brings me the news that my wife gave birth to a male shall take 200”: if his wife gave birth to a male he takes 200. If she gave birth to a female he shall take a mina”: if his wife gave birth to a female he takes a mina. If it was a male and a female, he only takes a mina.” Rebbi Mana said, the pain about the daughter invalidates the joy about the son.

HALAKHAH: “If he is survived by adult and underage children,” etc. Rebbi La said, “if they said” in court. In the House of Rebbi Yannai they said, even a jug. Rav said, even a basket, even an axe. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: Even a needle, even a thread to tie down.

HALAKHAH: “If one of co-owning brothers,” etc. It was stated: If one of co-owning brothers was requisitioned for government service. If this was because of the sharecroppper, he takes because of the sharecropper. If because of the head of household, he takes as head of household. As the following: Rav Naḥman bar Samuel bar Naḥman was appointed to the city council. The case came before Rebbi Immi. He said, if Naḥman who was caught has enough property, it should be given from his property; otherwise it should be given to him from the common estate.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody sent bridal gifts to his father-in-law’s house,” etc. A person sent to his preliminarily wedded wife large bridal gifts. His relatives told him not to taste anything there. He went, did not listen to them, and ate. The house collapsed; they kept everything.

HALAKHAH: “If a bedridden person distributed all his properties to others,” etc. Rav Jeremiah in the name of Rav: If he reserved any movables, he did not do anything. But if he reserved money and bought real estate it is as if he reserved real estate. And what you say that if he did not reserve any real estate his gift is not a gift, if he did (not) recuperate. But if he did [not] recuperate, that is the case about which Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Yannai, they treated words of a bedridden person like those of a healthy person who wrote and delivered; but only if he died from that sickness. If a critically ill person distributed his property, whether on a weekday or on the Sabbath, what he did is valid. But if he was healthy [it is valid] only if he wrote “by money, or contract, or possession.”

HALAKHAH: So far if real estate and movables were at the same place. If real estate was at one place and movables elsewhere? Rebbi Abin bar Ḥiyya said, let us hear from the following: Rebbi Eliezer said to them, it happened that a man from Meron was dwelling in Jerusalem who was rich in movables. He wanted to distribute them, to give them as gifts. They said to him, you cannot do that except if you acquire real estate. What did he do? He went and bought a rock near Jerusalem and said: The Northern part I give to X with a hundred sheep and a hundred amphoras of wine, the Southern part I give to Y with a hundred amphoras of oil. The matter came before the Sages, who upheld his words. Rebbi Ḥananiah said before Rebbi Mana: But was he not bedridden? For in general a person might give property rights only in writing, and here even orally. In general, a person might give only if real estate and movables are at the same place; here, however, the real estate was at one place and the movables elsewhere. He said to him: But is there a difference for Rebbi Eliezer? Would the sick person for Rebbi Eliezer be like the healthy person for the rabbis? He said to him: The sick person for Rebbi Eliezer is like the healthy person for the rabbis.

HALAKHAH: “But the Sages say, on the Sabbath, his words are confirmed,” etc. Some Tannaїm state it inversely. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, so is the Mishnah: if they said that for the Sabbath, so much more for weekdays. Some Tannaїm state it inversely. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, so is the Mishnah: if they said that for an underage person, so much more for an adult.

HALAKHAH: “If the house collapsed on him and his father,” etc. Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, this implies that Ben Azzai was a colleague and student of Rebbi Aqiba.

HALAKHAH: “The witnesses to an open document are inside,” etc. From where that a document can be knotted? Rebbi Immi said: “I took the sale document and the sealed”, that is the knotted [document]. “And the open,” that is the simple, part of the knotted. “And the orders and the rules”; orders and rules differ between these, for one is with two [witnesses], the other with three; one in it, the other on its back.

HALAKHAH: “A simple document has two witnesses,” etc. It was stated: “Zuzin which are” and the rest was erased. Five, but the other says, they were only two. There, they say, Ben Azzai and Rebbi Aqiba. One of them said, he pays two and swears about the remainder. But the other said, since if this one had not agreed to anything, the other could only have collected two, he should only have to swear on what he conceded.

HALAKHAH: “If at the start there was written a mina,” etc. It was stated: Always in a knotted document the bottom should be instructed by the top for one letter (or) [but not] for two letters. One confirms between Ḥanan and Ḥanani, or Anan and Anani, a difference of one letter; of two letters one does not confirm. Rebbi Isaac asked: At the top it was written Ḥanan, at the bottom Nani. May the top learn from the bottom for Ḥanan and the bottom from the top for Nani?

HALAKHAH: “One writes a bill of divorce for a man,” etc. Rebbi Abba said: He has to know both of them. Rebbi La said, he has to know the husband for his bill of divorce and the woman for her receipt. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Abba: “Rabban Gamliel the Elder instituted that one should write Mr. X and all his names, Mrs. Y and all her names, for the public good.” But even with Rebbi [La] it does not disagree: “In earlier times, his name and her name and the names of his and her towns could change.”

HALAKHAH: “One writes a document of indebtedness,” etc. It was stated, forfaits. Rebbi Abbahu collected, Rebbi Aḥa collected, Rebbi Immi collected. Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose did not collect. Rebbi Mana said, even though Rebbi Yose did not collect forfaits, he agrees if one gave his son to artisans and they mutually agreed to forfaits, he collects.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody paid off part of his debt,” etc. Rav said, the court writes him a confirmation. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: the court does not write a confirmation. Rebbi Jeremiah said, if Rav had heard this baraita, he would not have said what he did.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody said to his son,” etc. It was stated: The worry caused by a large bond is not comparable to the worry caused by a small bond.

HALAKHAH: “Somebody who gives a loan to another person with a guarantor,” etc. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If the debtor has real estate. But if the debtor has no real estate, he may request payment from the guarantor. If he said, on condition that I may request payment from whom I choose, he may request payment from the guarantor.

HALAKHAH: “Similarly did Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel say,” etc. The father-in-law of Rebbi Ḥaggai’s daughter was guarantor for Rebbi Ḥaggai’s daughter’s ketubah. She turned out to be a spendthrift. The case came before Rebbi Aḥa, who said that he would have to make a vow not to have usufruct. Rebbi Yose said, he does not have to make a vow not to have usufruct. The colleagues said before Rebbi Yose, but if he would take her back, the creditor would come and seize it. He said, he would not take her back. But it could be transformed into movables or paraphernalia which the creditors could not seize. The case was decided following Rebbi Aḥa.

HALAKHAH: “Somebody who lent to another by a document,” etc. Rav Huna said, predating is invalid but the document is valid. But did we not state: “A predated prozbol is valid, postdated it is invalid”? That means, Rav Huna, Rebbi Eleazar, and Rebbi Simeon ben Yaqim. Rav Huna, quoted here. “Rebbi Eleazar said, it is valid even if there are no signatures of witnesses on it if only he delivered it in the presence of witnesses; and she can use it to collect from encumbered property. For the witnesses sign on the bill of divorce only for the public good.” How? If about those who denied their testimony, the denied testimony is as if nonexistent, and the document should be valid? If about those who did not deny their testimony, did not Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish say, that they considered witnesses who signed a document as if their testimony had been cross-examined in court? What about it: As one formulates, “I, X ben Y, am taking a loan from you, Z, and U is guarantor.”

HALAKHAH: “Money matters are judged by three [judges],” etc. From where comes this? These shall be the laws of procedure to you, I would say that both civil cases and criminal cases are subject to the rules of verification and examination.

HALAKHAH: “Whipping by three [judges],” etc. Rebbi Abbahu asked: Should not a sentence of whipping be passed by 23 [judges], since sometimes he might die from the whippings, so that it is a case of potential death sentence.

HALAKHAH: “One judges neither a tribe,” etc. Come and look: One does not try two people together, so much less an entire tribe? Rebbi Mattaniah said, the Mishnah speaks of the head of the tribe. Rebbi Eliezer said, the Mishnah speaks about a forested area between two tribes.

HALAKHAH: “The High Synhedrion,” etc. Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It says here “congregation”, and it says there “congregation”, how long the evil congregation. Since “congregation” there means ten, so here also ten. Rebbi Simon said, it is said here “amid”, and it is said there “amid”. Since “amid” there means ten, so here also ten. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun told him, if you want to infer from “amid”, there are too many. But it is said here “the sons of Israel”, and it is said there, “the sons of Israel”, the sons of Israel came to buy grain. Since “the sons of Israel” there were ten, so here also ten.

HALAKHAH: “The High Priest judges and one judges him,” etc. One understands that he judges. Why does one judge him? Can he not appoint a plenipotentiary? Think of it, if an oath should be imposed on him, may a plenipotentiary take the oath? His monetary suits are heard by how many? By 23, as we understand from the following: “The king may not sit in the Synhedrion, neither king nor High Priest may participate in intercalations.” Rebbi Ḥanina and Rabbi Mana, one said the king does not sit in the Synhedrion because of suspicion; he cannot participate in intercalations because of suspicion. Neither king nor High Priest may participate in intercalations since it is not to the king’s honor to sit with seven, so much less with three. This implies that his monetary suits are heard by 23.

HALAKHAH: “If he consoles others,” etc. This implies that a footstool is not meant by “overturning the couch.” The High Priest is obligated to overturn his couch.

HALAKHAH: “The king does not judge, nor may one judge him;” etc. But is it not written: David administered justice and charity for his entire people, and you say so? One has to say that he judged by the law, cleared the innocent and condemned the guilty. If a poor person was found liable, he paid from his own money; in that he was administering justice for one party and charity for the other. Rebbi said, if somebody judged, cleared the innocent and condemned the guilty, the Omnipresent will credit him with acting charitably with the guilty by taking the ill-gotten goods out of his hand.

HALAKHAH: “If a relative of his died, he does not leave his palace.” This implies that a dargesh is included in overturning one’s bed. The king is not required to overturn his bed.

HALAKHAH: “He goes to a war of choice,” etc. For it is written: on his saying they shall go out, on his saying they shall return. “He breaches fences on his way,” for it is written: they drove before [this] flock and said, this is David’s booty.

HALAKHAH: “He shall not add wives,” etc. Rav Cahana said, because of the sixth Yitream by Egla. What is written there? At least, I shall give you twice as many.

HALAKHAH: “Money matters by three,” etc. Rebbi Zeˋira said, because he selected him, he will take care of his interests. What is Rebbi Meïr’s reason? So that all three should be chosen unanimously. What is the rabbis’ reason? “I do not trust you to select and let me sit with whom you want, but I and you shall select and empanel whom we want.” It is difficult for the rabbis: If one of them dies, will not all three have been chosen through the choice of one person?

HALAKHAH: “Each of them disqualifies the other’s judge,” etc. So is the Mishnah: Each of them disqualifies the other’s judge, but not his own. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, they spoke about Syrian courts, but not about following Torah law. Rebbi Joḥanan said, even following Torah law. How was this said? Two people had a case in Antioch. One said to the other, I am accepting everything which Rebbi Joḥanan will decide. Rebbi Joḥanan heard it and said, he is not empowered to tear apart his opponent, but they shall hear their arguments there and if need be they should write and send the case before the rabbis. Rebbi Eleazar said, if one says in Tiberias, but the other said in Sepphoris, one listens to the one who says in Tiberias.

HALAKHAH: “Each of them disqualifies the other’s witnesses,” etc. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, so is the Mishnah: “His witness,” but not his witnesses. But Rebbi Joḥanan said, even his witnesses, as it was stated: “One always adds judges until judgment is rendered, and the judges may change their opinions. After judgment is rendered they may no longer change their opinions.” Rebbi Joḥanan agrees, that if these were the only ones, he cannot disqualify them. Zeˋira said, he and a person from the street can team up to disqualify this testimony. Rebbi Ḥanina asked, does not one witness force an oath everywhere? Rebbi Zeˋira said, by disqualification one can only be disqualified by a court. A relative does not have to be disqualified by the court. Rava bar Binah said in the name of Rav: Three are like final judgment.

HALAKHAH: “I am accepting my father,” etc. If somebody said, I am accepting your father, if he accepted in the presence of two others, he may retract; in the presence of three, he may not retract. Samuel said, as long as he did not take from one and give to the other; but if he took from one and gave to the other, he may retract. Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish say even if he took from one and gave to the other, he may retract. “If he hit him with a mace that he should agree; if he accepted he may renege.”

HALAKHAH: “The following are disqualified: The dice-player,” etc. The dice player is the one who plays with small stones. “Not only the player with stones, even one who plays with shells of nuts or pomegranates is not accepted unless he break his stones or tear up his IOU’s, and be checked out and repent in complete repentance.”

HALAKHAH: “The following are the relatives,” etc. Since we have stated “his brother,” why does one have to state “his father’s brother”? To include the son-in-law’s son-in-law.

HALAKHAH: “The lover and the hater,” etc. Rebbi Tevelai, Rebbi Abinna in the name of Rav: They stated this for the seven days of wedding festivities.

HALAKHAH: “How does one check out the witnesses,” etc. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Johanan: If he had intended to appoint them as witnesses, their testimony is valid.

HALAKHAH: “One calls in the second [witness],” etc. Rams, the minimum of rams are two. Why does the verse say two? That both be equal.

HALAKHAH: “When they have come to a decision,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, one forces the one who finds guilty to write “not guilty.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish says, the one who finds guilty, writes “guilty”; the one who finds not guilty, writes “not guilty”. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: “From where that afterwards, one may not say, I had found for you but my colleagues found you guilty.” What does Rebbi Joḥanan do with this? That nobody could say, I really wanted to justify X in his suit but they did not let me do it. What is Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish’s reason? That no other person should come, reason as he did, and say, also that one was there and he erred.

HALAKHAH: “Any time one produces a proof,” etc. Rebbi Oshaiah said, there, where it is possible to add, they continue to argue. But here it is impossible to add. Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both teach that even here it is possible to add.

HALAKHAH: “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rav Hoshaiah: Three Amoraïm. One said, any time he brings proof he can demand a new trial. The other said, if he brought within 30 days, he can demand a new trial, after 30 days he cannot demand a new trial. The other said, he never can demand a new trial unless he prove that he absolutely had no knowledge of it. But did we not state: “Rabban Gamliel said, what should he do who did not know that he had witnesses but found witnesses; that he had no proof, but found proof?” Rebbi La and Rebbi Zeˋira: One said, unless he voided his proofs; the other said, until he disclaimed his proofs.

HALAKHAH: “Both civil suits,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, to protect Israel’s money they said, “tell why you know that this person owes the other.” Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba asked before Rebbi Yasa: What does one do in practice? He answered, following Rebbi Joḥanan, as Rebbi Joḥanan said, to protect Israel’s money they said, “tell why you know that this person owes the other.” Ze‘ir bar Ḥinena in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina and Rav Jehudah, one said: You shall cross-examine, investigate, and inquire well. The other said, equity, equity you shall pursue. How is that? If you see that the verdict will be the truth, investigate it; otherwise, act in equity.

HALAKHAH: “Civil suits are decided,” etc. Rebbi Yannai said, if the Torah had been given decided, no foot could stand. What is the reason? The Eternal spoke to Moses. He said before Him: Master of the Universe, inform me what is the practice. He told him, to bend after the majority. If there was a majority for acquitting, they acquitted; if there was a majority for convicting, they convicted; so that the Torah could be explained in 49 ways impure and 49 ways pure, the numerical value of ודגלו. And so it says: the commands of the Eternal are pure sayings; molten silver in an earthenware crucible, refined sevenfold. And it says, the straightforward love You.

HALAKHAH: “Civil suits can be retried both for credit and for debit,” etc. If he left the court being acquitted, and they found reasons for conviction, could I understand that one returned him? The verse says, do not slay the acquitted. If he left the court being convicted, and they found reasons for acquittal, could I understand that one should not return him? The verse says, but do not slay the innocent. I could think that if he is acquitted in your court, he is acquitted in My court; the verse says, I shall not acquit the wicked. Rebbi Isaac said, Rebbi Yose told me: There is no difference; if the acquittal was in error, one retries him.

HALAKHAH: “In civil suits, one who argued for credit,” etc. Rebbi said, if they only miss saying, Mr. X, you are acquitted, or you are convicted; it does not apply to the discussion. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, it also applies to the discussion.

HALAKHAH: “Civil suits are tried during the day,” etc. From where this? They judged the people at all times. But this is a verse about what happened! Rav Samuel ben Rav Isaac said: so is the baraita: If they erred and judged in the night, their judgment stands, as the verse said: they shall judge the people at all times. He said, that is a statement.

HALAKHAH: “Civil suits are decided on the same day,” etc. It was stated: A witness may not argue either for acquittal or conviction. From where this? A witness shall not argue about anybody on trial for his life. And from where that he himself may not argue either for acquittal or conviction? The verse says, one shall not argue about anybody on trial for his life. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, sometimes a person sees himself set up by perjured witnesses and he speaks much lest he be put to death.

HALAKHAH: “In cases of money matters, purity, and impurity,” etc. Rebbi says, do not argue about a quarrel. It is written against the greatest, that one does not argue after the greatest, only prior to the greatest. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, do not argue about a quarrel. It is written before the greatest, that one does not argue prior to the greatest, only after the greatest. Rav said, do not argue, even after a hundred, the words of Rebbi Phineas.

HALAKHAH: “Three rows of students of the Sages,” etc. Rebbi Abba (bar) [Rebbi] Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It says here congregation, and it says there congregation. Rav brought it from a Mishnah; the Mishnah says “be a tail of lions and not a head of jackals.” The parable says, be a head of jackals but not a tail of lions. But we have stated: “If they needed to ordain, they ordained one from the first row.”

HALAKHAH: “How does one instill fear,” etc. What is meant by a guess? “Do not say, we saw him with a sword in his hand running after another person. He entered a ruined building after him; we entered after him and found him slain. We saw him coming out and his sword was dripping blood. Simeon ben Sheṭah said: May I not see consolation if I did not see one running after another person into a ruined building. I entered after him and found him slain while the other left with his sword dripping blood. I said to him, may I not see consolation if you did not kill him. But what can I do since your blood is not delivered into my hands. But He Who knows thoughts may collect from that person. He did not manage to leave before a snake bit him and he died.

HALAKHAH: “They were investigating him in seven ways,” etc. But we did not state, in which Jubilee period? For that is not current. It was found stated: Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai says, also in which Jubilee period? We confirmed that in a year which started or concluded [a Jubilee period].

HALAKHAH: “Anybody who adds inquiries,” etc. How did he pluck them? He plucked them with their stalks. How did he eat them? With their pits.

HALAKHAH: “One says, on the second of the month,” etc. Until when? Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Up to the greater part of the month. Rebbi Yose said, e. g., those village dwellers. But the Sages say, it is nothing, and Rebbi Yasa said, for example I, who never in my life prayed musaf, since I do not know when the month starts.

HALAKHAH: They brought in the second,” etc. It was stated: “If they found him innocent, they freed him; otherwise they hold his case over, split into groups of two, eat little and refrain from wine, and discuss during the entire night. The next morning they start early, the beadles of the synagogues come for them. They ask, Mr. X [ben Mr. Y. He says, present.] I was for conviction and I still am for conviction; or I was for acquittal and I still am for acquittal; I was for conviction and now I am for acquittal; one accepts his vote. I was for acquittal and now I am for conviction; argue as before.” It was stated: If one of the judges erred, the clerks of court remind him. If he was for conviction, they tell him, argue as before.

HALAKHAH: “If they found him innocent, they free him,” etc. It was stated: If one of the witnesses said, I have an argument for his acquittal, and another came to support him, (and another came to support him,) whom do you co-opt? Let us hear from the following of Rebbi Joḥanan: If somebody was acquitted following his own pleading, one does not place him with the judges. Therefore, if he was acquitted following (his own) pleading, then one person would be simultaneously witness and judge. We do not find that anybody can be both witness and judge.

HALAKHAH: “If sentence was passed,” etc. The Mishnah either follows Rebbi or the rabbis in a Gentile city. As we have stated: Rebbi said, at your gates, at the gate they were found. You are saying so, or maybe at the gate they were judged? It is said here, at your gates, and it says there, if there be found in your midst, at one of your gates. Since gates mentioned there refers to the gate where he was found, gates mentioned here also refers to the gate where he was found. But the rabbis say, at your gates, at the gate where he was judged. You are saying so, or maybe at the gate were he was found? It is said here, at your gates, and it says there, take this man or this woman … to your gates. Since gates mentioned there refers to the gate where he was judged, gates mentioned here also refers to the gate where he was judged.

HALAKHAH: “If they found him innocent,” etc. It was stated: If a bull was led out to be stoned when its witnesses were found to be perjured, Rebbi Joḥanan said, the first to come acquires it; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it was a false declaration of ownerlessness. Similarly, if a slave was led out to be stoned when his owner dedicated him to the Temple, Rebbi Joḥanan said, he acquired himself; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it was false despair.

HALAKHAH: “Ten cubits’ distance from the place of stoning,” etc. You find that when Achan stole from the ban, Joshua started supplicating before the Holy One, praise to Him, and said: Master of the Universe, inform me who is the man. The Holy One, praise to Him, answered: I never publicize any creature. In addition, would I not be guilty of slander? But go and let Israel stand up by its tribes and throw lots, then immediately I shall draw him out. That is what is written: Joshua got up early in the morning and summoned Israel by its tribes. Achan ben Karmi ben Zeraḥ from the tribe of Jehudah was caught. Achan told him, how? Do you catch me by lots? There is nobody more pious in the present generation than you or Phineas. Let lots be thrown between you, certainly one of you will be caught. Not only this, but your teacher Moses died only 30 or 40 days ago. Did not our teacher Moses instruct us: By the testimony of two witnesses? You started erring. At that moment did Joshua have a vision by the holy spirit how he distributes the Land to Israel by lots. That is what is written: Joshua threw lots for them. This means, we are giving lots a bad name. Not only this, but if lots are confirmed now, all of Israel will say, since the lots were true in criminal matters, so much more in money matters. But if they are repudiated now, all of Israel will say, since the lots were repudiated in criminal matters, so much more in money matters. At that moment, Joshua started supplicating Achan, entreated him in the name of Israel’s God, and said to him: my son, honor the Eternal,the God of Israel, … Achan answered Joshua and said, in fact. What means אָמְנָה? Truth. I sinned against the Eternal, God of Israel. He told him, I asked you for one and you are answering me two? he answered, I stole from the ban of Midian and the ban of Jericho. Rebbi Tanḥuma said, he stole from four bans: The ban of the Phoenician, king of Arad, the ban of Siḥon and Og, the ban of Midian, the ban of Jericho. From where that his confession atoned for him? It is said, the sons of Zeraḥ: Zimri and Ethan, etc. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, Zimri is Achan who behaved like Zimri. Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman said, Heman that is Achan, omna I sinned. Altogether five. Did I not know that they were five? But it teaches that Achan also has part in the World to Come.

HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Eliezer said,” etc. The argument of Rebbi Jehudah seems inverted. There, he says: “If her hair was beautiful, he did not uncover it.” And here, he says so? Here, anyhow she goes to her death, but there, maybe she will be found to be pure and the young priests would attack her. The argument of the rabbis seems inverted. There, they say: “A man is stoned naked, but no woman is stoned naked.” And here, they say so? Here, you shall love your neighbor as yourself, choose for him a decorous death. But here, all women should be taught.

HALAKHAH: “All those stoned are hanged, the words of Rebbi Eliezer,” etc. It was stated: “Adding his own height, these are five.” Here you say, adding his own height, these are five. But for a pit in matters of damages, you say even ten handbreadths. One cannot compare one who falls consciously, and one who falls accidentally. Rebbi Jonathan ben Ḥali, Rebbi Eudaimon the son of Rebbi Tabi’s daughter, in the name of Rebbi Josia: Those who throw down an ox with all their might do not cause any of its limbs to break. In the days of Rebbi Phineas they threw down an ox with all their might. He told them, By yourlives, free it. They freed it, it got up and fled. He said, praised be He Who selected the Sages and their pronouncements, for they say, those who throw down an ox with all their might not cause any of its limbs to break.

HALAKHAH: It was stated: Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob said, this is worse for the desecrator than for the blasphemer and worse for the blasphemer than the desecrator. About the blasphemer it is written: Do not leave his corpse on the gallows overnight. But about the desecrator it is written: Riṣpa bat Aya took sackcloth and spread it on the rock from the start of harvest until waterwas poured on them. This teaches that they were hanging from the sixteenth of Nisan to the seventeenth of Marḥeshwan.

HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Meïr said,” etc. We have stated קַלֵּינִי. Some Tannaïm state קַל אָנִי. He who says קַלֵּינִי uses only an expression of lightness. He who says קַל אָנִי uses a language of load.

HALAKHAH: “Not only this,” etc. It was stated: If somebody transports a coffin from one place to the other, the rules of collecting bones do not apply. Rebbi Aḥa said, this means in a marble coffin. But in a wooden coffin, the rules of collecting bones do apply. Rebbi Yose said, even for a wooden coffin the rules of collecting bones do not apply. What is “collecting bones”?

HALAKHAH: “If the flesh has rotted away,” etc. It was stated: In earlier times, they were collecting the bones after burying them in ditches. When the flesh had rotted away, they collected them and buried them in cedar wood. On the day itself he was mourning, the day after he was happy, implying that his parents were at rest from judgment.

HALAKHAH: “Four kinds of execution was the court empowered to impose,” etc. But to the government only decapitation was given. From where stoning? You shall stone them with stones that they die. Burning, for it is written, in fire you shall burn him and them. Avenging is written here, and there it is written: I shall bring over you a sword which avenges the vengeance of the Covenant. Since avenging mentioned there is by the sword, also avenging mentioned here is by the sword. Strangling? You do not find it. You say that for any death penalty mentioned in the Torah with no particular indication, you are not empowered to make it more stringent, but only to make it less so; they assigned this to strangling.

HALAKHAH: “The order of burning,” etc. Why does one not use the hard cloth alone? One said, that he should not die; as we find that when Hezekias closed the waters of the upper Giḥon spring, he stopped it with soft clothing.

HALAKHAH: “The order of beheading,” etc. “Rebbi Jehudah agrees that there is no death uglier than this but the Torah said, in their statutes you shall not walk.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, also it was stated thus: One shall murder the murderer, the way he murdered. I could think that if he killed with a sword, one should kill him with a sword, with a rod one should kill him with a rod? Avenging is written here, and there it is written: I shall bring over you a sword which avenges the vengeance of the Covenant. Since avenging mentioned there is by the sword, also avenging mentioned here is by the sword. I could think that he should kill him between the arms? It is said here, you shall eliminate the evil from your midst, and it is said there, you shall eliminate the innocent blood from your midst. Elimination, elimination; breaking the neck, breaking the neck. Since elimination here is at the neck, also there it is at the neck. Since breaking the neck there implies chopping off the head, also here chopping off the head.

HALAKHAH: “The order of the strangled,” etc. Strangling? You do not find it. This refers to death penalty in the Torah. For any death penalty mentioned in the Torah with no particular indication, you are not empowered to try to make it more stringent, only to make it less so, the words of Rebbi Josia. Rebbi Jonathan said to him, not because it is the least painful, but because it is mentioned in the Torah with no specific indication. For any death penalty mentioned in the Torah with no particular indication, you are not empowered to try to make it more stringent but only to make it less so; they ascribed this to strangling.

HALAKHAH: “The following are stoned,” etc. It is necessary in one forgetting, but in two forgettings? Since even for one woman, if he had relations with her several times in one forgetting, he is liable for each one. Rebbi Simeon ben Rebbi Hillel ben Pazi asked before Rebbi Hillel ben Pazi: The Mishnah refers to one woman who is forbidden under many names. But if there were many women, or many forgettings, is that in one forgetting? He told him, it is necessary to state for one forgetting, since they disagreed: He acts in one forgetting but she in five forgettings. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he brings one sacrifice but she brings five sacrifices. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, since he brings [only] one sacrifice, she brings only one sacrifice; lest you say that many women, or many forgettings, be treated as one forgetting. Therefore, it is necessary to say, he is liable for each one.

HALAKHAH: “A person having sexual relations with the mother,” etc. Halakhah 7:“A person having sexual relations with the father’s wife,” etc. From where the warning for a person having sexual relations with the mother? Your mother’s nakedness you shall not uncover. From where extirpation? For anybody who would commit any of these abominations, the guilty persons will be extirpated from their people. From where the warning for a person having sexual relations with the father’s wife? Your father’s wife’s nakedness you shall not uncover. From where extirpation? For anybody who would commit, etc. Punishment from where? A man who would sleep with his father’s wife, his father’s nakedness he uncovered; they shall be put to death, etc.

HALAKHAH: “A person having sexual relations with the mother,” etc. Halakhah 7:“A person having sexual relations with the father’s wife,” etc. From where the warning for a person having sexual relations with the mother? Your mother’s nakedness you shall not uncover. From where extirpation? For anybody who would commit any of these abominations, the guilty persons will be extirpated from their people. From where the warning for a person having sexual relations with the father’s wife? Your father’s wife’s nakedness you shall not uncover. From where extirpation? For anybody who would commit, etc. Punishment from where? A man who would sleep with his father’s wife, his father’s nakedness he uncovered; they shall be put to death, etc.

HALAKHAH: “A man who had sexual relations with a male.” From where the warning for a person having sexual relations with a male? With a male you shall not sleep in women’s ways. From where extirpation? For anybody who would commit any of these abominations will be extirpated, etc. Punishment from where? A man who would sleep with a male in women’s ways, an abomination did both of them commit; they shall be put to death; their blood be on them. You learn their blood be on them from their blood be on them. That is for the active one. For the passive one from where? With a male you shall not sleep in women’s ways, read: to be slept with. So far following Rebbi Aqiba. Following Rebbi Ismael? There shall be no qadeš among the sons of Israel. From where extirpation for the passive homosexual following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Abbahu. It says here qadeš and it says there, also a qadeš was in the land. You learn qadeš from qadeš and qadeš from abomination. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: Abomination from abomination. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, a baraita states this: Both committed an abomination. Both are stoned, both are subject to warning, both by extirpation.

HALAKHAH: “The blasphemer is not liable,” etc. From where a warning for the blasphemer? You shall not curse God. Extirpation from where? Anybody who curses his God shall bear his sin. Punishment from where? He who curses the Name of the Eternal shall be put to death. But according to Rebbi Ismael, since Rebbi Ismael said that the verse refers to judges? If he is warned about judges, then so much more about [divine] substitute names. If he is subject to extirpation for substitute names, so much more for the Unique Name. Some Tannaïm state: for substitute names warning and extirpation, for the Unique Name the death penalty. Some Tannaïm state: for substitute names warning, for the Unique Name the death penalty or extirpation. He who says, for substitute names warning and extirpation, you shall not curse God and anybody who curses his God shall bear his sin by extirpation; for the Unique Name the death penalty, he who curses the Name of the Eternal shall be put to death. He who says, for substitute names warning, you shall not curse God, for the Unique Name the death penalty or extirpation, he who curses the Name of the Eternal shall be put to death; anybody who curses his God shall bear his sin, etc.

HALAKHAH: “The worshipper of strange worship,” etc. From where warning about strange worship? Do not worship them. Extirpation from where? He blasphemed the Eternal and will be extirpated. But is there not written “blasphemed”? As one would say to another, you scraped out the entire pot and did not leave anything; a parable which Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar formulated: Two people were sitting with a pot of porridge between them. One of them stretched out his hand, scraped out the entire pot, and did not leave anything in it. So both the blasphemer and the worshipper of strange worship do not leave any commandment as residue. From where the punishment? You shall lead out that man, or that woman, who did this deed to your gates, etc., up to and stone them with stones until they die.

HALAKHAH: “One who gives any of his descendants to the Moloch.” From where a warning not to give any of his descendants to the Moloch? Do not give any of your descendants to the Moloch. Extirpation from where? For he gave one of his descendants to the Molochand shall be extirpated. Punishment from where? Each one of the Children of Israel, or of the sojourner in Israel, who would give any of his descendants to the Moloch shall be made to die; the people of the Land shall smash him with stones. Do not give any of your descendants, I could think that he was guilty if he handed over but did not make him pass; the verse says: Do not give any of your descendants to pass through. I could think that he was guilty if he handed over and made him pass through but not for the Moloch; the verse says: Do not give any of your descendants to pass through for the Moloch. I could think that he was guilty if he handed over and made him pass through for the Moloch but without fire; the verse says: among you, nobody should be found to make his son or his daughter pass through fire. Passing through, passing through as an equal cut. Since “passing through” mentioned there is through fire, so “passing through” mentioned here also is through fire. You have to say that he is not guilty unless he handed over and made him pass through fire for the Moloch. Rebbi Nasa in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: He is guilty only if he hand him over to the priests, takes him, and makes him pass. What if he lets him walk normally? It was stated: one was drawing him and made him pass through. It was stated: if he made him walk through on his feet he is not prosecutable. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon declares him guilty. Whether for the Moloch or for any other foreign worship; Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon says, he is guilty only for the Moloch, he is guilty only for his descendants. Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon’s reason is from here: It shall not be found in you, from your body you should not be found making pass through. I shall extirpate him … from among his people. To include all other foreign worship for extirpation. From where punishment? Of his descendants he gave to the Moloch, death he shall be made to die, if he made him pass through himself. Does he not pass through on his feet? Because he made him pass through himself, but if he was drawing him and made him pass through, he is guilty. What does Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon mean, if he made him walk through on his feet he is not prosecutable? He has to make him pass through jumping.

HALAKHAH: “One who desecrates the Sabbath,” etc. From where warning for the desecrator? Do not perform any work. From where extirpation? For any who would perform work on it would be extirpated. From where punishment? Its desecrator shall be made to die the death. Should we not state 37 kinds of extirpation in the Torah? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, because if he performs all of them, intentionally on the Sabbath and intentionally for the work, he is liable for each one singly.

HALAKHAH: “The one who leads astray is a commoner,” etc. Therefore, not a Sage? Since he seduces, he is not a Sage. Since he is seduced, he is not a Sage. What does one do to outwit him? One hides two witnesses in an inner room and puts him into the outer room, lights a candle near him so they can see him and hear his voice. That is what they did to Ben Sateda in Lydda, where they hid two Sages, brought him to court, and stoned him. And here, you say so? It is different because he said, “I am”. Here also, “I am”? That he should not get wise to it. And what if he got wise to it? That he should not go away, and continue to seduce himself and others with him.

HALAKHAH: “The sorcerer is one who does a deed,” etc. A sorceress you shall not let live, whether man or woman, but the Torah taught you the way of the world that most women have a tendency to sorcery. Rebbi Eliezer said, a sorcerer is [executed] by stoning. What is Rebbi Eliezer’s reason? It says here, a sorceress you shall not let live, and it says there, whether human or animal they shall not live. Since shall not live there means by stoning, also here by stoning. What is the rabbis’ reason? It says here, a sorceress you shall not let live, and it says there, you shall not let live anybody. Since you shall not let live there means death by the sword, also you shall not let live here means death by the sword. Rebbi Aqiba said, from this argument I am deciding. It is preferable to learn you shall not let live from you shall not let live rather than from shall not live. What is Rebbi Jehudah’s reason? It says here, a sorceress you shall not let live, and it says there, anybody lying with an animal shall die the death. Since the execution of the animal is by stoning, so here also by stoning.

HALAKHAH: “The deviant and rebellious son,” etc. Rebbi Zeˋira, Rebbi Abbahu, Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. It is written: If a man would concoct against his neighbor to kill him slyly. When does he become a man? When he concocts. When is he done cooking? When his palm expands. A simile: If the seed is fully cooked inside, the pot becomes black on the outside. Rebbi Zeˋira said that Rebbi Shila bar Bina stated: If a man have a son, not that the son be a father. From the moment that he may come to a woman and make her pregnant, he is a potential father, not a son. But the Torah said, a son, not a father. It parallels what Rebbi Yasa said in the name of Rebbi Sabbatai: The entire period of a “deviant and rebellious son” is only six months.

HALAKHAH: “When is he guilty,” etc. Rebbi Yose said, the fourfold portion is half a Roman pound.

HALAKHAH: “If he stole from his father,” etc. From where a first warning about stealing: you shall not steal. From where a second warning about stealing: you shall not steal. You shall not steal, in order to aggravate; you shall not steal, in order to pay double restitution, in order to pay quadruple or quintuple restitution. Ben Bagbag says, do not steal your own property from the thief, lest you be seen stealing.

HALAKHAH: “If his father was willing,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, even if his mother was not suitable for his father. But is not all of his mother’s property also his father’s? Rebbi Yose ben Abun said, explain it about one who took in lodgers, made repasts, and he stole from there.

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.