halakhah

HALAKHAH: “If he escaped before sentence was passed,” etc. Rebbi Joshia said, Zeˋira told me in the name of the people of Jerusalem: In three cases, if they want to forgive, they may forgive. These are: The suspect wife, the deviant son, and the Elder rebelling against the [Supreme] Court.

HALAKHAH: “The deviant and rebellious son,” etc. The Holy One, praise to Him, saw that this one in the end will waste his father’s and his mother’s properties, will sit at road crossings, rob people, and kill them, and in the end will forget all he has learned. Therefore, the Torah said, he should die innocent rather than die guilty, for death of the evildoers is an enjoyment for them and enjoyment for the world, but concerning the just it is bad for them and bad for the world.

HALAKHAH: “The intruder by stealth,” etc. Rebbi Ismael stated: This is one of three verses which in the Torah have been formulated as a simile: If he gets up and walks outside on his support. If the thief is found in the digging, if the sun shone on him, he has blood. Does the sun shine only on him? Does the sun not shine on all beings in the world? But just as sunshine is special in that it brings peace to the entire world, so in any case in which you know that you are at peace with him, whether it be day or night his killer will be killed. If sometimes he comes to steal, sometimes he comes to kill, you say that if certainly he comes to steal, his killer will be killed? Since sometimes he comes to kill, he may be killed. From here you argue about danger to life, to say that just as (foreign worship) is special in that it defiles the Land, desecrates the Name, removes the Divine Presence, and doubts are disregarded, so much more that doubts have to be disregarded in cases of danger to life.

HALAKHAH: “The following ones one saves at the cost of their own persons” etc. “He who pursues another to kill him, whether in a house or on the field one saves at the cost of his own person, both him who pursues another to kill him or him who pursues any of the transgressions in the Torah one saves at the cost of his own person. But if it was a widow for a High Priest, a divorcee or one who had received ḥalîṣah for a common priest, a bastard or a Gibeonite for an Israel, an Israel woman for a bastard or a Gibeonite, one does not save him at the cost of his own person. If the deed had been done, one does not save him at the cost of his own person. If there are people to save her, one does not save him at the cost of his own person. Rebbi Jehudah says, if she said, let him do it, one does not save at the cost of his own person. For if they would injure him, they through him would come to spill blood.”

HALAKHAH: “The following are to be burned,” etc. There, we have stated:

HALAKHAH: “A murderer who attacked someone,” etc. It is written: If he hit him with a lethal stone in his hand so that he died, (the hitter shall die, he is a murderer,)the murderer shall be put to death. Or he hit him with a lethal wooden implement in his hand so that he died, the murderer shall be put to death. When He comes to iron, He does not speak of lethal or not lethal, but even a small hook when applied to the esophagus could kill him; but a stone must be lethal, wood must be lethal. If he put him in front of a horse, in front of an arrow, in front of a spear, put him out in the cold, gave him bad water to drink, removed the ceiling over him and the rains came down and killed him, or he opened a water canal whose waters swept over him.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody injures another person,” etc. So is the Mishnah: “Rebbi Neḥemiah declares him not [criminally] liable but the Sages declare him [criminally] liable since it is not unsubstantiated.” The Sages say, two estimations have precedence over one estimation; Rebbi Neḥemiah says, the intermediate estimation has precedence over the two. What is Rebbi Neḥemiah’s reason? If he gets up and walks outside on his cane, the attacker is exonerated. Could you think that this one walks in the market and the other one is executed because of him? But even if he dies according to the first estimation, he cannot be prosecuted. What is the rabbi’s reason? If he does not die but is bedridden. Would we not know that even if he does not die that he will be bedridden? But if they did not estimate that he would die. If they did not estimate that he would die, that is what is written: If he gets up and walks outside on his cane, the attacker is exonerated. Therefore, if he does not get up, [the attacker] is [criminally] liable. But if they estimated that he would die? If they estimated that he would die, that is what is written: But he has to pay for his disability and the medical costs. Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: It is an extraordinary decree of Scripture that he has to pay. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: It was an erroneous estimation. What is the difference between them? “But he got better and only afterwards deteriorated and died; he is [criminally] liable. Rebbi Neḥemiah declares him not liable since it is not unsubstantiated.” For him who said, it is an extraordinary decree of Scripture that he has to pay; if he paid, he paid. If he did not pay, does he have to pay? For him who said, it was an erroneous estimation; if he did not pay, one does not order him to pay. If he paid, can he take it back? A baraita supports one and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina: If they estimated that he would live but he died, from when does one count for him? From the moment he turns worse. This implies that the estimate was wrong. If you would say, it is an extraordinary decree of Scripture that he has to pay, he should pay from the first moment. A baraita supports Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: If they estimated that he would die but he lived, from when does one count for him? From the moment he turns worse. Rebbi Yose said, it does not say here “from the moment he turns worse” but “from the moment he turns better.” That means, it is an extraordinary decree of Scripture that he has to pay. But if you say, it was an erroneous estimation, he has to pay until [the victim] dies.

HALAKHAH: “If one intended to hit someone on his hips,” etc. Ḥizqiah asked: If one threw a deadly stone which killed one person and broke another’s vessels, did the verse give the law for one but not for the other? Ḥizqiah asked: If one threw a stone which was not deadly but which killed one person and broke another’s vessels, did the verse give the law for one but not for the other?

HALAKHAH: “If a murderer was mixed up with others,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the Mishnah deals with a murderer mixed up with innocent people. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, the Mishnah deals with a murderer being tried mixed up with a murderer who already was convicted. Samuel said, the Mishnah deals with a bull mixed up with other bulls. If the Mishnah referred to a bull mixed up with other bulls, would we state about them that “one keeps them in jail”?

HALAKHAH: “Somebody who was found guilty of two death penalties,” etc. There it was stated that one states: “Rebbi Yose says, he shall be convicted for the first connection.” How is this? His mother-in-law who then became a married woman is [executed] by burning. As a married woman who later became his mother-in-law it is by strangulation, if he copulated with his mother-in-law. How with his mother-in-law and daughter-in-law? How can this be? A man married a woman, and her brother’s daughter, and the woman’s daughter. If he copulated with the old woman he is liable for her because of his mother-in-law, the mother of his mother-in-law, and the mother of his father-in-law. If his mother-in-law is simultaneously his daughter-in-law, how does Rebbi Yose treat this? The more severe and the lesser, how does Rebbi Yose treat this? Two simultaneous prohibitions, how does Rebbi Yose treat this?

HALAKHAH: “He who steals the chalice,” etc. קסווה cista. Rav Jehudah said, it was a Temple vessel, as one says and the libation chalices.

HALAKHAH: “The following have no part in the World to Come,” etc. They added one who tears away the yoke, one who breaks the Covenant, and one who finds aspects in the Torah, to those who have no part in the World to Come. He who tears away the yoke is one who says the Torah is obligatory but I cannot stand it. He who breaks the Covenant is one who pulls himself a prepuce. He who finds aspects in the Torah is one who says that the Torah was not given from Heaven. But did we not state separately: “He who says that the Torah is not from Heaven?” Rebbi Ḥanina Entanaya stated before Rebbi Mana: This is one who publicly transgresses the words of the Torah in the manner of Joiakim ben Josia, king of Judah, and his circle.

HALAKHAH: “Three kings and four private persons,” etc. All of these invented new kinds of sins.

HALAKHAH: “The generation of the Deluge has no part in the World to Come,” and will not see the future. What is the reason? He wiped off all that was standing in this world; they were wiped off from the Land, in the future.

HALAKHAH: “The generation of the desert has no part in the World to Come,” and will not see the future, as it is said: in this desert they shall be terminated and there they will die. In this desert they shall be terminated, in this world, and there they will die, in the future; and so He says, what I swore in My rage, lest they come to My rest, the words of Rebbi Aqiba. Rebbi Eliezer says, about them it says, assemble for Me My lovely ones, who sealed My Covenant by a sacrifice. Rebbi Joshua said, I swore and I shall keep it; sometimes I do not keep it. Ḥanania the son of Rebbi Joshua’s brother says, it is written: what I swore in My rage; I swore in My rage, I am changing My mind. It was stated: Rebbi Simeon ben Menassia says, about them it says assemble Me My lovely ones, who performed acts of love for Me. The executors of My Covenant, who were extirpated by Me. By sacrifice, they elevated me and were sacrificed for My name. It was stated: Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥa says, about these generations He says, those freed by the Eternal shall return. Rebbi says, these and those have part in the World to Come. What is the reason? It shall be on that day, a great ram’s horn will be blown, and those lost in the land of Assyria will come, these are the Ten Tribes, and those displaced in the land of Egypt, that is the generation of the desert. These and those will bow down before the Eternal on the Holy Mountain [and] in Jerusalem.

HALAKHAH: “The Ten Tribes,” etc. The Ten Tribes have no part in the World to Come, and will not see the future. What is the reason? He threw them into another country like this day. As the day passes and does never return, so they go, never to return, the words of Rebbi Aqiba. Rebbi Simeon ben Jehudah from Kefar-Ikos said in the name of Rebbi Simeon: If their behavior remains as on this day, they will not return; otherwise, they will return.

HALAKHAH: “The people of a seduced town,” etc. A town but not a village, a town but not a fortified place. This means, from five to ten, the words of Rebbi Meïr; Rebbi Jehudah says, from one hundred up to a majority of the tribe. If two seduced two, is it possible to try the two who had seduced two both as seducers and as seduced? If there were proselytes and residents, are they counted for the majority? If there were menageries for wild animals, birds, or fish; birds flying higher than ten [handbreadths], what are the rules?

HALAKHAH: Slaying you shall slay the inhabitants of that town by the sword, etc. Rebbi Simeon says, its domesticated animal, not first born or tithes found there; its booty, not Temple money or Second Tithe found there. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina asked: What is the status of hair of its just women? Let us hear from the following: Rebbi Simeon says, its domesticated animal, not first born or tithes found there; its booty, not Temple money or Second Tithe found there. The sancta of a seduced town, Rebbi Joḥanan said, one cannot commit larceny with them; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, one can commit larceny with them. Rebbi Joḥanan objected to Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: According to your opinion that one can commit larceny with them, should one not state that “six purification offerings are left to die”? He answered, because in this case even an elevation offering dies. Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: One can commit larceny with them because of sancta of an apostate. Should they not be sacrificed? Because of the sacrifice of an evildoer is an abomination. Rebbi Uqba said, also in the following they disagree: 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 false despair. Similarly, if a slave was led out to be executed when its witnesses were found to be perjured, Rebbi Joḥanan said, he acquired himself; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it was false despair.

HALAKHAH: All its spoils you shall collect, etc. Rebbi Simeon said, is there not an argument de minore ad majus about this? Since properties, which have no knowledge of good or bad, but because they caused the just to dwell with the evildoers the Torah said, should be burned, if somebody has the intention of influencing his neighbor and influences him from good ways to bad ones, not so much more? Rebbi Eleazar said, the matter is demonstrated by Lot who dwelt in Sodom only because of his money but left there with his hands on his head. This is what is written: Quickly escape to there; it is enough for you that you escape with your life.

HALAKHAH: But the following are strangled,” etc. From where warning for one who hits his father or his mother? Forty times he shall hit him, he may not add. Since one who is commanded to hit is commanded not to hit, one who is commanded not to hit a fortiori is commanded not to hit.

HALAKHAH: 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 back from the thief, lest you be seen stealing.

HALAKHAH: “The Elder who rebels,” etc. Halakhah 4: “If he returned to his town, repeated and taught as was his custom,” etc. It is written: If something is being distinguished for you in law, this shows that the verse speaks about the distinguished member of the court. For you, this is counsel. Something is sermonizing. Whether blood and blood, whether menstrual blood or blood of virginity; whether menstrual blood, blood of flux, or blood of skin disease. Whether case or case, between those who are stoned, or burned, or decapitated, or strangled. Whether defect or defect, between a quarantined sufferer from skin disease or an absolute one; whether defect or defect, between defects of humans or of garments or of houses. Words, that is the drinking of the suspected adulteress, breaking the neck of the calf, and the purification of the sufferer from skin disease. Quarrels, these are estimations, bans, and dedications. You shall get up, from the court, and rise, this is the ascent.

HALAKHAH: “The Elder who rebels,” etc. Halakhah 4: “If he returned to his town, repeated and taught as was his custom,” etc. It is written: If something is being distinguished for you in law, this shows that the verse speaks about the distinguished member of the court. For you, this is counsel. Something is sermonizing. Whether blood and blood, whether menstrual blood or blood of virginity; whether menstrual blood, blood of flux, or blood of skin disease. Whether case or case, between those who are stoned, or burned, or decapitated, or strangled. Whether defect or defect, between a quarantined sufferer from skin disease or an absolute one; whether defect or defect, between defects of humans or of garments or of houses. Words, that is the drinking of the suspected adulteress, breaking the neck of the calf, and the purification of the sufferer from skin disease. Quarrels, these are estimations, bans, and dedications. You shall get up, from the court, and rise, this is the ascent.

HALAKHAH: “[Denial] about words of the Sopherim is more serious,” etc. Halakhah 6:“One executes him not,” etc. The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The words of the Sopherim are related to the words of Scripture and are pleasant like the words of Scripture; your throat is like good wine. Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The words of the Sopherim are related to the words of Scripture and are more pleasant than the words of Scripture, for your friendship is better than wine. Rebbi Abba bar Cohen in the name of Rebbi Judah bar Pazi: You may know that he words of the Sopherim are more pleasant than the words of Scripture, because if Rebbi Tarphon did not recite at all he would only have transgressed a positive commandment. But because he transgressed the words of the House of Hillel he should have suffered death since it says, if one breaches a wall he will be bitten by a snake.

HALAKHAH: “[Denial] about words of the Sopherim is more serious,” etc. Halakhah 6:“One executes him not,” etc. The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The words of the Sopherim are related to the words of Scripture and are pleasant like the words of Scripture; your throat is like good wine. Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The words of the Sopherim are related to the words of Scripture and are more pleasant than the words of Scripture, for your friendship is better than wine. Rebbi Abba bar Cohen in the name of Rebbi Judah bar Pazi: You may know that he words of the Sopherim are more pleasant than the words of Scripture, because if Rebbi Tarphon did not recite at all he would only have transgressed a positive commandment. But because he transgressed the words of the House of Hillel he should have suffered death since it says, if one breaches a wall he will be bitten by a snake.

HALAKHAH: “And the false prophet,” etc. “And one who prophesies what he did not hear,” like Ṣedekias ben Kenaana. “And what was not said to him,” like Ḥanania ben Azzur. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, Ḥanania ben Azzur was a true prophet; only he took instruction and heard what Jeremiah prophesied in the upper market; he went and prophesied in the lower market. Ḥanania ben Azzur told him, is not the essence of the matter only once seventy years will be fullfilled for Babylon, I shall remember you. In all, the days of Manasse were 55 years. Deduct from them 20 years for which the Heavenly Court does not punish or extirpate, add the two of Amon and 31 of Josia. That is what is written: At the beginning of the reign of Ṣedekias the king of Jehudah, in the fifth year, in the fifth month, Ḥanania ben Azzur, the prophet from Gibeon, said to me in the House of the Eternal, before the priests and all the people, as follows: So said the Eternal of Hosts, the God of Israel, as follows. I broke the yoke of the king of Babylon; in another two years I shall return to this place all the Temple vessels which Nebuchadnezzar, the king of Babylon, took from this city and brought to Babylon. Jeremiah told him, you are saying thatin another two years I shall return, etc. But I say that Nebuchadnezzar will come and take the remainder. To Babylon they will be brought and stay there, etc. He said to him, give a sign. He answered, I am prophesying bad things and cannot give a sign for my words since the Holy One, praise to Him, said to bring evil and might refrain from it. But you prophesy good things; you are obligated to give a sign. He said to him, no, it is you who has to give a sign for your words. He answered, if it is so, I shall give a sign and miracle in the person of that man; this year he dies, for he spoke obstinately about the Eternal. This happened to him; Ḥanania the prophet died in this year, in the Seventh month. This was another year and you are saying so? But it teaches that he died on the Eve of New Year’s Day and ordered his sons and wife to hide the matter, that they should bury him after the new Year in order to falsify Jeremiah’s prophecy.

HALAKHAH: “One who prophesies in the name of foreign worship,” etc. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, everything was included in do not testify against your neighbor as a false witness. It came to judge whether by sign, or by miracle, whether about foreign worship or any other commandment. But about foreign worship, whether he intended to uproot the entire body or did not intend to uproot the entire body, by the words of Rebbi Simeon one does not prosecute him, but by the words of the Sages one stones him. For any other commandment by the words of the Sages one stones him, by the words of Rebbi Simeon he should understand his pywnṭ.

HALAKHAH: “There are two kinds of oaths which are four kinds,” etc. Two which are four for liability and two which are four for no liability, or four for liability and four for no liability? Let us hear from the following: “There are two kinds of oaths which are four kinds,” etc. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah says so, “there are two kinds of oaths which are four kinds,” not because of liability? And similarly, “there are two kinds of export on the Sabbath which are four kinds,” because there is liability. Rebbi Abba said, there all are about liability, but here we come to state both liability and no liability. This implies four of liability and four of no liability. But did we not state, the doors of the Temple hall were two which are four? Can you say, liability and no liability? Should we state twelve cases of no liability? We come to state cases of no liability which correspond to cases of no liability. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, what is this “no liability” which we stated here? Permitted! Rebbi Yose said, the poor man and the rich man are one but the Sages counted them as two. Exporting or importing are two but the Sages counted them as one. Exporting on the Sabbath does not include importing; if one exports from a domain this does not include importing. If one who exports from one domain to the other, does this not include the one who imports? In addition, from what Rebbi Yasa said in the name if Rebbi Joḥanan: Somebody who imports half the size of a dried fig and exports half the size of a dried fig is liable. And from where that exporting is called work? Rebbi Samuel in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: “Moses ordered, they made a public proclamation in the camp,” etc. The people refrained from taking objects out from their houses to give them to the collectors, who also did not take out anything from them to import into the office. Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Aḥa understood it from the following: “do not bring out any load from your houses on the Sabbath day, and perform no work.”

HALAKHAH: “In any case where there is knowledge at the start,” etc. From where that we require knowledge at the start and at the end but forgetting in between? The verse says, it was forgotten, it was forgotten two times; this implies that he had knowledge at the start and at the end but forgetting in between. So far for Rebbi Aqiba; following Rebbi Ismael? For Rebbi Ismael [argues] like Rebbi. As Rebbi said, it was forgotten by him, this implies that he knows. “But he knew,” there is knowledge two times. Hence Rebbi Ismael [argues] like Rebbi, and Rebbi like Rebbi Ismael. This comes even according to Rebbi Aqiba; it is the same for knowledge and forgetting about the impurity of the Sanctuary as for knowledge and forgetting about the impurity of sancta. But some want to understand it from the following: He knew and felt guilty. Was it not already said, he became impure and felt guilty? But if it does not refer to knowledge at the beginning, let it refer to knowledge at the end.

HALAKHAH: “If there is no knowledge at the start,” etc. What can you see to say? Does the one inside suspend and the one outside atone, or the one outside suspend and the one inside atone, or both of them suspend, or both of them atone? What about it? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, I saw something. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish was asking before Rebbi Joḥanan and asked him, what are the differences in atoning? I do not know what he answered him. Rebbi Ze`ira said to him, maybe it is the following: How did you understand to explain it? About an impure person who ate pure [meat], or a pure person who ate impure [meat]? The verse says: his impurity is on him. Impurity of the body, not impurity of the meat. Or both of them atone? What about it? He should over it confess sins, these are intentional sins, their crimes, these are rebellions, their mistakes, these are unintentional sins. Then He said, he will atone. Rebbi Immi said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, the he-goat will carry all their sins, he grabbed intentional sins and left out unintentional sins, to indicate that just as intentional sins do not carry the obligation of a sacrifice, so those unintentional sins which do not carry the obligation of a sacrifice. And why did they come here? Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Yasa, for suspension. Would it be understood to suspend for those who eat abominations and crawling things? Rebbi Samuel in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira: Their mistakes, their mistakes. Since their mistakes mentioned there are those which carry the obligation of a sacrifice, also their mistakes mentioned here are those which carry the obligation of a sacrifice. This excludes intentional sins which do not carry the obligation of a sacrifice. What is left out by the he-goat brought inside the Day of Atonement suspends. What did it leave out? If there is no knowledge at the start but there is knowledge at the end.

HALAKHAH: “But about where there is no knowledge,” etc. Halakhah 5: “Rebbi Simeon used to say,” etc. Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: The reason of Rebbi Jehudah is and one goat’s he-goat sin offering for the Eternal. This he-goat atones for a sin known only to the Eternal. I have not only the he-goat of the Day of the New Moon; from where the he-goats of the holidays? Rebbi Ze`ira said, and a he-goat, the copula adds to the prior subject. Rebbi Ze`ira and Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia, Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He gave it to you to lift the sins of the congregation. Where do we hold? If about Naḥshon’s he-goat, it atoned for his tribe. If about the he-goat of the Day of (Atonement), there is nothing similar in later generations. But we must deal with the he-goat of the Day of the New Moon. What about it? It is said here “lifting sin” and it is said there “lifting sin”, Aaron shall lift the sin of the sancta”. Since there it is the sinfulness of the offerings not the sins of the offerers, also here it is the sinfulness of the offerings not the sins of the offerers. What did you see to say, “for the pure person who ate impure”, maybe we should say for the impure person who ate pure? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun said, Rebbi Jehudah splits the argument of Rebbi Meїr; Rebbi Simeon splits the argument of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Joḥanan agrees that the he-goat brought inside does not atone; rather it suspends. This parallels Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira, he shall make it a purification offering. He fixed it for suspension, that it could not be changed.

HALAKHAH: “But about where there is no knowledge,” etc. Halakhah 5: “Rebbi Simeon used to say,” etc. Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: The reason of Rebbi Jehudah is and one goat’s he-goat sin offering for the Eternal. This he-goat atones for a sin known only to the Eternal. I have not only the he-goat of the Day of the New Moon; from where the he-goats of the holidays? Rebbi Ze`ira said, and a he-goat, the copula adds to the prior subject. Rebbi Ze`ira and Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia, Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He gave it to you to lift the sins of the congregation. Where do we hold? If about Naḥshon’s he-goat, it atoned for his tribe. If about the he-goat of the Day of (Atonement), there is nothing similar in later generations. But we must deal with the he-goat of the Day of the New Moon. What about it? It is said here “lifting sin” and it is said there “lifting sin”, Aaron shall lift the sin of the sancta”. Since there it is the sinfulness of the offerings not the sins of the offerers, also here it is the sinfulness of the offerings not the sins of the offerers. What did you see to say, “for the pure person who ate impure”, maybe we should say for the impure person who ate pure? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun said, Rebbi Jehudah splits the argument of Rebbi Meїr; Rebbi Simeon splits the argument of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Joḥanan agrees that the he-goat brought inside does not atone; rather it suspends. This parallels Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira, he shall make it a purification offering. He fixed it for suspension, that it could not be changed.

HALAKHAH: “They said to him, did not the teacher use to say,” etc. Rebbi Yose the Southerner said before Rebbi Jonah: Would it not have been necessary to state, if it is so then those of the Days of the New Moon could be brought on the Day of Atonement since one increases holiness but one does not diminish; but those of the Day of Atonement cannot be brought on the Days of the New Moon since one does not diminish holiness. Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Bun explained it by another explanation: if it is so then those of the Day of Atonement could be brought on the Days of the New Moon, for included in their atoning is the atoning of the Days of the New Moon, but those of the days of the New Moon cannot be brought on the Day of Atonement, for they atone only their atonement. For if anybody ate five olive-sized pieces of fat and dedicated four sacrifices, being of the impression that he had dedicated five, did he atone? Or if he ate four olive sized pieces of fat, dedicated five sacrifices, being of the impression that he had dedicated four, not so much more? And so “Rebbi Simeon used to say, thirty-two rams are brought for the public every year. Thirty one outside, they are eaten. One inside which is not eaten. And the scapegoat. Twelve for the twelve months of the year. Eight on Tabernacles, seven on Passover, two on Pentecost, one for the day and one for the bread. One on New Year’s Day and one on the Day of Atonement.” When Moses heard this he said, it follows that anybody for whom the doubt of a transgression arises should bring all these sacrifices! Rebbi Tanḥuma in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: When the Holy One, praise to Him, said to Moses, he shall confess on it etc., he started and said, A Song of confession, inspired by he shall confess on it.

HALAKHAH: “Intentional impurity of the Sanctuary.” etc. That means it atones for intentional infractions and suspends for the unintentional.

HALAKHAH: “Together Israel, Cohanim,” etc. But we did not state “the Anointed.” Why did we not state “the Anointed”? If you say that we are discussing things which do not imply the obligation of a sacrifice, it is correct not to state “Anointed”. If you say about things which imply the obligation of a sacrifice, why do we not state “Anointed”? It was found stated “also the Anointed Priest.” This implies that we are discussing things which do not imply the obligation of a sacrifice. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, even if you say, about things which imply the obligation of a sacrifice, if it was done intentionally. As you say, intentionally it needs atoning and the atoning of the Day of Atonement, here also it needs atoning and the atoning of the Day of Atonement.

HALAKHAH: “The kinds of awareness of impurity,” etc. Rebbi Jeremiah asked: It is obvious about the last awareness, until he knows that he is liable to bring a sacrifice for it. Is the same true for the first awareness? Let us hear from the following: Two paths, one impure and one pure. He walked on one of them, entered the Sanctuary, left, sprinkled repeatedly, immersed himself, walked on the second one, and entered the Sanctuary; he is liable and he knows that he is liable to bring a sacrifice for it. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, this is Rebbi Ismael’s who said that he is liable for forgetting impurity and forgetting the Sanctuary. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, we thought that one could say that Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said this if he was certain that he was impure, he had forgotten the impurity and entered the Sanctuary. But not if it was in doubt whether he was impure or pure, he was oblivious of the Sanctuary and entered the Sanctuary. Since Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, this is Rebbi Ismael’s who said that he is liable for forgetting impurity and forgetting the Sanctuary: this implies even if it was in doubt whether he was impure or pure. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is everybody’s opinion since a doubt of awareness is awareness. Since at a time when he does not know whether he was impure or pure you say it is certain knowledge, if he knows for certain that he is impure but does not know whether he is liable for a sacrifice then certainly this should be awareness.

HALAKHAH: “Whether one entered the courtyard,” etc. Rav said, at the start: David ascended following Gad’s word, that is King and Prophet. Solomon started to build the Temple of the Eternal in Jerusalem, these are Urim and Tummim. And his father David, this is the Synhedrion, ask your father and he will tell you. Song, after them went Hoshaia and the officers. Thanksgiving sacrifices, I put up two thanksgiving sacrifices. Rebbi Samuel bar Rebbi Yudan said, what is written, walking? No, being in procession.

HALAKHAH: “If one became impure in the Temple courtyard,” etc. Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: One verse says, he defiled the dwelling place of the Eternal, another verse says, he defiled the Sanctuary of the Eternal. Why is this? To state a difference between one who became inside and one who became outside. If he became impure (inside) not unless he bring his head and most of his body inside; if he became impure (outside) not unless he stay for prostrating. If he became impure inside and entered further inside? Let us hear from the following: “If he prostrated himself, or tarried that he could have prostrated himself.” If he tarried, is that not as if he brought his head and most of his body inside, but you are saying, “he tarried that he could have prostrated himself.” And here, not unless he tarried that he could have prostrated himself. How is that? About which of them does he become liable? About the first or the last? The colleagues say, about the first. Rebbi Yose told them, one says to him, leave, and you say about the first? But we must hold about the last.

HALAKHAH: “What is the positive commandment about the menstruating woman,” etc. Cahana said, is it impossible that there was knowledge at the beginning and knowledge at the end and oblivion in between? Rebbi Samuel ben Eudaimon objected before Rebbi Mana: Could that be for the teachers? He told him, we have a problem with those entering and you bring us teachers? What about it? Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said, commandments, commandments. Since commandments mentioned there are about fixed-value [offerings], here also about fixed-value [offerings].

HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Eliezer says,” etc. Ḥizqiah says, there is disagreement between them. Rebbi Joḥanan said, interpreting the verse is between them; there are Tannaim who state, he is liable for forgetting impurity but is not liable for forgetting the Sanctuary, and there are Tannain who state, he is liable for forgetting the crawling animal but is not liable for forgetting the Sanctuary. The argument of Rebbi Eliezer seems inverted. There he says, even if he did not know. But here he says, not unless he knew. There, by which he sinned, not unless he knew by what he became liable. Here, while he was impure, in all cases. Rebbi Ḥinena said, here “by what” is not written. The argument of Rebbi Joshua seems inverted. There he says, while he was impure, not unless he knew by what he became liable. Here, by which he sinned, in any case. How does Rebbi Eliezer uphold by what? This excludes the one who is occupied.

HALAKHAH: “There are two kinds of oaths which are four kinds,” etc. One understands “that I shall eat, or that I shall not eat.” “That I ate, or that I did not eat”? Where do we stand? If it is known that he ate and he swore that he did not eat, it is a false oath. But if he was of the opinion that he ate and swore that he did not eat? Rebbi Abba, Rav Jehudah in the name of Rav: If he is inadvertent for its sacrifice or intentional for its sacrifice. But “I was of the opinion that this is not an oath” is permitted. But it must be that he was intentional in the deed but in error about the sacrifice. Did not Rebbi Abbahu say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Intentional about fat and in error about the sacrifice, one warns him, he is flogged and has to bring a sacrifice. This is impossible, as Rebbi La said in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: So did Rebbi Ismael answer Rebbi Aqiba: Do we find a situation where one is liable if intentional because of a false oath and in oblivion because of blurting? Should not Rebbi Aqiba retort, we find a situation where one is liable if intentional because of a false oath and he brings a sacrifice? But we deal here with the case that he was sure that he ate, and he swore, and it turned out that he had not eaten. Not about him who said that this is not an oath? There, if he says this is not an oath; but here if he knows that this is an oath but he errs because of something else.

HALAKHAH: “An oath that I shall not eat; when he ate,” etc. Drinking is subsumed under eating but eating is not subsumed under drinking. Rebbi Jonah understood all this from: Therefore, I told the Children of Israel, none of you shall eat blood. Where do we hold? If about congealed blood, was it not stated that congealed blood is neither food nor drink? (But we hold, about minute amounts. Are minute amounts eating? Explain it following Rebbi Aqiba who said that a minute amount is eating.) And was it not stated: If one liquefied the blood and swallowed it, or froze fat and ate it, if there is the volume of an olive he is liable. What does Rebbi Jonah do with this? It is not food to become impure in the impurity of food, or fluid to become impure in the impurity of fluids. Rebbi Jonah changed and explained the Mishnah: You shall spend the money for anything you desire. Where do we hold? If about one who gives the taste of wine into a cooked dish, is that not spoiling the taste? But we hold with everything and the Merciful called it “eating.” The rabbis of Caesarea said, explain if about gomraya and orzaraya, since anything that is auxiliary to food is like food.

HALAKHAH: “An oath that I shall eat neither,” etc. “An oath that I shall not eat bread” and he wrapped it in reed leaves or grape leaves and ate, he is liable only once. “An oath that I shall not eat bread nor grape skin nor grape seeds, and he wrapped it in grape skins and grape seeds, he is liable for each one, and if he was a nazir he is liable for three. Rebbi Joḥanan said, in comprehensive form. But in detail, no oaths fall on prohibitions. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, even in comprehensive form no oaths fall on prohibitions.

HALAKHAH: “An oath that I shall not drink,” etc. In this case, Rebbi Simeon declares not liable. Rebbi Simeon follows his own opinion, as we have stated there: “How much does he have to eat from ṭevel to be liable? Rebbi Simeon says, anything; but the Sages say, the volume of an olive. Rebbi Simeon told them, do you not agree that one who eats an ant is liable? They told him, because it is a creature. He answered them, also a grain of wheat is a creature.” In Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion, why does Rebbi Simeon declare not liable? Rebbi Ze`ira said, Rebbi Simeon follows his own opinion. It was stated in the name of Rebbi Simeon: You shall deprive yourselves, of what is permitted to you, not of what is forbidden to you.

HALAKHAH: He wants to teach himself a pretext. “Whether matters of himself,” etc. Rebbi Abba in the name of Samuel: “An oath that X gave a mina to Y,” and it turns out that he did not give, since it was not in his power for the future, it is not in his power for the past. Rebbi Yose objected, about phylacteries there is nothing about the future but there is about the past! He told him, phylacteries came from another source. To cause evil or cause good; just as doing good is optional so doing bad is optional; this excludes anything involving a prohibition or anything involving a permission. Anything which one will blurt out, excluding a minor. A person in an oath, excluding a person not acting at his own will. And it will be forgotten by him, he will be oblivious of the oath. Or could I think that the object was forgotten by him? The verse says, in an oath and it was forgotten by him; he is liable for forgetting the oath; he is not liable for forgetting the object. Could one not add forgetting the object to forgetting the oath so that he should be liable? What is the difference between this and forgetting impurity and forgetting the Sanctuary so that he should be liable twice following Rebbi Ismael, who said forgetting impurity and forgetting the Sanctuary? There it is written it was forgotten by him, it was forgotten by him twice. Here it is written it was forgotten by him once. I could think that one who swears to the detriment of others should be liable: the verse says, to cause evil or cause good; just as doing good is optional so doing bad is optional. I shall exclude one who swears to the detriment of another that he should not be liable. For example, if one swears that he will not provide food for another. He saw him in convulsions and gave to him.

HALAKHAH: “If he swore not to observe a commandment,” etc. Rebbi Mani said, so is the Mishnah: “He is liable, the words of Rebbi Jehudah ben Bathyra.” What Rebbi Jehudah ben Bathyra said refers to prohibitions in general. “An oath that I shall eat carcass meat,” but he did not eat it. He is not liable. “An oath that I shall eat,” and he ate. If you would say that he is liable, they should have objected to him: No. You declare about an oath for permitted purpose where He made “no” equal to “yes” and “yes” equal to “no”, can you declare this about an oath concerning a commandment, where He did not make “no” equal to “yes”?

HALAKHAH: “An oath that I shall not eat this loaf,” etc. “An oath that I shall eat this loaf today,” the day passed and then he ate it. Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both say, he is not liable; not for the same reason. The reason of Rebbi Joḥanan, because he cannot be duly warned. The reason of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, because it is a prohibition without action. What is the difference between them? He burned it or threw it into the sea. If you say, because he cannot be duly warned, he is not liable. If you say, because it is a prohibition without action, there is an action.

HALAKHAH: “For an intentional vain oath one is liable to be flogged,” etc. There, we have stated: “If I did not see on this road [crowds] like those who left Egypt.” Is it impossible that crowds like those who left Egypt went by? But we are dealing with one look. Was it not the case that when Diocletian went there, 1’200’000 [men] went with him? But we must be dealing with one look.

HALAKHAH: “A blurted oath,” etc. “ ‘An oath that I shall not eat this loaf, an oath that I shall not eat it’, he is liable only once”. Something which would be forbidden for vows and is permitted for oaths. Not on this was it said but on the following: “Whether matters of himself, or matters of others,” as Rebbi Abba said in the name of Samuel: ‘An oath that X gave a mina to Y.’ If it turns out that he had not given, since it is not in his hand for the future it is not in his hand for the past. It was found stated on both cases: This is more stringent for the past than for the future: If he says “I shall not eat, I shall not eat,” he is liable only once. “I did not eat, I did not eat,” he is liable for each single time.

HALAKHAH: “A vain oath,” etc. A person, a person. Since by a person which was said for an oath of testimony He made the one at whom the oath was directed like one swearing, so also by a person which was said for an oath of deposit He made the one at whom the oath was directed like one swearing.

HALAKHAH: “An oath about testimony,” etc. Rams, the minimum of rams are two. Why does the verse say two? That they be equal.

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

HALAKHAH: “If both of them disavowed simultaneously,” etc. If they dedicated a sacrifice and said, we are going to disavowe in court. This is what Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, his sacrifice for the Eternal for his vow of nazir; that his vow of nazir precede his sacrifice, not that his sacrifice precede his vow of nazir. If they were sworn to out of court, dedicated a sacrifice and said, we are going to renege in court, how do you treat this? As if his sin did precede his sacrifice or since the are liable only in court as if their sacrifice did precede their sin?

HALAKHAH: “I am putting an oath on you that you should come and testify for me,” etc. From where that this only refers to monetary claims? Rebbi Eliezer said, it uses here “or” and it uses “or” with a deposit. Since the “or” used with a deposit only refers to monetary claims, also the “or” used here only refers to monetary claims. The “or” of the homicide will disprove since they do not refer to monetary claims. One argues about “or” accompanied by an oath from “or” accompanied by an oath; the “or” of the homicide cannot disprove since they are not accompanied by an oath. The “or” of the deviant woman will disprove since they are accompanied by an oath and do not refer to monetary claims. One argues about “or” accompanied by an oath not accompanied by a Cohen from similar “or”; the “or” of the deviant woman cannot disprove since they are accompanied by a Cohen. The “or” of blurting lips will disprove since they do not refer to monetary claims. One argues about “or” where He made intent equal to error from similar “or”; the “or” of blurting lips cannot disprove since there He did not make intent equal to error. Rebbi Aqiba says, for some of these one is liable, for some one is not liable. For monetary claims one is liable; for non-monetary claims one is not liable. Rebbi Simeon says, He made liable here and he made liable for a deposit. Since deposits only refer to monetary claims, so here also it only refers to monetary claims.

HALAKHAH: “I am putting an oath on you,” etc. It was stated: Rebbi Yose the Galilean says, why does the verse say, and he is a witness, or saw, or knew, etc.? I said this only for testimony which may be accepted about knowing without seeing, or seeing without knowing. How is knowing without seeing in monetary claims? “Give me my 200 zuz which you are holding.” “I do not have anything of yours.” “But did you not confess before X and Y”? “They should testify and I shall pay.” This refers to knowing without seeing. They came and said, whether he confessed to him or whether he robbed him, we do not know. Whether he gave him a loan we do not know. How is seeing without knowing in monetary claims? “Give me my 200 zuz which you are holding.” “I do not have anything of yours.” “But did I not count them for you in a meeting with X and Y”? “They should testify and I shall pay.” This refers to seeing without knowing. They came and said, whether he counted for him or whether he robbed him, we do not know. Whether he took a loan from him, we do not know. “Give me the fine for my daughter which you owe me.” But he says, “I never in my life was found liable for a fine.” Witnesses testify that he was found liable for a fine, but we do not know whether the fine was for his daughter or the fine for another woman. “You raped or you seduced my daughter.” But he says, “I never in my life did rape or seduce a woman.” Witnesses testify that he raped a woman, but we do not know whether it was his daughter or another woman. “You killed my ox and cut down my orchard.” But he says, “I do not know.” He is liable. “You told me to kill and cut down,” one follows the majority of orchards. What means, one follows the majority of orchards? Rebbi Ḥaggai said, if his ox was goring, he would have told him; if the orchard was barren, he would have told him. Rebbi Yudan said, in matters of monetary claims, since he may tell him, you told me to kill and cut down, even if he told him “I did not kill, I did not cut down,” he is not liable.

HALAKHAH: “I am putting an oath on you,” etc. Halakhah 8: “I am putting an oath on you,” etc. A person who would sin, a person who would sin as an equal cut. Since a person who would sin which was said further on refers to an active monetary claim, also a person who would sin must refer to an active monetary claim.

HALAKHAH: “I am putting an oath on you,” etc. Halakhah 8: “I am putting an oath on you,” etc. A person who would sin, a person who would sin as an equal cut. Since a person who would sin which was said further on refers to an active monetary claim, also a person who would sin must refer to an active monetary claim.

HALAKHAH: “I am putting an oath on you,” etc. Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If somebody wanted to change his mind after he had promised a gift to another person, he may change his mind. Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi asked before Rebbi Abbahu: Did He not say “a true yes”? At the moment when he said it, it was a true yes.

HALAKHAH: “If he said to two persons, I am putting an oath on you,” etc. Rebbi Mana understood it from the following, “or one of them was a relative or disqualified.” Therefore, unless one of them was a relative or disqualified, they are liable. And he knows who they are. Therefore the reason can only be that he does not intend them. Rebbi Yose understood it from the preceding, “since the oath preceded the testimony.” Therefore, if the oath did not precede the testimony, they are liable. And he knows who they are. Therefore the reason can only be that he does not intend them.

HALAKHAH: “If he sent through his slave,” etc. Rebbi Eleazar said, why does the verse say, if he does not tell, he has to carry his iniquity? Not, from the mouth of the claimant. Our Mishnah needs what Rebbi Eleazar said, and what Rebbi Eleazar said needs our Mishnah. If we had stated but Rebbi Eleazar had not stated, we would have said that they are liable if they had heard from the claimant but had sworn to the defendant. Therefore what Rebbi Eleazar said is necessary. If Rebbi Eleazar had stated but we had not stated, we would have instructed that they are liable if they heard it from the defendant but had sworn to the claimant. Therefore one needs our Mishnah and needs what Rebbi Eleazar said, only if they heard from the claimant and swore to the claimant.

HALAKHAH: “I put an oath upon you,” etc. to the end. “I put an oath upon you” without addition, they are liable. “I am binding you, I am roping you in,” they are liable.

HALAKHAH: “An oath about a deposit,” etc. It was stated: Is an oath in his own formulation of an oath of testimony like an imprecation; in his own words is an oath about a deposit like an imprecation? Rebbi Yose said, since it is written “a person, a person”, everything is here and everything is there. Rebbi Mana said, an imprecation made in court is the topic of disagreement between Rebbi Meїr and the Sages. He lied to his fellow man, if his confession was eliminated by the oath. It excludes one who lied to one of partners; it excludes one who lied where there are witnesses and a document. Rebbi Yose said, this implies that if two people took a loan from one person, even if they did not write “we are responsible and warrantors for one another”, they are responsible and warrantors for one another; but one does not act on this. If two made a joint deposit and one came to retrieve his property, one does not listen to him. Should he not be treated as denying his part and be liable? If one made a deposit with two people. If one denied it, he is liable. If the other denied it, he is liable. If the deposit was worth one peruṭa, does this not result in each of them bringing a sacrifice for half a peruṭa? What here? If one would swear, and swear, and swear, would he not bring a sacrifice for half a peruṭa? There, each oath refers to a peruṭa’s worth. Here no oath refers to a peruṭa’s worth.

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

HALAKHAH: “If five people were claiming from him,” etc. I could think that also for an oath about a deposit He did not make one assenting to an oath like making an oath? Rebbi Eleazar said, this is not so. But also for an oath about a deposit we are treating one assenting to an oath like one formulating an oath.

HALAKHAH: “Give me the deposit, the loan,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Simeon implies that if it turns out that he had no wheat, he is not liable for the rest. Rebbi Abba said, even Rebbi (Yasa) will agree with this. If it turns out that he had no wheat, does [the oath] refer to the other kinds? The colleagues said, it does not. Rebbi Ze`ira said, it does. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, a baraita supports what the colleagues said. “A woman made a vow as a nazir and her friend heard it and said, ‘so am I’; the first woman’s husband heard it and dissolved [the vow] for her; the first one is permitted and the second forbidden. If she said, ‘my intention was only to be like her,’ both are permitted.” Because she said, “to be like her, in her state”. Therefore, if she did not say “to be like her, in her state”, the first is permitted and the second forbidden. Since there, where the essence is not an oath, you say it applies, here, where there was an original oath, not so much more? What Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Simeon implies if it turns out that he had no wheat, he is not liable for the rest, if he connects: If he says, [my obligation for] barley shall be like that for wheat; [my obligation for] spelt shall be like that for wheat.

HALAKHAH: “You raped or seduced my daughter,” etc. Rebbi Ze`ira, Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The words of Rebbi Simeon [imply that] the main claim is for the fine, which is not so for the words of the Sages. Rebbi Illa said, the words of Rebbi Simeon if he claims the fine, shame and diminution; the words of the Sages if he claims shame, diminution, and fine. The rabbis say, the words of Rebbi Simeon if he advances three claims; the words of the Sages if he advances one claim. Rebbi Ze`ira asked before Rebbi Yasa, did you hear explicitly from Rebbi Joḥanan, or from his word? Rebbi Yasa said, for he is of the rabbis’ opinion. Rebbi Mana said, even if he is of Rebbi Illa’s opinion, the words of Rebbi Simeon if he advances one claim; the words of the Sages if he advances three claims. “Not only matters for which he has to pay the capital, from where double payment, quadruple and quintuple payment, the rapist, and the seducer, and the calumniator? The verse says, everything about which one would swear falsely.” Is the calumniator’s not a fine? Rebbi Jeremiah says, this is Rebbi Simeon’s who said, all depends on the collection.

HALAKHAH: “ “You stole my ox,” etc. to the end of the Chapter. Rebbi Isaac asked, should one have to pay the value of the slave by his admission? But what is his problem? Are the entire thirty a fine or is only the excess over his value a fine? If you say, all the thirty are a fine, he does not pay. If you say, the excess over his value is a fine, he pays. There, we have stated: “ ‘Your ox killed my slave’, but he says ‘he did not kill;’ ‘I am asking you to swear’ and he says ‘Amen’, he is not liable.” Rebbi Ḥaggai said before Rebbi Yose: Explain it if he killed a slave covered with boils. He said to him, but it says afterwards, “ ‘Your ox killed my son’, but he says ‘he did not kill;’ ‘I am asking you to swear’ and he says ‘Amen’, he is liable.” You could explain it if he was covered with boils, then he would not be liable! You cannot do this, as we have stated: “If he killed a human, he has to pay his worth.” Rebbi Ezra said before Rebbi Mana Explain it following him who said, he shall pay redemption of his person; of the injured. He said to him, if following him who said, he shall pay redemption of his person; of the injured, all is a fine

HALAKHAH: “A judicial oath,” etc. The claim, the House of Shammai say, an obolos, but the House of Hillel say, two oboloi. The argument of the House of Shammai seems inverted. There, they say, “silver” is a denar, but here, they say that “silver” is an obolos. The argument of the House of Hillel seems inverted. There, they say that “money” is a peruṭah but here, they say that “money” is two oboloi. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: The House of Shammai learn from the initial sale of a Hebrew girl. Since her initial sale was by [at least] a denar, so her preliminary marriage is by [at least] a denar. The House of Hillel learn from the end of her diminution. Since the end of her diminution is a peruṭah, so her preliminary marriage is by a peruṭah. What is the reason of the House of Shammai? As it is said, she leaves gratis, without silver. Would we not know that it is without money? Why does the verse say, without silver? From there, that she is sold for more than silver. And what is more than silver? A denar. But maybe “silver” is a peruṭah, more than silver two peruṭot. The smallest silver coin is an obolos. So why is it not an obolos? Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Judah bar Pazi: For if she wants to diminish, she diminishes every year by an obolos and leaves. Could she not diminish by a peruṭah? Rebbi Abun said, think of it. If she wanted to compute the diminution at the start of the sixth year, there would be a peruṭah left. But the start of the diminution must be an obolos, the end of the diminution a peruṭah. If there is only one peruṭah left, can she not pay the diminished amount and leave? Just as the last diminished amount is a peruṭah, so her preliminary marriage should be a peruṭah! What is the reason of the House of Hillel? Since her last diminished amount is a peruṭah, you know that her preliminary marriage is by a peruṭah. Think of it, if there is only one peruṭah’s worth left, can she not pay the diminished amount and leave? Just as the last diminished amount is a peruṭah, so her preliminary marriage is by a peruṭah.

HALAKHAH: “You are holding a mina for me;” etc. Rebbi Abun said, it is usual for people to give loans to others not in the presence of witnesses but to ask for repayment in the presence of witnesses.

HALAKHAH: “You are holding for me a pound of gold,” etc. “Eight of gold I have in the wallet and one finds there eight gold denarii; or fifty tetradrachmas and one finds 200 denar; or 200 denar and one finds 50 tetradrachmas; these are profane. Eight gold denarii I have in the wallet and one finds fifty tetradrachmas; or 200 denar and one finds 50 tetradrachmas, these are Second [Tithe].” “ ‘You are holding for me a pound of gold,’ ‘I am holding for you only a pound of silver;’ he is not liable. ‘You are holding for me a gold denar,’ ‘I am holding for you only a silver denar.’” Rebbi Jacob bar Abinna said, earlier, we were saying, “a gold denar” is a detail; “gold denarii” are not detail. If he had said, “a gold denar, a gold coin” it would have been correct. It was found stated, “a gold coin of a denar,” he is not liable.

HALAKHAH: “You are holding for me a kor of grain;” etc. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Our Mishnah if he sued him for wheat and he admitted barley; but if he sued him for two kinds and he admitted one of them, everybody agrees that he is not liable. Rebbi Abbahu said about that of Rebbi Immi: Why did we state, “Rabban Gamliel declares him liable”? It comes to inform you of the power of Rabban Gamliel, how far he declares liable. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Not only if he claimed wheat and he admitted barley to him, but if he claimed two kinds and he admitted one of them, the words of the Sages are that he is not liable. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it is only if he claimed two kinds and he admitted one of them, but if he sued for wheat and he admitted barley according to everybody he is liable. Following Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: A person went to court before Rav: When he claimed from another wheat, barley, and spelt. Rav told him, wait until he charged you with anything he has to charge, and in the end you will swear one oath about everything. Rebbi Abbahu said, so argued Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish against Rebbi Joḥanan: In your opinion, since you say that if he claimed two kinds and he admitted one of them, according to the Sages he is not liable, did we not state “if he claimed vessels and real estate; if he admitted the vessels and denied the real estate, the real estate and denied the vessels”? For vessels about vessels he is liable, not so much more for vessels and real estate? He answered him, to transfer an oath to him by the following Mishnah, “since guaranteed property obligates non-guaranteed property to be sworn about.” This does not even disagree with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. But did we not state: “Somebody who sued for amphoras of oil and he admitted to vessels”? How do we hold? If he sued him for vessels and oil, and he admitted one of them, everybody agrees that this refers to the claim. But if he sued him for vessels and he did (not) admit oil, everybody agrees that what he admitted did not refer to the claim. Rebbi Ze`ira and Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Samuel: If he sued for vessels full of oil, one said vessels but not oil, the other said oil but not vessels. (Thrown) vessels but not oil. Oil but not vessels? Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Abin formulates it as oil buckets. Can one not ask him? If he was paralyzed.

HALAKHAH: “One does not swear on the claim of a deaf-and-dumb person, an insane person, or a minor,” etc. It is written: If a man give to his neighbor, to exclude the minor. So far if a minor gave to him and the minor requested from him. If he gave it as a minor and requested it as an adult? The verse says, his neighbor; only if giving and requesting are equal. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, is that not obvious by what Rebbi Joḥanan said, one who claims a claim of theft in respect of his neighbor’s lost object is liable? “Where is my lost object?” He told him, it was stolen. Rebbi Abba said, explain it if he told him, you already asked me when you were underage and I was freed from swearing for you. An oath of the Eternal shall be between both of them, to exclude the heir. Rebbi Illa in the name of Rebbi Yasa: The baraita is about the heir.

HALAKHAH: “About the following one does not swear,” etc. If he transgressed and swore, Rebbi Joḥanan said he brings a sacrifice for the oath; Rebbi Eleazar says, he does not bring. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, so does Rebbi Johanan answer Rebbi Eleazar. No. If you pronounced about an oath about testimony which may apply to slaves, documents, and real estate, what can you say about oaths concerning deposits which do not apply to slaves, documents, and real estate? But an oath for testimony is not in court. Would the court admit an oath of a suspect person? Only when he transgressed and swore, you say that he brings a sacrifice for his oath; here also if he transgressed and swore, you say that he brings a sacrifice for his oath.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Ḥanina said, One says, a large candelabra, but the other says, a small candelabra; he is liable since we have stated: “One swears only on matters of measure, or weight, or count.” Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, explain it if it was a candelabra composed of sections. One says, a large belt; the other says, a small belt. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated something but we do not know what he stated. If you say “liable”, a Mishnah disagrees, as we have stated: “One swears only on matters of measure, or weight, or count.” If you say “not liable”, a Mishnah disagrees, as we have stated: “If one says the adult one and the other says the underage one, let the seller swear that he sold the underage one. If both say that they do not know, they shall split.”

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Joḥanan said, the lender can be believed if he said, I lent to you up to the value of the pledge. The Mishnah says, also the borrower can be believed, as we have stated: “He told him, ‘I loaned you a tetradrachma and it was worth a šeqel,’ but the other one says ‘no, a tetradrachma you loaned me and it was worth a tetradrachma‘; he is not liable.” A person encountered another in the market and said, you owe me two denarii and your pledge is worth two denarii. He answered, I owe you one denar but my pledge is worth two denarii. The case came before the judges of Nahardea. They said, since everybody agrees that it is worth two denarii, he has to bring witnesses on the other [denar]. They had not heard that Rebbi Joḥanan said, the lender can be believed if he said, I lent to you up to the value of the pledge.

HALAKHAH: “All who must swear by Torah standards,” etc. One understands from what is said, an oath before the Eternal shall be between them, would we not know that if he does not swear, he has to pay? Why does the verse say, its owner shall take it, and he does not have to pay? But from the moment the owner accepted his oath, he does not have to pay. Rebbi Ḥaggai asked before Rebbi Yose: Is this only following Rebbi Meїr or even following the rabbis? Did not Rebbi Assi say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi Meїr is the one who says that out of a negative one understands a positive? Its owner shall take it, and he does not have to pay, therefore if he does not swear, he has to pay. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: The unpaid and the paid trustees may stipulate to be like a borrower. Rebbi Ḥanina said, everybody agrees that in the language of the Torah out of a negative one understands a positive; where do they disagree? In everyday speech.

HALAKHAH: “How about a person robbed,” etc. “In another’s house,” not in his courtyard. “To take a pledge,” not for another purpose. Rebbi Issac said, and only by witnesses. If two entered to take pledges from him? It should come like the following: “If he was injured between the two …” But if both were entitled to take pledges? What should be seen there? If they saw two [men] hitting him with sticks.

HALAKHAH: “The injured one, how,” etc. “Rebbi Jehudah was calling them beaters. Any time they are rubbing one another, he swears and collects. If he was bitten at a place where he could not bite himself, he collects without oath. At a later time if one says, you injured me, but the other says, I did not injure, this is like any other claim.”

HALAKHAH: “And if the opposing party was suspect of perjury,” 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 one does not accept unless he break his stones, and be checked out, and repent in complete repentance.” One who lends on interest one does not accept unless he tear up his IOU’s, and be checked out, and repent in complete repentance.

HALAKHAH: “The grocer on his account book,” etc. “Was ‘the grocer on his account book’ not said about one extending credit? For he can tell him, you wrote with this [hand], erase with the other [hand]”.

HALAKHAH: “He said to the grocer, give me produce for a denar;” etc. Rebbi Ḥanina said, it is to be differentiated: “Rebbi Jehudah said, when? If the container was lying between them. But if it was in the possession of one of them …”

HALAKHAH: Rebbui Ze`ira said, this came down in the manner of biblical oaths. And a woman’s ketubah is not from the start in her hand for collection, but only for collection from now on and in the future. Since she claims a document about 200 paid and she says, it is only one mina, she collects without oath.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Yose said, this means if he trades without account; it does not apply if there are accounts. Also the family member trades without accounts. Rebbi Ze`ira agrees with Rebbi Yose. A man came for judgment before Rebbi Ze`ira who required him to swear for two denars. He told him, do I not owe you two denars? Here they are thrown to you. He answered him, and cloth of fine wool X and Y. Rebbi Ze`ira said, either you give him everything he claims from you or you swear to him everything which he rolls over to you. How far does one roll over? Rebbi Joḥanan said, until he say to him, you are my slave. Think of it, could he be Cohen and Hebrew slave? Is there such a slave today?

HALAKHAH: “There are four kinds of keepers,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, there are four kinds of keepers and they become liable only through acquisition. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Also in matters of robbery they become liable only through acquisition. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun said, a baraita said so: “one who contracts with another for a field,” etc. Rebbi Ḥananiah said, Rebbi Abun, also in theft cases they become liable only through acquisition. Rebbi Ḥananiah in the name of Rebbi Phineas, our Mishnah said so: “If he was pulling it to lead it out but it died on the owner’s property, he is not liable. If he lifted it or had it led outside the owner’s property when it died, he is liable.” If he lifted it inside the owner’s property it is as if he had taken it out of the entire property of the owner. If he was pulling it and it left, only after it left the entire property of the owner. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If it was standing at his feeding trough. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked: If it was standing at his feeding trough then even if he did not pull it! But we must deal with the case that it was standing in the public domain. Does Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya follow the House of Shammai, since the House of Shammai say, “he shall be hit by less or more”? How do we hold? If it was standing in the public domain and he intended to rustle it when it died, according to everybody he became liable by that intention. If he did not start to pull it, according to everybody he is not liable. But we most hold that it was standing at a feeding trough on his property. As Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, following the House of Shammai. Rebbi Abun said, there he acquired without the knowledge of its owner; but here when he acquires with the knowledge of its owner.

HALAKHAH: “He said to the unpaid keeper,” etc. Rav said, he is not liable for a keeper’s oath but is liable because of a blurted oath. Rebbi Joḥanan said, since it is a religious duty to appease him, he is not liable because of a blurted oath. In Rav’s opinion, is there no religious duty to appease him? One appeases with truthful statements, not with lies.

HALAKHAH: “He said to the borrower, “where is my ox,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it was stated thus: “He claimed a claim of loss, swore, and confessed. Whether before witnesses came or after witnesses came he pays the value, a fifth, and a reparation sacrifice. If he claimed a claim of thief, swore, and confessed before witnesses came he pays the value, a fifth, and a reparation sacrifice. When after witnesses came he pays double restitution and a reparation sacrifice; the fifth is counted for him in the double payment, the words of Rebbi Jacob. They said to Rebbi Jacob, where do we find a reparation sacrifice without fifth? He said to them, if he swore, and swore, and swore, we find a reparation sacrifice without fifth. But the rabbis say, there is a fifth for the capital; there is no fifth for oaths.”

HALAKHAH: It was stated: If it was neither to his benefit nor to his detriment, he is liable. Rebbi said, a baraita says so: “If he said to the borrower, the unpaid trustee, the recipient of a fee, or the renter, ‘where is my ox?’ This one said, ‘it died.’” May he tell him, “come and swear to me that you never thought of rustling it”? In any case he would not pay; what could he say? “Even if you would pay me a lot, I want from you what is mine.”

HALAKHAH: “Within three days before Gentile holidays,” etc. Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba understood all from here: Bring your sacrifices in the morning, on the third day your tithes. Rebbi Yose said to him, if it were so, even in the diasporas. But it was stated, Nahum the Mede said, in the diasporas one day is forbidden. What about this? There, they checked and found that they supplied their needs in one day and forbade them one day. But here they checked and found that they cover their needs in three days and forbade them three days.

HALAKHAH: “The following are the holidays of the Gentiles,” etc. Rav said ‘edehen and Samuel said `edehen. He who said ‘edehen, they are their witnesses. He who said `edehen, for the day of their misfortune is near. Rav said me`abberim, and Samuel said me‘abberin. He who said me`abberin, one adds a limb to it. He who said me‘abberin, like a pregnant woman. Rav said ye`utu, and Samuel said, ye‘utu. He who said ye`utu, but with this we shall be agreeable to you. He who said ye‘utu, to know, to inform the weary of wisdom.

HALAKHAH: “The day of the first shaving of his beard,” etc. What means “only on the day itself”; maybe the same day every year? Did we not state, his haircut and his son’s haircut is forbidden? Explain it that they had a haircut together. Did we not state, his wedding feast and his son’s wedding feast are forbidden? Explain it that they together had a haircut and married women. Did we not state, his birth and his son’s birth is forbidden? Could you say that they were born together? Explain it that he did not do it on his day, but after the son was born he did it with him.

HALAKHAH: “Outside a town with pagan worship,” etc. Therefore inside it is forbidden. Because in it there is one statue all of it should be forbidden? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish says, they taught this about a fair. What is the difference between inside and the surroundings? Inside where it profits from the toll it is forbidden. Outside it is permitted because it does not profit from the toll, but if outside it also profits from the toll it is forbidden. But was it not stated: “One goes to fairs and buys there slaves, slave girls, and animals.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, not only Jewish slaves but even Gentiles, because he brings them under the wings of the Shekhina. But was it not stated: If he bought there a garment, it should be burned, an animal should be castrated, coins should be brought to the Dead Sea? One understands that a garment should be burned, coins should be brought to the Dead Sea. An animal should be castrated? But was it not stated: One goes to fairs and buys there slaves, slave girls, and animals.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, not only Jewish slaves but even Gentiles, because he brings them under the wings of Heaven? Explain it, Israel, Israel. But was it not stated: If somebody sells his slave to Gentiles the proceeds are forbidden. Again explain it, Israel, Israel. One buys from an Israel who goes to a fair because he is like one salvaging from their hands. On his return it is forbidden since he profits from pagan worship. But from Gentiles it is permitted whether they are going or coming. Rebbi Abba the son of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If it was a hostelry it is permitted. Rebbi Ze‘ira asked: at a fair it is forbidden, in a hostelry it is permitted? Maybe Rebbi Joḥanan said this about merchandise. Rebbi Abba the son of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba came in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If it was a hostelry, merchandise is permitted, said Rebbi Joḥanan.

HALAKHAH: “The following are forbidden.” Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: White figs with their stalks and pine cones with their attachments.

HALAKHAH: “At a place where they used to sell small cattle,” etc. But is it permitted to raise them? Rebbi Abba said, for example Mahir which is sixteen by sixteen mil. They wanted to say, he who said it is permitted to sell [says] it is permitted to raise. But he who says, it is forbidden to sell [says] it is forbidden to leave it alone. Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rav: Even one who says it is permitted to sell it [says] it is forbidden to leave it alone. What is the difference between selling and leaving alone? When he sells it to him it becomes the Gentile’s animal. If he lets it be alone with him, it is the Jew’s animal and he is suspected about it.

HALAKHAH: “One does not sell them bears and lions,” etc. Therefore something which does not present a danger to the public one may sell to them. Our Mishnah follows Rebbi. As it was stated: “One who sees snake charmers and conjurers, muqion, mupion, mulion, milarin, milaria, sigillarin, sigillaria, this is forbidden because of ‘seat of the scoffers,’ as it is said, in the seat of scoffers he did not sit. All this leads to neglect of the Torah, as it is said, but in the teachings of the Eternal is his desire. Going to the theater is forbidden as pagan worship, the words of Rebbi Meïr, but the Sages say, when they present offerings it is forbidden because of pagan worship, otherwise it only is forbidden because of ‘seat of scoffers.’ One who goes to the theater to shout; if it is for a public need it is permitted, if to ingratiate himself it is forbidden. One who sits in the stadium is a spiller of blood. Rebbi Nathan permits because of two reasons, because he can shout and save lives, and he can testify for a woman that she can remarry.”

HALAKHAH: “One does not sell to them anything connected to the ground,” etc. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked: Is there also a disagreement about large cattle? May one sell for the purpose of slaughter? It was found stated: Also large cattle is in dispute; Rebbi Jehudah says, he may sell for the purpose of slaughtering.

HALAKHAH: “One does not lease houses to them,” etc. Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina, Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: לֹא תְחָנֵּֽם do credit them with charm; לֹא תְחָנֵּֽם do not give them free gifts; לֹא תְחָנֵּֽם do not give them encampment in the Land. But did we not state, “Rebbi Yose says, also in the Land of Israel one leases houses to them”? A house is not a source of blessing; a field is a source of blessing. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun instructed that it is forbidden to let them lease a grave in the Land of Israel because of “do not give them encampment in the Land.”

HALAKHAH: “Also in a case where they said to lease,” etc. Therefore, at a place where one is used to sell, he may sell even a dwelling and lease a dwelling. Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Tanḥum bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose: Even a small room as in the tannery of Sidon. Not only all of it, but even one room. “If there were two, one inside the other, the inner one is liable, the outer one is not liable.” If there was one and it was subdivided into two, two and combined into one? Rebbi Abin in the name of the rabbis there: This implies that if there was a field adjacent to a road it is forbidden to lease it to Gentiles because it is known by the name of the Jew and they plough there on Sabbaths and holidays.

HALAKHAH: “One does not put up animals in hostelries of Gentiles,” etc. Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina; Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Jonah: explain it following Rebbi Eliezer, since Rebbi Eliezer said “it may not be bought from Gentiles.” Rebbi Jonah asked, why do we not explain it according to everybody, following what Rebbi Eleazar said in the name of Rav: Even one who says it is permitted to sell [says] it is forbidden to leave alone. If he transgressed and left it alone by everybody’s opinion. Rebbi Jeremiah said, let us hear from the following: “A woman who was jailed by Gentiles.” Rebbi Yose said, it is different for a woman because she usually cries. Think of it if she was mute! She uses sign language. What about it? Explain it following Rebbi Eliezer, since Rebbi Eliezer said “it may not be bought from Gentiles.” They wanted to say, where do Rebbi Eliezer and the rabbis disagree? About the cow, because of “eminence was given to the cow, an adornment was made for the cow.” But since the rabbis answer to Rebbi Eliezer all sheep of Qedar will be assembled for you, this says that Rebbi Eliezer disagrees about everything. Rebbi Hoshaia asked, does one reply with an argument about the future against one about the past? Rebbi Abin asked, does one reply with an argument when evil inclinations will have disappeared against one when evil inclinations exist?

HALAKHAH: “One may be healed from the healing of property,” etc. Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: “healing of property,” his animal. “Healing of persons,” his body. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah: If it was scratched it is forbidden. As in the following case: Rebbi Immi went with Rebbi Jehudah the Prince to the hot springs of Gader. He hurt his finger and put a bandage on it. He saw it penetrate and cut it off. Did he not hear what Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If he was a professional healer it is permitted? This is not comparable. There if it was scratched it is permitted, but here it was scratched and is forbidden.

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