halakhah

HALAKHAH: “Gentiles’ wine skins and jugs,” etc. “Rough Gentile wine skins are permitted; tarred ones are forbidden. If a Gentile made it and insulated it while a Jew was watching, one may fill it with wine without worry.” Should one not be afraid that possibly he made a libation? He will not usually make a libation in repugnant circumstances. Then even if no Jew was watching? I say, maybe he switched.

HALAKHAH: “Gentiles’ grape kernels and skins,” etc. Rav Sheshet in the name of Rav: Moist they are forbidden even for usufruct; dry they are permitted even to eat. But did we not state, “it does not become libation wine until it descends into the cistern”? Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Judah: The Mishnah is about one who lowers them into the cistern.

HALAKHAH: “Fish sauce, cheese,” etc.“Wine in muries, Rebbi permits but Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon forbids.” Therefore, if somebody transgressed and put it in, Rebbi forbids it to laymen but Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon permits it to laymen.” Rebbi Mana bar Tanḥum asked: Following him who permits for laymen, why is muries of Gentiles forbidden? Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya ber Abba, it is forbidden as being cooked by Gentiles. But did not [Rebbi Yose] state: “From a professional it is permitted, from a non-professional it is forbidden.” From a professional it is permitted, is that not if it is not cooked? Similarly, from a non-professional it is forbidden even if cooked. What about it? If it is to remove contamination it is forbidden because of pagan worship. This implies that usufruct of pagan worship is forbidden, usufruct of heave is permitted. Rebbi Joḥanan bar Madia said, following him who said from a professional it is permitted, only if he knows him.

HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Jehudah said, Rebbi Ismael asked Rebbi Joshua,” etc. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Because [most] calves there are slaughtered in the name of pagan worship. Rebbi Joḥanan heard this and said, my teacher taught us well, since if one slaughters for pagan worship even its excrement is forbidden. Rebbi Joḥanan asked, if one found a ring in it? Rebbi Yose said, a ring is recognizable; excrement is part of its body.

HALAKHAH: “The following matters of Gentiles are forbidden,” etc. Why is Gentile’s milk forbidden? Rebbi Abba (son of) [in the name of] Rav Jehudah, Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Why is Gentile’s milk forbidden? Because of uncovering. Let him make cheese! Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, because of the poison given between the holes. It was stated so: There are three kinds of poison; one swims, one sinks down, and one is similar to a net. Workers were in the field. The water pitcher was uncovered. The first ones drank and were [not] disabled. The second ones died. I say that it was sinking poison. In the days of Rebbi Jeremiah the barrels of the great assembly were uncovered. The first ones drank and were not disabled. The second ones died. I say that it was sinking poison. It was stated thus: “If a watermelon was pecked and ten people ate from it or wine was uncovered and ten people drank from it, it is forbidden to eat or drink after them; I say that there is sinking poison.”

HALAKHAH: “The following are permitted for usufruct,” etc. Rebbi Eleazar said, about a dish in which usually one does not add wine or vinegar. Therefore if it is certain that he added, it is forbidden even for usufruct. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If a Jew and a Gentile put a pot on the fire, the Jew puts it down and the Gentile stirs. Who puts it back? One would say that the Jew puts it back. Rebbi Benjamin bar Levai said, only if it is cooked like Ben-Drosai’s food. Rebbi Yose asked, if it is cooked like Ben-Drosai’s food, why does the Jew have to put it back? Even the Gentile may put it back.

HALAKHAH: “All statues are prohibited,” etc. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, because they are worshipped in the great fortification of Rome twice in a Sabbatical period. Then at a place where they are worshipped they should be forbidden, at a place where they are not worshipped they should be permitted. Rebbi Yose said, since they became forbidden at one place, their kind becomes forbidden anywhere.

HALAKHAH: “If one finds shards of vessels,” etc. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Because most of them come from three-legged tables. Then also figures of a hand or figures of a foot? There is a difference since similar ones are worshipped.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody finds vessels,” etc. They stated only “vessels and on them the form of the sun, the form of the moon,” therefore not any of the other planets. They only stated “dragon”, therefore not any snakes. What is a dragon? Any which has spikes on its neck. It was stated thus: “Rebbi Simeon ben (Azzai) [Eleazar] says, what is a dragon? Any which has spikes on its neck. “If it is smooth it is permitted. If one finds a dragon in the form of a something crawling it is forbidden. Something crawling and on it a dragon, he takes the crawling thing and throws away the dragon.

HALAKHAH: “Proclos ben Ploslos asked,” etc. Where do we hold? If he asked him about practice in the bath he should have answered; if he did not ask him about practice in the bath he should not have answered. As Rebbi Jacob bar Idi said in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: One asks about practice in the bath while in the bathhouse, about practice in the toilet while in the toilet. As when Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar went to bathe with Rebbi Meïr, he asked him, may one rinse? He told him, it is forbidden. May one dry himself with a towel? He told him, it is forbidden. But did not Samuel ask Rav, may one say “Amen” at a dirty place? He told him, it is forbidden, and it is forbidden that I told you that it is forbidden. It was found stated, one asks about practice in the bath while in the bathhouse, about practice in the toilet while in the toilet. Rebbi Yudan, the father of Rebbi Mattaniah, said, he asked him about practice in the bath but it is not done to answer in the bath. Rebbi Samuel bar Eudaimon said, he asked him about practice in the bath but the steam in the bath is bad for the teeth. The colleagues, Rebbi Ḥama bar Yose in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia, Rebbi Zeˋira in the name if Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: He answered him in an evasive answer, for he could have replied about Baal Peˋor whose worship only consists in exposure and defecation. What about it? What is treated as a divinity is forbidden, what is not treated as divinity is not forbidden.

HALAKHAH: “If Gentiles worship mountains,” etc. Rebbi Zeˋira, Rebbi Yasa, Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: One verse says, do not covet silver or gold on them and take for yourself. And one verse says, silver and gold which is with them. If on them why with them, and if with them why on them? Since on them refers to something which is particular for them and an adornment for them, also with them refers to something which is particular for them and an adornment for them.

HALAKHAH: “If one’s house was connected to a house of pagan worship,” etc. There is written abomination about the menstruating women, abomination about vermin, abomination about idolatry. About the menstruating woman, for anybody who would commit any of these abominations. About vermin, do not eat any abomination. About idolatry, and do not bring any abomination into your house. But I do not know for which purpose it was compared. Rebbi Aqiba says, it was compared to abomination regarding the menstruating woman. As the menstruating woman imparts impurity by load, also idolatry imparts impurity by load. Or since the menstruating woman imparts impurity through a cover stone, does idolatry impart impurity through a cover stone? Rebbi Zeriqa in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina, but some say in the name of Rav Ḥisda: Rebbi Aqiba agrees with the Sages that idolatry does not impart impurity through a cover stone. But the rabbis say it was compared to abominations of vermin. As vermin imparts impurity by motion, so also idolatry imparts impurity by motion. Or as vermin in the size of a lentil imparts impurity does also idolatry in the size of a lentil impart impurity? Rebbi Zeˋira, Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman, Rebbi Eleazar, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They were yoked to Baal Peor and ate sacrifices to the dead. As the dead in the size of an olive impart impurity so idolatry in the size of an olive imparts impurity. Or since a corpse imparts impurity once a person puts his finger tips in, could I think that idolatry imparts once a person puts his finger tips in? Tearing down, tearing down one infers from the leprous house. Since in a leprous house when he entered with his head and most of his body, so idolatry when he entered with his head and most of his body. Rebbi Ḥanina said, this means that the impurity of idolatry is not consistent. For otherwise, why does one compare if for the facile [impurity] and does not compare for the strict? Rebbi Mana said, it is consistent. Why was it compared to a corpse and to vermin? To inform in both cases about the facile [impurity] attached to it. This is for a broken idol. But an entire one even in the most minute size, as Rebbi Yose hen Rebbi Abun said, Rav Ḥama bar Gorion in the name of Rav: Baal was the penis gland in the form of a bean. What is the reason? They selected the Baal of circumcision as god.

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

HALAKHAH: “There are three kinds of stones,” etc. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav: This implies that what is cast for idolatry is immediately forbidden. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: This implies that if one casts a cup for idolatry it is immediately forbidden.

HALAKHAH: “There are three kinds of Ashera,” etc. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, if he engraved engravings in it it cannot become invalidated. This is necessary: even if he removed the engravings. It was stated: If he grafted, he has to remove what he grafted. Rebbi Yannai said, only if he grafted for idolatry. Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Only if he put an idol under it. The opinions of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish seem inconsistent. There Rebbi Immi said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, if he engraved engravings on it it cannot become invalidated; and we interpreted this to mean, even if he removed the engravings. And here he says so? It is more severe with engravings.

HALAKHAH: What is an Ashera? Rav Ḥisda said, They disagree in the indeterminate case. Where do we hold? If it is certain that they worship both idol and tree, everybody agrees that it is forbidden. But if it is certain that they worship the idol and do not worship the tree, everybody agrees that it is permitted. But where do we hold? If it is indeterminate. Rebbi Simeon says, normally they worship both idol and tree; but the rabbis say, normally they worship the idol but do not worship the tree. And it is difficult. Rebbi Simeon disagrees with the Sages and acts in their sense!

HALAKHAH: “One should not sit in its shadow,” etc. There they say m the name of Rav Ḥisda: Its shadow is forbidden, its half-shadow is permitted. What is its shadow and what is its half-shadow? There they say, any place where if it would fall down would touch him is its shadow, but any place where if it would fall down would not touch him is its half-shadow

HALAKHAH: “If he took wood from it,” etc. Rav Ḥasdai said, they are disagreeing in the indeterminate case. Where do we hold? If to heat, everybody agrees that it is permitted. If to fumigate, everybody agrees that it is forbidden. Where do we hold? In the indeterminate case.

HALAKHAH: “If he took from it [wood to make] a weaver’s shuttle,” etc. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, when I descended from a ship I found Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa sitting and asked him. “If he took from it [wood to make] a weaver’s shuttle, it is forbidden for usufruct. If he used it to weave cloth the cloth is forbidden for usufruct.” But did we not state, “it should all be sold to a Gentile except for the value of the libation wine in it”? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Ḥaggai raised the question, Ḥaggai resolved it. What is it? There people do not buy from the Gentile; but here people buy cloth from the Gentile.

HALAKHAH: “How does one make it insignificant,” etc Rav said, for his benefit, both it and its shavings are permitted; for its benefit it is forbidden but its shavings are permitted. Samuel said, for its benefit both it and its shavings are forbidden, for his benefit it is forbidden but its shavings are permitted. Rebbi Joḥanan said, for its benefit it is forbidden but its shavings are permitted.

HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Ismael said,” etc. Rebbi Immi said, the reason of Rebbi Ismael is because of a small Mercurius next to a large Mercurius. But the rabbis say, because of the feet of Mercurius. How large are the feet of Mercurius? 50 cubits.

HALAKHAH: “If one found coins on top of it,” etc. Rebbi Jonathan said, not only wreaths of ears of grain but even wreaths of roses. Rebbi Yose said, not only a Mercurius and on top of it coins but even any pagan place which has no lattice work and he found in it garments or vessels, they are permitted.

HALAKHAH: “If an idol had a garden,” etc. So is the Mishnah: A favor to the priests or without a favor to the priests. “It is forbidden to sell fifes of idols, but if one pays the rental fee to the state if it is used to supply the needs of idol worship it is permitted to sell them. It is forbidden to rent a store from a pagan temple, but if one pays rent to the state even if it is used to supply the needs of idol worship it is permitted to rent it. It is forbidden to give to collectors for idol worship. If he pays a fee to the state even though he collects for idol worship it is permitted to give to him.” And the Mishnah said so, “if it belongs to it and a third party one benefits whether with or without a favor.”

HALAKHAH: “A Gentile’s idol is immediately forbidden,” etc. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, the Mishnah speaks about an artist who works to sell it on the market. When he finishes it, it is a sure thing that he bows down before it. Rebbi Yose asked, if it is a sure thing that he bows down before it, why did we state “a Gentile’s idol is immediately forbidden but a Jew’s only when it is worshipped”?

HALAKHAH: “How does one annul it,” etc? Rebbi Ze`ira said, this is if he sold it in peace. But if he sold it in ill-will, everybody agrees that it is annulled; it happens that he is hungry, falls into a rage, and curses his king etc. Ze`ur bar Ḥinena in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: They disagreed in case he sold it to a goldsmith. But if he sold it to its worshipper, everybody agrees that it is not annulled. Rav Jeremiah in the name of Rav: they disagreed if he sold it to its worshippers. But if he sold it to a goldsmith everybody agrees that it is annulled. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: the opinion of everybody. Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: in dispute. It turns out that Rebbi Ḥanina held with Rebbi Joḥanan and Rav Jeremiah with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. What about it? They disagreed in case he sold it to a goldsmith. But if he sold it to one of its worshippers, everybody agrees that it is not annulled.

HALAKHAH: “An idol which was abandoned by its worshippers,” etc. It was stated: The war of Joshua is forbidden, similar to the war of Joshua is permitted. The war of David is permitted, like the war of David is forbidden. The war of Joshua is forbidden, as it is written, for certainly you should ban them. Similar to the war of Joshua is permitted, for it is a short time. The war of David is permitted, what Itai from Gat annulled. Like the war of David is forbidden, for it is permanent.

HALAKHAH: “The Elders were asked in Rome,” etc. If somebody stole seeds and sowed, would it not grow in the end? If somebody sleeps with a married woman, would he not in the end cause a bastard to be born? But let the world continue its usual way. The stupid who misbehave will in the future have to account for their deeds.

HALAKHAH: “One may buy a used wine-press,” etc. Rebbi Ḥanin stated: Only if the Jew did not turn his eyes away from him. But if he turned his eyes away from him, not then. So far if he was taking juice and grapes together to put on the heap. If he gave these and those separately, (even from what was left in the fissures, what is under the bunches is forbidden, on the sides is permitted.) Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Itself it becomes libation wine.

HALAKHAH: “One may stamp with a Non-Jew in the wine press,” etc. Rebbi Jonah said, that is, you say only if they walked over it crosswise. But if they did not walk over it crosswise, it does not apply. Rebbi Yose asked, if they walked over it crosswise, even following the earlier teaching? As it was stated: “Originally they were saying that one harvests grapes with the Non-Jew and stamps with a Jew who works in impurity. They changed and said, one does not harvest grapes with the Non-Jew nor stamp with a Jew who works in impurity, but one stamps with a Gentile and helps him as long as it did not disappear from sight. Once it disappeared from sight it became libation wine”.

HALAKHAH: “If a baker works in impurity,” etc. One states about this: One does not moisten, nor grind, nor mix with him. Rebbi Hila said, here for profane [bread], there for heave. Can you say heave at a baker’s? The colleagues: one if he moistens, the other if he does not moisten. But did we not state: “But she may not touch hers once water has been put in because one does not support transgressors.”

HALAKHAH: “A Non-Jew who was found standing,” etc. Rab Sheshet in the name of Rav: Only if he has a lien on this particular cistern. But if he has no lien on this particular cistern, it is the way of creditors to stand near wine presses and threshing floors. They wanted to say, he who says, only if he has a lien on this particular cistern, within his outstretched arms, but he who says, even if he has no lien on this particular cistern, even outside his outstretched arms. But did not Rebbi Abba say in the name of Rav Sheshet, just as they gave outstretched arms for purity so they gave it for libation wine? But it must be so: He who says, only if he has a lien on this particular cistern, within his outstretched arms, but he who says, even if he has no lien on this particular cistern, only outside his outstretched arms.

HALAKHAH: “One who makes a Non-Jew’s wine in purity,” etc. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina: Not only a door but even a window wide four by four and high ten, on condition that it be roofed and glued closed. If it was growing, we would say if he is seen climbing up and coming down it is forbidden, otherwise it is permitted. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah: The Mishnah speaks of a town “with double doors and bolts.” Was it stated in that case “a watchman even if he comes only at intervals”?

HALAKHAH: “If somebody hires a worker,” etc. Does he not give him his wages? Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They fined him a fine.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody hires a donkey,” etc. How far? Up to when the donkey takes offense.

HALAKHAH: “If libation wine fell on grapes,” etc. Our Mishnah if their seal is not loosened. But if their seal was loosened they are as injured.

HALAKHAH: “A Non-Jew who was transporting,” etc. Rebbi Samuel said, it happened that a Non-Jew was transporting wine jugs with a Jew from one place to another. The case came before Rebbi Abbahu who forbade. They said, the case was about open [containers]. Rebbi Zeriqan said, not only full ones but also short ones; for he suddenly could have touched with his hand and removed it.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody leaves his wine on a cart,” etc. Rebbi Ḥanina said, it happened that a cart of the family of Rebbi was leaving for more than four mil. The case came before the rabbis who declared it kosher. It was on the road to Sidon populated by Jews. Rebbi Ḥanina said, sometimes he sees a fence formed by thorn bushes and he thinks that they are people and is afraid.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody leaves a Gentile in charge of his store,,” etc. Following Rebbi Meïr? Did not Rebbi Meïr say, “in any case the house is impure?” Rebbi Ḥama in the name of Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina: If a courtyard is subdivided by a low wall, for purities it is impure, in matters of libation wine it is pure, since Rebbi Meïr is restrictive for purities but lenient for libation wine; also the rabbis are restrictive for purities but lenient for libation wine.

HALAKHAH: “f he was eating with him,” etc. They wanted to say, “anything on the table is forbidden,” within reach of his outstretched arms; “on the Delphic table is permitted,” out of the reach of his outstretched arms. But did not Rebbi Abba say in the name of Rav Sheshet, just as they gave outstretched arms for purity so they gave it for libation wine? But it must be the following. He who said, “anything on the table is forbidden,” within reach of his outstretched arms; “on the Delphic table is permitted,” only if out of the reach of his outstretched arms.

HALAKHAH: “If an investigative unit came to a village,” etc. In times of a religious persecution all is forbidden; it is impossible that there was not a single Jew who worshipped it under duress. This implies that an idol which was worshipped by a Jew is never invalidated. Rebbi Yose said, you infer from this that an idol which was worshipped by a Jew under duress is never invalidated.

HALAKHAH: “Jewish craftsmen,” etc. Is it not forbidden because of libation wine? Bar Qappara stated, if he sends it to houses.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody sold his wine to a Non-Jew,” etc. Rebbi Abba, Rav Huna in the name of Rav: One who handles a wine-skin and it splits in his hand is not responsible for it. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, it is necessary even if he takes it in the store when he has no other intention than that no other person should take it. Can he take possession at a minimal rate? Rebbi Ḥaggai said before Rebbi Yose, a Mishnah says that it cannot become his possession at a minimal rate, as we have stated there: “If somebody sells his wine to a Non-Jew, in case he fixed the price before that one measured, the proceeds are permitted; if that one measured before he fixed the price, the proceeds are forbidden.” If you say that it can come into his possession at a minimal price, even if he measured before he fixed the price should be as if he fixed the price before he measured and the proceeds would be permitted.

HALAKHAH: “Libation wine is forbidden,” etc. Ḥizqiah said, that is at a place where water is not sold by measure. But at a place where water is sold by measure it is like wine in wine.

HALAKHAH: “The following are forbidden and they forbid in the most minute amount,” etc. Libation wine, idols, heart-removed skins, because nothing of the taboo should cling to your hand.

HALAKHAH: “If libation wine fell into a cistern,” etc. Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of ben Bathyra: If libation wine fell into a cistern, all of it shall be sold to a Gentile except for the value of libation wine. Rebbi Samuel bar Nathan in the name of Rebbi Ḥama: practice follows Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. Rebbi Yasa said, one of the rabbis came out from the house of assembly and said, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagree. One said, practice follows Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel, and one said, practice does not follow Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel, but Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel agrees that as wine for cooking it is forbidden. Rebbi Bun in the name of Rav: The Sages agree with Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel if it was an amphora among amphoras that all of it shall be sold to a Gentile except for the value of libation wine. Rebbi Ze`ira said before Rebbi Immi: Before this was said did we not know that it was so? Was it said that the Sages agree with Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel, or perhaps was only said that Rabban Gamliel agrees with the Sages? Rebbi Yudan said, Rebbi Ze`ira knew that it was so, but he is like a person who hears something and objects to it.

HALAKHAH: “A wine press of stone which a Gentile had pitched,” etc. Our Mishnah is Rebbi’s. “One of wood, Rebbi said he shall wipe it dry but the Sages say he must remove the pitch.” For pottery it is not following Rebbi, as it was stated: A Gentile’s wine-press, bucket, and funnel, Rebbi permits but the Sa (say). Rebbi agrees that pitchers are forbidden. Why are these forbidden and those permitted? These one fills with it, the others one does not fill with it. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: practice follows Rebbi. If a Gentile pitched a papyrus vessel. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Samuel, practice follows Rebbi. It is the disagreement of Rebbi and the Sages, as we have stated: “If somebody’s wine-press was impure and he wants to purify it, the brooms, the planks, and the lentil one rubs dry and they are pure. The wicker-work of wood splinters, or of hemp, or of wood, or of bark, of threads, of bast, one lets age a full twelve months; Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, from one olive pressing to the next, from one wine pressing to the next. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, if he wants to purify it immediately, he puts it for a period in a pipe where water streams, or in a brook whose water flows. Just as one wipes dry for purity so one wipes dry for libation wine.” How much is a period? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, half a day or half a night. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, either a day or a night. Do they disagree? But one when day and night are equal, the other when day and night are unequal.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody buys crockery from a Gentile,” etc. “ If somebody buys crockery from a Gentile, something of which he knows that it is used for human food, he washes them clean and they are pure. But pots and boiling kettles one cleanses in boiling water. All of these, if he used them even if he did not immerse them, or cleansed them in boiling water, or rubbed them clean, or made them glowing white in fire, they are pure.” Rebbi Hoshaia said, one has to immerse them, as by the following. Rebbi Immi and Rebbi Jehudah the Prince went down to the hot springs of Gadara and borrowed silverware from the family Osinos. They asked Rebbi Jeremiah who said, one must immerse them because they left the impurity of Gentiles and entered the holiness of Israel. He went out and we want to learn. They left and heard Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: they said only “who buys”, but the borrower is permitted. Then even vessels. Rebbi Hoshaia bought vessels and immersed them.

HALAKHAH: “How are plotting witnesses treated,” etc. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, everything was included in do not testify against your neighbor as a false witness. As an exception, do to him as he plotted to do to his neighbor. If you can satisfy do to him as he plotted then fulfill (do not testify) [do to him as he plotted to do]. But if you cannot satisfy do to him as he plotted to do to his neighbor then (do not) satisfy do not testify against your neighbor. Another explanation: Do to him, not to his descendants.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Abba bar Mamal, Rav Amram, Rab Mattanah in the name of Rav: If somebody makes a loan to another person stipulating that he won’t press for repayment, the Sabbatical will remit it. Did we not state: “If somebody slaughters a cow and divides it up on New Year’s Day”? And Rebbi Eleazar said, this follows Rebbi Jehudah. But can he require payment on New Year’s Day? As Rebbi Abba said in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira: Since he could not ask him for payment, it is as if he could not believe him. And since he could not believe him, it is as if he could not pay him. And here, because he could have given him but did not give, the first [debt] is turned into a loan.

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

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

HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Yose said, when has this been said?” It should have been said for civil trials and would not have been needed for criminal trials. If it had been said for civil trials, not for criminal trials, I would have said that in the relaxed standards of civil trials three [witnesses] may prove two [witnesses] to be plotting but two may not prove three to be plotting. From where even a hundred? The verse says, witnesses. Or if it had been said for criminal trials, not for civil trials, I would have said that according to the stringent standards of criminal trials two [witnesses] may prove three [witnesses] to be plotting; three may not prove two to be plotting. From where even a hundred? The verse says, witnesses.

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

HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah says,” etc. Rebbi Hoshaia stated: The following verse is said about two groups of witnesses. If an oppressive witness arises against a man, a plotting witness who answers to a man. Answering him, not his testimony. Do plotting witnesses have to be warned? Rebbi Isaac bar Tevlai in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Plotting witnesses do not have to accept warning. Rebbi Abbahu said, we do not take notice of this. Rebbi Jacob bar Dassai said, and there are very cunning people who even if they see their comrades being led out to be killed do not say anything.

HALAKHAH: “Criminal courts apply in the Land,” etc. “Criminal courts apply in the Land and outside the Land, as it is written: This shall be for you a law statute for your generations, in all your dwellings. And why does the verse say, judges and marshals you shall appoint for yourself in all your gates, in the towns of the Land of Israel. Only that in the Land of Israel one installs judges in every town and outside the Land one appoints them by circuits.” It was stated: “Rebbi Dositheos ben Rebbi Yannai says, there is an obligation for every tribe to judge his own tribe, as it is written: Judges and marshals you shall appoint for yourself in all your gates which the Eternal, your God, gives you for your tribes.”

HALAKHAH: : “The following are exiled,” etc. Rebbi Jehudah declares him not liable unless the entire rope falls from his hand. Rebbi Simeon declares him not liable unless he let go the trowel completely. What Rebbi Simeon said refers to breaking of the rope. What Rebbi Jehudah said, was about letting the trowel go.

HALAKHAH: “If the iron slipped off the handle,” etc. What is Rebbi’s reason? It is said here getting lost and it says there, for your olives will fall off. Since getting lost there means falling off, here also it means falling off. What is the rabbis’ reason? It is said here getting lost and it says there, the Eternal, your God, will eliminate these peoples before you. Since getting lost there means taking a hit, here also taking a hit.

HALAKHAH: “If one threw a stone,” etc. Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob stated, it found. That he should have been there at the moment he killed him. But is there permission to throw the stone into the public domain? Rebbi Yose ben Abun said, explain it if his wall was inclined.

HALAKHAH: If he threw the stone into his (comrade),” etc. Rebbi Yannai said, a butcher who was cutting up [a carcass] and hit somebody whether raising or descending has to go into exile. This follows what Rebbi Huna said: A butcher who was cutting up [a carcass] and hit somebody in front of him in a descending motion goes into exile, in an ascending motion does not go into exile. In his back, in an ascending motion he goes into exile, in a descending motion he does not go into exile. Rebbi Isaac said, each case goes by its circumstances. If somebody sat on a bed during the day, and it is not usual to find a baby in a bed during the day, he goes into exile. During the night, when it is usual to find a baby in a bed during the night, he does not go into exile. If somebody sat on a crib during the day, and it is usual to find a baby in a crib during the day, he does not go into exile. During the night, when it is not usual to find a baby in a crib during the night, he goes into exile.

HALAKHAH: “The father is exiled for the son,” etc. Rebbi Zeˋira said that Rebbi Shila bar Binah stated: Even though it be written, the redeemer of the blood himself shall kill the murderer, nevertheless if somebody smote his son, his second son does not become the redeemer of the blood to kill his father. But if a brother smote his brother, the second brother becomes the redeemer of the blood to kill his brother. Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob stated: Even though it be written, the redeemer of the blood himself shall kill the murderer, nevertheless if somebody smote his son, his second son becomes the redeemer of the blood to kill his father. But if a brother smote his brother, the second brother does not become the redeemer of the blood to kill his brother. And from where even if he said, I cannot face him, the verse says, when he comes upon him he shall kill him.

HALAKHAH: “Where are they exiled to,” etc. “Three cities did Moses designate in Transjordan. When they came to the Land they designated another three. Neither of them were giving asylum until after they conquered and divided. After they conquered and divided, the Land became obligated for Sabbaticals and Jubilees and these and those were giving asylum. The three cities which they designated in the Land of Israel were parallel to the three cities which Moses had designated in Transjordan like two rows in a vineyard. Hebron in Judea parallels Beṣer in the desert. Sichem on Mount Ephraim parallels Ramot Gilead. Qedesh in Galilee parallels Golan in Bashan. (Before) [even though] they had designated Sichem on Mount Ephraim it could not give asylum; they designated Qiryat-Yearim in its place until they conquered Sichem. (Before) [even though] they had designated Qedesh in Galilee it could not give asylum; they designated Gamla in its place until they conquered Qedesh.”

HALAKHAH: [They were paying rent to the Levites.] It was stated: Rebbi Jehudah says, they were given to be distributed. Rebbi Yose said, they were given as dwellings. It turns out that Rebbi Yose holds with Rebbi Jehudah, and Rebbi Meïr follows his own opinion as we have stated: “They were paying rent to the Levites, the words of Rebbi (Meïr) [Jehudah]. Rebbi (Jehudah) [Meïr] said, they were not paying rent to the Levites.”

HALAKHAH: [“Rebbi Ḥananiah ben Aqashiah says: The Holy One,praise to Him,wanted etc.” Why does one use a substitute name for the Name of the Holy One, praise to Him, and calls Him Place? To say that He is the Place of the world but the world is not His place. Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of Rebbi Immi: It is written, dwelling is the Primordial God, to say that He is the dwelling of the world but the world is not His dwelling. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥalaphta said, it is written: The Eternal said, there is a place with Me; to say that He is the Place of the world but the world is not His place. Rebbi Isaac said, it is written: The Eternal is there, Sinai in the Holy. Would “the Holy in Sinai” not have been more reasonable? To say that He is the Place of the world but the world is not His place. Rebbi Yudan said, [a parable of] a hero riding on a horse with his weapons hanging down at both sides. It is not that the horse puts up with the hero, but the hero puts up with the horse.

HALAKHAH: “If the Court ruled.” etc. A person who would transgress; one would transgress; acting he would transgress; these are restrictions: the person depending on himself is liable, but one dependent on the Court is not liable. Everywhere it is said that a restriction after a restriction is an addition, but here it is said, a restriction after a restriction is to reduce? Rebbi Mattaniah said, it is different here since there is written a restriction after a restriction after a restriction.

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

HALAKHAH: “If the Court ruled to uproot an entire subject,” etc. Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, “of a subject,” not the entire subject. Rebbi Hila said, “of the commandments”, not entire commandments. Is that written? As Rebbi Immi said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: For interpretation, one removes from the beginning of the paragraph to its end. Rebbi Ḥananiah in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah: Even a middle word. You have to pour oil on it, it is a flour offering, to include all flour offerings for pouring.

HALAKHAH: “If the Court ruled but one of them knew that it was in error,” etc. The Mishnah is Rebbi’s, since Rebbi said, no one invalidates but the distinguished member of the Court (at Lydda) [only]. It is written: If from the eyes of the congregation, from him who is appointed as eyes of the congregation. It is written, they shall stand there with you. Just as you are neither proselyte, nor Gibeonite, nor a bastard. Proselytes are reasonable, but bastards? does the court appoints bastards? Rav Ḥuna said, when they breached the rules and appointed. Rebbi Ḥanania, Rebbi Mana. One said, as part of the Seventy; the other said, apart from the Seventy. He who said, apart from the Seventy, is understandable. But he who said, as part of the Seventy, therefore not apart from the Seventy? Since he is not suitable for ordination, he is considered like a stone.

HALAKHAH: “If the Court ruled in error,” etc. Does this not disagree with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? Since Rebbi Immi said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Our Mishnah, for example, if Simeon ben Azzai was sitting before them. “Intentionally but they acted in error.” Is there intentional misdeed or error with respect of an instruction by the Court? The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: If not most of the public accepted it. Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, if they rebelled against their instruction. What is the difference between them? If they first accepted and then rebelled. In the opinions of the colleagues, since they rebelled, they are not liable. In the opinion of Rebbi Zeˋira, since at the first moment they accepted it, those are liable.

HALAKHAH: “If the Court ruled and all the public acted,” etc. Who stated “a majority”? Rebbi Meïr, as it was stated: Either half of the tribes or half of each tribe, if only it be a majority. Rebbi Jehudah says, half of each tribe, but only a majority of entire tribes. One tribe drags all tribes. Rebbi Meïr says, all tribes are called “the public”. Rebbi Jehudah says, each single tribe is called “public”. And Rebbi Simeon follows Rebbi Jehudah. Just as Rebbi Jehudah said, each single tribe is called “public”, so Rebbi Simeon says, each single tribe is called “public”. What is between them? Dragging. Rebbi Jehudah says, one tribe drags all tribes. Rebbi Simeon says, one tribe does not drag all tribes. [Even though Rebbi Jehudah says, one tribe drags all tribes,] he agrees that only if the ruling came from the ashlar hall. Rebbi Yose said, the reason of that Tanna: From this place which the Eternal will choose. Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Bejamin ben Levi: The verse supports him who said that each tribe is called “public”, as it is written: A people and a public of peoples will come from you, and Benjamin was not yet born. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, just as they differ here, so they differ about impurity, as we have stated: If the public was half pure and half impure; pure [people] celebrate the first [Passover] and impure the second. Rebbi Jehudah said, the pure ones celebrate for themselves, and the impure ones celebrate for themselves. They told him, there is no split Passover; either all celebrate in impurity or all celebrate in purity. Who is “they told him”? Following Rebbi Jehudah? As it was stated: “If one of the loaves or one of the (leftovers) [orders] became impure, Rebbi Jehudah said, both have to be brought to be burned for a public offering cannot be split. But the Sages say, the impure in its impurity, and the pure shall be eaten.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, who is “they told him”? The Sages who argue like Rebbi Jehudah.

HALAKHAH: “If the Court ruled and seven tribes acted,” etc. It was stated: Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says in his name, if six sinned and they are a majority. Therefore seven even though they do not form a majority are liable. Rebbi Eleazar said, he only said “six and they are a majority”. Therefore for five, even though they are a majority, they are not liable. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, a baraita said so: Half of the tribes on condition that they be most of the population. And similarly, half of the population on condition that they be most of the tribes. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, the question of the Anointed Priest, is it as from the High Court or a lower court?

HALAKHAH: "If the Court of one of the tribes ruled," etc. Rebbi Meïr says, it is the Court's obligation. Rebbi Jehudah says, it is the public's obligation. Rebbi Simeon said, it is an obligation of the Court and an obligation of the public. What is Rebbi Meïr's reason? It is said here from the eyes, and it is said there from the eyes. Since from the eyes said there refers to the Court, here it also refers to the Court. What is Rebbi Jehudah's reason? It is said here from the eyes, and it is said there from the eyes. Since from the eyes said there refers to the public, here it also refers to the public. What is Rebbi Simeon's reason? It is said here from the eyes, and it is said there from the eyes. Since from the eyes said there refers to the Court, also from the eyes here refers to the Court. Since from the eyes said there refers to the public, here it also refers to the public. For him who says, it is the Court's obligation, the Court has to bring. For him who says, it is the public's obligation, who brings? As we have stated, "one imposes and collects, the words of Rebbi Meïr; Rebbi Jehudah says, they are brought from the Temple tax". For him who says, it is the Court's obligation, the Court has to lay their hands on. For him who says, it is the public's obligation, who lays their hands on? As we have stated, three from every tribe, led by the president of the Court, lay their hands on the head of the bull. "Their hands, the hands of each single one. Their hands on the head of the bull; the bull needs laying on of hands but the goats of idolatry do not need laying on of hands, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Simeon said, the bull needs laying on of hands by the Elders but the goats of idolatry do not need laying on of hands by the Elders; for Rebbi Simeon says, every public purification offering whose blood is brought inside needs laying on of hands. " One objected to Rebbi Jehudah, is it not written, they presented the goats of the purification offering? Rebbi Hiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, it was a temporary ruling.

HALAKHAH: “If the Anointed Priest ruled,” etc. A person; if the Anointed Priest.” This makes the Anointed like a private person. Since the private person is not liable if he ate on the Court’s ruling, also neither is this one liable if he ate on the Court’s ruling. Since the private person is liable if he ate without a ruling, this one also should be liable if he ate without a ruling; the verse says, for the fault of the people. As the people are liable only if they issued a ruling, this one also is liable only if he issued a ruling. There are Tannaïm who state that the people are the Court. Since the people are liable if they instructed and others acted, this one also should be liable if he ruled and others acted. The verse says, as he sinned. He brings for what he sinned but he does not bring for what others sinned. There are Tannaïm who state that the people are the public. Since the people are liable if others ruled and they acted, this one also should be liable if others ruled and he acted. The verse says, as he sinned. He brings for what he sinned but he does not bring for what others sinned. Rebbi Jacob in the name of Rebbi Eleazar. Only if he is competent to argue about practice. Otherwise, would we say the incompetents give instructions? The anointed who ate following the Court’s prescript is not liable; following another Anointed’s prescript he is liable. Following the Court’s prescript he is not liable, since the prescript of others is nothing compared to their prescripts. Following another Anointed’s prescript he is liable, on condition that he instructed similarly.

HALAKHAH: “If he ruled for himself,” etc. The Court ruled, he ruled following them, and then changed. It is obvious that for him it is the equivalent of uprooting the whole. But if he ruled first, the Court then ruled following him, and afterwards they reversed themselves. Nevertheless is it for him the equivalent of uprooting the whole, or because he ruled first, but his ruling was overturned by their ruling, for him it should not be the equivalent of uprooting the whole? If the Court ruled and he ruled following them, it is obvious that he is not liable if he ate according to the ruling of the Court. But after the Court reversed itself, he is liable. Rebbi Yose said, is that not the Mishnah? “If he ruled for himself [and acted for himself], it is atoned for himself.” Because he ruled for himself and acted for himself. “But if he ruled with the public and acted with the public, it is atoned for him with the public.” Because he ruled with the public and acted with the public, but “if he ruled for himself [and acted for himself], it is atoned for himself.”

HALAKHAH: “They are liable only for forgetting,” etc. Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rav Jeremiah. The Mishnah is Rebbi Meïr’s or has inferences like Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Yose said, Rebbi Meïr who said, it is an obligation of the Court. Rebbi Mana said, following Rebbi Meïr. There, it was stated: If the Court ruled and the public acted. If a member of the Court died, they are not liable. If a member of the public died, they are liable. Rebbi Meïr told them, if he relieves others of their liability, not so much more for himself? They told him, he can relieve others of their liability since they have where to hang on; he cannot relieve himself of liability since he has nothing to hang on.

HALAKHAH: “They are only liable for something which when intentional is punishable by extirpation,” etc. The commandments of the Eternal. I could think that this also includes those who eat abominations and crawling things. It says here from the eyes and it says there from the eyes. Just as from the eyes mentioned there means something which is punished by extirpation in case of intentional sin and needs a purification sacrifice for an inadvertent sin, so from the eyes mentioned here means something which is punished by extirpation in case of intentional sin and needs a purification sacrifice for an inadvertent sin. Or since from the eyes mentioned there means something that can lead to the death penalty, so from the eyes mentioned here should mean something that can lead to the death penalty? Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, from a place where all incest prohibitions were taken as one set [of sins] causing extirpation, the (married woman) [father’s wife] came out to tell you about the bastard. Rebbi said over which, over her. Since over her mentioned there refers to something which is punished by extirpation in case of intentional sin and needs a purification sacrifice for an inadvertent sin, so over which mentioned here means something for which one is punished by extirpation in case of intentional sin and needs a purification sacrifice for an inadvertent sin. Why does Rebbi not infer from from the eyes, from the eyes? [Rebbi Zeˋira said: If Rebbi would infer from from the eyes, from the eyes, then from the eyes mentioned there for the Anointed refers to action in error; also from the eyes mentioned here would have to refer to action in error. Therefore, Rebbi will not infer from from the eyes, from the eyes.] Rebbi Yose said: If Rebbi would infer from from the eyes, from the eyes, then since from the eyes mentioned there means something that can lead to the death penalty, so from the eyes mentioned here means something that can lead to the death penalty. Therefore, Rebbi does not infer from from the eyes, from the eyes. (Does Rebbi not have a book) [Will Rebbi not in the end have] to infer from the eyes, from the eyes? For if it is not so, from where would we have the rules for the individual, the chief, and the Anointed? Not from from the eyes, from the eyes? For if it is not so, from where would we have “unless they ruled to eliminate part and to confirm part”? Not from from the eyes, from the eyes? For if it is not so, from where would we have [the difference between] a ruling of the High Court and a ruling of a lower court? Rebbi Ḥanania said before Rebbi Mana: Would not Rebbi in the end have to infer from from the eyes, from the eyes? He told him, what do you want from Rebbi? Rebbi follows his own opinion, since Rebbi said, the Anointed refers to action in error. Intentional error is only written for the Court. It. It specifies about his sacrifice that for the singular commandment its blood should not be brought into the Sanctuary. Does this follow Rebbi, as Rebbi said, the Anointed refers to action in error; if it would follow the rabbis, there must be an instance of forgetting. (Rav) [Rebbi] Huna said, it was needed for the rabbis. Lest you say, because there is extirpation its blood should be brought into the Sanctuary. Therefore, it was necessary to say it, it specifies his sacrifice that for the singular commandment its blood should not be brought into the Sanctuary.

HALAKHAH: “They are not liable for a positive commandment or a prohibition in the Temple,” 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: “They are not liable for hearing the sound of an imprecation,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the reason of Rebbi Yose the Galilean is, if he is poor and cannot afford it. Somebody who is apt to fall into poverty; this excludes the Anointed who is not apt to fall into poverty. [ They objected: There is the prince who is not apt to fall into poverty.] Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it shall be if he becomes guilty of any of these. He who can be liable for all of them is liable for part of them; but one who cannot be liable for all of them is not liable for part of them. Rebbi Isaac asked: Then he should not become impure by skin disease since he is not apt (easily and then) [to fall] into poverty or the deepest of poverty. Rav Hoshaia asked: Then a woman should not be liable for entering the Temple. Does the woman not bring? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The reason of Rebbi Aqiba, this is the offering of Aaron and his sons. This one he brings; he does not bring another tenth of an ephah. Rebbi Zeˋira asked before Rebbi Yasa may he not bring a voluntary offering? He told him, yes. He does not bring an obligatory one; he may bring a voluntary one.

HALAKHAH: “For all commandments of the Torah,” etc. Halakhah 8:“For a suspended sacrifice the individual and the Prince are liable,” etc. A person, to include the Prince. Should it include the Anointed? “And sinned inadvertently.” Any depending on acting inadvertently. This excludes the Anointed who is not depending on acting inadvertently. But following Rebbi who said, the Anointed is depending on acting inadvertently? One dependent on acting inadvertently in any situation. This excludes the Anointed who is not dependent on acting inadvertently in any situation. A person, to include the Prince and the Anointed. Here you say, to include the prince, and there you say, to include the Anointed? Like the purification sacrifices is the reparation sacrifice. Just as the purification sacrifice atones and wipes clean, also the reparation sacrifice atones and wipes clean. This excludes the suspended reparation sacrifice which atones but leaves a residue.

HALAKHAH: “For all commandments of the Torah,” etc. Halakhah 8:“For a suspended sacrifice the individual and the Prince are liable,” etc. A person, to include the Prince. Should it include the Anointed? “And sinned inadvertently.” Any depending on acting inadvertently. This excludes the Anointed who is not depending on acting inadvertently. But following Rebbi who said, the Anointed is depending on acting inadvertently? One dependent on acting inadvertently in any situation. This excludes the Anointed who is not dependent on acting inadvertently in any situation. A person, to include the Prince and the Anointed. Here you say, to include the prince, and there you say, to include the Anointed? Like the purification sacrifices is the reparation sacrifice. Just as the purification sacrifice atones and wipes clean, also the reparation sacrifice atones and wipes clean. This excludes the suspended reparation sacrifice which atones but leaves a residue.

HALAKHAH: “An Anointed Priest who sinned,” etc. Halakhah 2:“An Anointed Priest who was removed from his anointed status,” etc. Rebbi Eleazar said, if a High Priest sinned, one whips him but does not remove him from his elevated status. Rebbi Mana said, it is written: For the crown of his God’s ointment is on him, I am the Eternal; if one could compare it, just as I am in My Greatness, so Aaron is in his greatness. Rebbi Abun said, it is written: Holy shall he be for you; if one could compare it, I am in My Sanctity, so Aaron is in his sanctity. Rebbi Ḥanina the scribe, Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: if an Anointed Priest sinned, one whips him in a court of three [judges]. If you would say in a court of 23, his elevation would be his degradation. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, if a patriarch sinned, one whips him in a court of three [judges]. Does one return him? Rebbi Ḥaggai said, better if one did return him, he would kill them. Rebbi Jehudah the Prince heard this and became angry. He sent Goths to catch Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. He fled to Magdala, some say to Kefar Ḥiţţim. Rebbi Joḥanan went to the assembly hall; Rebbi Jehudah the Prince also went to the assembly hall. He said to him, why is the master not telling us words of instruction? He started clapping with one hand. He asked, does one clap with one? He answered him, no, but without ben Laqish there is nothing. He said, no. He told him, I shall free him. He said to him, in Magdala. He told him, I and you will go out to meet him. Rebbi Joḥanan sent to Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, prepare for yourself some words of instruction since the Patriarch will go out to meet you. He went out to meet them and said, your example is similar to that of your Creator. For when the Merciful went to liberate Israel from Egypt, He sent neither messenger nor angel but He went Himself, as is written: I shall pass through the Land of Egypt in that night, not only He but all His Court. It is not written in this context “when Power went” but when Powers went. They asked him, why did you say these things? He told them, what are you thinking? That for fear of you I would refrain from the teachings of the Merciful? As Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, No my sons, because the reputation is not good, etc., you remove the Eternal’s people, one removes him.

HALAKHAH: “An Anointed Priest who sinned,” etc. Halakhah 2:“An Anointed Priest who was removed from his anointed status,” etc. Rebbi Eleazar said, if a High Priest sinned, one whips him but does not remove him from his elevated status. Rebbi Mana said, it is written: For the crown of his God’s ointment is on him, I am the Eternal; if one could compare it, just as I am in My Greatness, so Aaron is in his greatness. Rebbi Abun said, it is written: Holy shall he be for you; if one could compare it, I am in My Sanctity, so Aaron is in his sanctity. Rebbi Ḥanina the scribe, Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: if an Anointed Priest sinned, one whips him in a court of three [judges]. If you would say in a court of 23, his elevation would be his degradation. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, if a patriarch sinned, one whips him in a court of three [judges]. Does one return him? Rebbi Ḥaggai said, better if one did return him, he would kill them. Rebbi Jehudah the Prince heard this and became angry. He sent Goths to catch Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. He fled to Magdala, some say to Kefar Ḥiţţim. Rebbi Joḥanan went to the assembly hall; Rebbi Jehudah the Prince also went to the assembly hall. He said to him, why is the master not telling us words of instruction? He started clapping with one hand. He asked, does one clap with one? He answered him, no, but without ben Laqish there is nothing. He said, no. He told him, I shall free him. He said to him, in Magdala. He told him, I and you will go out to meet him. Rebbi Joḥanan sent to Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, prepare for yourself some words of instruction since the Patriarch will go out to meet you. He went out to meet them and said, your example is similar to that of your Creator. For when the Merciful went to liberate Israel from Egypt, He sent neither messenger nor angel but He went Himself, as is written: I shall pass through the Land of Egypt in that night, not only He but all His Court. It is not written in this context “when Power went” but when Powers went. They asked him, why did you say these things? He told them, what are you thinking? That for fear of you I would refrain from the teachings of the Merciful? As Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, No my sons, because the reputation is not good, etc., you remove the Eternal’s people, one removes him.

HALAKHAH: “If they sinned before being appointed,” etc. The colleagues say that the reason of Rebbi Simeon is because greatness atones. Rebbi Yose said, because his sin and his knowledge are not equal. What is the difference between them? Referring to the beginning of the Chapter: “An Anointed Priest who sinned and then was removed from his anointed status, or a Prince who sinned and then was removed from his exalted status. The Anointed Priest brings a bull and the Prince brings a goat;” if there is any doubt whether they sinned. He who said, because greatness atones; just as it atones for the certain [sin] so it atones for the doubt. He who said. because his sin and his knowledge are not equal; his sin and his knowledge are not equal. If they sinned before they were appointed and after they were appointed they breached, for him who said, because greatness atones, greatness atoned for the first, but he is liable for the second and the third. For him who said, because his sin and his knowledge are not equal. If they sinned regarding hearing a sound, or expression of the lips, or the impurity of the Temple and its sancta, for him who said, because his sin and his knowledge are not equal, here his sin and his knowledge are equal. For him who said, because greatness atones, even in this case greatness atones.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Cahana: On top, high starting with the seam, below, low starting with the seam. Rebbi Joḥanan said, really low. Rebbi Joḥanan was going up to visit Rebbi Ḥanina; on the road he heard that he had died. He sent, brought his good Sabbath garment, and tore it. Rebbi Joḥanan disagrees with Rebbi Jehudah in two things, but Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Cahana follows Rebbi Jehudah. If following Rebbi Jehudah, he should not tear at all! This refers only to his father or mother, following Rebbi Meïr, as it was stated: One tears the seam for nobody who died except for father and mother, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Jehudah says, any tear which does not completely sever the seam is a frivolous tear. How is that? It is said for the High Priest that he shall sever the seam completely.

HALAKHAH: “Anything which is more frequent than another,” etc. [“If the bull of the Anointed and the bull of the community are standing, the Anointed’s bull precedes the community’s bull”,] for one is atoning, the other is being atoned for. It is preferable that the atoner precede the atoned for, as it is written, he shall atone for himself, and for his house, and for all the congregation of Israel. Between a voluntary gift of the Anointed and a voluntary gift of the prince, the voluntary gift of the Anointed has precedence. Between a voluntary gift of the community and a voluntary gift of the prince, the voluntary gift of the prince has precedence. Between a voluntary gift of the Anointed and a voluntary gift of the community, which one has precedence? Let us hear from the following: A voluntary gift of the Anointed and rams of idolatry were standing. The rams of idolatry have precedence since their blood enters inside. He only said “since their blood enters inside;” this implies that between a voluntary gift of the Anointed and a voluntary gift of the community, the voluntary gift of the Anointed has precedence. If there were standing the bull of idolatry, the ram which accompanies it, and another purification sacrifice. The bull precedes the ram, the ram precedes the other purification sacrifice, and the other purification sacrifice precedes the bull. How is this done? Rebbi Yose said, since the ram is dependent in time on the bull, it is as if the bull preceded it, and the other purification sacrifice precedes the bull. The bull of idolatry precedes the ram because it precedes in Scripture. Rebbi Samuel the brother of Rebbi Berekhiah asked: But then that of the New Moon should precede the ram which comes with it because it precedes [in Scripture.] Rebbi Abba Mari said, you cannot do this; its purification sacrifice is defective: After the permanent elevation offering it shall be made, with its libation; it made it lean on the permanent elevation offering. Between the sacrifice of a man and the sacrifice of a woman, the man’s sacrifice has precedence. That is, if both were equal. But if one was a bull and the other a lamb, it is what Rebbi Phineas said in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: A slave brings a bull and his master brings a bull, the slave’s precedes the master’s, as we have stated there: “If the bull of the Anointed and the bull of the community are standing, the Anointed’s bull precedes the community’s bull in all its ceremonies.”

HALAKHAH: “A priest precedes a Levite, a Levite an Israel, an Israel a bastard,” etc. “A Sage has precedence over the king, the king has precedence over the High Priest, the High Priest has precedence over a prophet, a prophet has precedence over the Anointed for War, the Anointed for war has precedence over the head of the watch, the head of the watch has precedence over the [head of a] clan, the [head of a] clan has precedence over the executive officer, the executive officer has precedence over the treasurer, the treasurer has precedence over a common priest, a common priest has precedence over a Levite, a Levite over an Israel, an Israel over a bastard, a bastard over a Gibeonite, a Gibeonite over a proselyte, a proselyte over a manumitted slave. When? If they are all equal. But if the bastard was learned and the High Priest ignorant, the learned bastard precedes the ignorant High Priest.”

HALAKHAH: “Shammai says, every woman’s timing is exact,” etc. What means, “their timing is exact”? They do not retroactively impart impurity to food prepared in purity. “But the Sages say following neither of them,” not following Shammai who imposed no restriction, and not like Hillel who went overboard. “But for checking to checking it is reduced by 24 hours, and from 24 hours is reduced by checking.” How is checking to checking reduced by 24 hours? If she checked herself on Tuesday and saw blood on Thursday, [her food] is impure only from the same time on Wednesday. How is 24 hours reduced by checking? If she checked herself out in the morning and saw in the afternoon, it is impure only starting from the morning.

HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Joshua said, I heard only about the virgin, but practice follows Rebbi Eliezer.” One does not say, somebody who did not see the new moon should come and testify, but one says, if somebody saw the new moon, he should come and testify. You did not hear, I heard. All during Rebbi Eliezer’s lifetime, practice followed Rebbi Joshua. After Rebbi Eliezer’s death, Rebbi Joshua introduced practice following Rebbi Eliezer. Where do we hold? If Rebbi Eliezer heard from one [authority] but Rebbi Joshua from two, practice should follow Rebbi Joshua whether [Rebbi Eliezer] was alive or dead. But if Rebbi Joshua heard from one [authority] but Rebbi Eliezer from two, practice should follow Rebbi Eliezer whether he was alive or dead. As it was stated: One says, I heard from two [authorities] and two say, we heard from one, the power of the one who heard from two is greater than that of two who heard from one. But we must hold either that either one heard from one or that either one heard from two. During his lifetime he was not convinced of his opinion, after he died he became convinced of his opinion. What did he see to say that he became convinced of his opinion? As it was stated: The stains of all four categories of women, about whom the Sages said that their timings are exact, cause retroactive impurity except for a girl who is too young to menstruate, for that one has no stains, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, for all four categories of women about whom the Sages said that their timings are exact, their stains cause retroactive impurity except for a girl about to start to menstruate, for her stains start with her menstruation. Since if she sees blood her timing is exact, so also for her stain her timing. Rebbi Yannai said, because her sap is frequent. If the timing of one whose sap is frequent is exact, the others whose sap is not so frequent so much more! By this reason he became convinced of his opinion.

HALAKHAH: “What is a virgin? Any one,” etc. So is the Mishnah: Any one who never did menstruate; they spoke of one virginal for blood, not one virginal for sexual relations. Sometimes she is virginal for blood and not virginal for sexual relations, sometimes she is virginal for sexual relations and not virginal for blood. She is virginal for blood if she started to menstruate before marrying; she is virginal for sexual relations if she married before menstruating.

HALAKHAH: “What is an old woman,” etc. Rebbi Meïr says, the blood disappears because of the milk. Rebbi Yose says, the blood disappears because of the pain. You find a leniency and a stringency following Rebbi Meïr, and a leniency and a stringency following Rebbi Yose. A leniency following Rebbi Meïr, for if the baby was continuing to suckle for four ot five years, her timing continues exact. And a stringency, if she handed her child to a wet-nurse or it died, she [makes impure] for 24 hours. A leniency for Rebbi Yose, for if she handed her child to a wet-nurse or it died, her timing is exact. And a stringency, for if the baby was continuing to suckle for four ot five years, it is forbidden after 24 months. But did not Rebbi Meïr say, she makes impure for 24 hours? When? Immediately or if the baby stops and cannot start again? Let us hear from the following: “A baby can nurse until 24 complete months, after that it is as if an abomination suckled, the words of Rebbi Eliezer. Rebbi Joshua said, a baby can nurse even four or five years; this is permitted. If he stopped, one cannot return him.” How long? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: up to 24 hours. Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, up to three times 24 hours. When was this said? If he stopped when healthy. But if he stopped because of sickness, one can return him immediately. And for a baby which was not in danger. But a baby who was in danger one can return him immediately even after a longer time.

HALAKHAH: “Under which circumstances did they say that her timing is exact,” etc. Samuel said, they taught only about a virgin and an old woman. But to a pregnant or nursing woman they give all during preganncy and nursing time. Both Rav and Rebbi Joḥanan say, the rules are identical for virgin, post-menopausal, pregnant, or nursing woman. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, Rav and Rebbi Joḥanan parallel Rebbi Ḥanina’s and they all disagree with Samuel’s opinion, since Rebbi Eleazar said in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: Once Rebbi instructed following the leniencies both of Rebbi Meïr and of Rebbi Yose. How was this? If the fetus was noticed and after that she bled, Rebbi Meïr says, her timing is exact; Rebbi Yose says, she retroactively makes impure for 24 hours. If she then bled frequently, interrupted for three periods, and then bled, Rebbi Meïr says, she retroactively makes impure for 24 hours; Rebbi Yose says, her timing is exact. If you say, one gives her all the time during pregnancy, why would we need Rebbi Yose’s leniency? Is not that of Rebbi Meïr less weighty than that of Rebbi Yose? Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose: Might we say, following Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Yose of milk? He said to him, it was said so explicitly.

HALAKHAH: “Even though they said that their timing was exact,” etc. So is the Mishnah: Except for the menstruating woman whose period was not interrupted by purity. “Even one who has intercourse with cloths,” so is the Mishnah: She is required to have intercourse with cloths. “And a virgin whose blood is pure,” so is the Mishnah: A girl who has not reached puberty but was married.

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

HALAKHAH: “If [a stain] is found on his [cloth],” etc. It was stated in this regard: If it is found on his, whether immediately or not immediately.

HALAKHAH: “What is ‘later’,” etc. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, that is not later but after later. What is later? That she can stretch out her arm and take the cloth from under the bedsheet. But after later, her husband is pure.

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

HALAKHAH: “The Sages gave a simile about a woman’s anatomy,” etc. So is the Mishnah: The blood from the room is impure but the blood from the upper floor is pure. Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: The room is inwards from the anteroom; the upper floor is over the room up to the middle of the anteroom, the door of the upper floor opens to the anteroom. Rav Naḥman bar Rav Isaac asked Rav Huna: Does the Mishnah [deal with the case that blood was found] inwards of the door of the upper floor? He said to him, if it was found inwards of the door of the upper floor it is certainly [impure]. But we deal with the case that it was found outwards from the door of the upper floor. The words of the rabbis disagree, since Rebbi Joḥanan said, three are like a doubt but they treated them as certain, viz., the following: A woman who has a miscarriage in the form of a cut-off hand or cut-off foot, or a placenta, and blood found in the anteroom. What are we speaking of? If it was found inwards of the door of the upper floor it is certainly [impure]. But we must deal with the case that it was found outwards from the door of the upper floor. Rebbi Abba the son of Rebbi Pappaios asked before Rebbi Yose: We have stated many doubts and you say so? He said to him, Rebbi Joḥanan spoke only of a woman.

HALAKHAH: “Five kinds of blood are impure from a woman,” etc. Rav and Rebbi Joḥanan both say that there are four kinds of blood. The red one oxydizes and becomes black. Samuel said, black comes from all of them. From where that there are five kinds of blood impure by the Torah? Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, “she uncovered the source of her bloods,” “she shall be purified from the source of her bloods,” “blood will be the excretion of her genitals.” But “a woman whose excretion of blood flows” is also there! That only comes to her in the days of her excessive flow to turn her into a zavah. From where that there is impure and pure blood? Rebbi Ḥama ben Joseph in the name of Rebbi Hoshaiah: It is written: “If something in the law is too difficult for you;” then it is not written “whether blood and blood” but “between blood and blood”, that shows that there is impure and pure blood.

HALAKHAH: “How is red,” etc. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Ulla from Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina; Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Menasia: Like blood of a wound which was hit a second time. Rebbi Jacob bar Sosai said before Rebbi Yose: The Mishnah implies this, “red like blood from a wound.” Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman and Rebbi Eudaimon from Haifa were sitting together when a man passed by them. Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman said to Rebbi Eudaimon from Haifa: That one is close to produce blood of a menstruating woman. Does he disagree? If he would be hit a second time, it would be like menstrual blood.

HALAKHAH: “If a woman has a miscarriage in the form of a lump,” etc. The Sages say, the uterus grows the lump. Rebbi Jehudah says, blood congealed and was formed into a lump.

HALAKHAH: If a woman miscarried in the form of a lump,” etc. Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: She has to soak it in lukewarm water. But did we not state: “If a woman miscarried in the form of fishes, grasshoppers, abominable or crawling things; if this was accompanied by bleeding she is impure, otherwise pure.” Can she not put it in lukewarm water? The second learns from the first and the first learns from the second. The second learns from the first, that if they dissolved she is impure, if not, she is pure. The first leans from the second, if this was accompanied by bleeding she is impure, otherwise pure, and she has to soak it in lukewarm water.