hila

HALAKHAH: “ ‘A qônām that I shall not take any benefit from my father, or your father,” etc. It was stated: Rebbi Nathan says, he cannot dissolve, but the Sages say, he can dissolve. Why can he dissolve? The colleagues say, because of his mortification. Rebbi Ze‘ira and Rebbi Hila say, because of her mortification.

HALAKHAH: “Earlier they said,” etc. That is, if she cannot bring proof for her assertion, it is obvious that she is permitted to her house. Rebbi Hila said, would it not be reasonable that a fellow should be apprehensive, and if he was a Cohen that she should be forbidden to eat heave? There came a case before Rebbi Ḥanina, the colleague of the rabbis, and he permitted her to eat heave. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, my father knew the first and the last case. Soldiers entered the town. A woman came and said, a soldier embraced me and ejaculated semen between my knees. He permitted her to eat heave. There came a case before Rebbi Isaac bar Tevele of a woman who said, my cowhand seduced me. He said to her, is the cowhand not forbidden? And he forbade her. Here, you say that he forbade her. There, you say that he permitted her. There, she came to forbid herself and he permitted her. But here, she came to permit herself and he forbade her.

From here, “if his hair became heavy”: Rebbi. For Rebbi Jeremiah said in the name of Rebbi Immi: The words of Rebbi: A nazir in perpetuity shaves once in twelve months. The words of the Sages: A nazir in perpetuity sometimes shaves every thirty days, sometimes once in twelve months. Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Assi: It says so: “I am a nazir like the hair on my head, like the dust of the earth, or like the sand of the sea. He is a nazir in perpetuity and shaves every thirty days. Rebbi says, this one does not shave every thirty days,” but once in twelve months. “Who is one who shaves every thirty days? If he says, I am obligated for nezirut like the hair on my head, like the dust of the earth, or like the sand of the sea.” Rebbi Ze‘ira said, they differ if it was not made explicit. Where do we hold? If he says, “the fullness of my hair”, everybody agrees that he shaves once every thirty days. If he says, “the number of the hairs on my head,” everybody agrees that he shaves after twelve months. But we must hold that he says “like hair”. Rebbi says, “the fullness of my hair”. But the rabbis say, he means “the number of the hairs on my head.” And here, why? Why did the man not make the vow? He only encourages himself to avoid prohibitions. In addition, from the following: “Rebbi Jehudah added: If he said, like that which is collected in the fig harvest, or like sheaves in a Sabbatical year, or like stars in the sky, he is a nazir in perpetuity and shaves every thirty days.” Could you say that Rebbi Jehudah follows the rabbis? He holds with Rebbi, as Rebbi Jehudah added: “Absalom was a nazir in perpetuity and shaved every twelve months.” What is the reason? Because of nezirut. But that would mean for the rabbis that he shaved every thirty days; that is what we have stated: “I am a nazir the house full, or a chest full. One checks him out.” It was stated on that: He shaves every thirty days. But here he said, he shaved every twelve months.

If he is still there, Rebbi Joḥanan said, one warns him about everything for every possible leaving, and he is whipped. Rebbi Eleazar said, he does not accept [warning] unless he leaves and returns. Rebbi Abba said: So did Rebbi Joḥanan answer Rebbi Eleazar: Is it not written, “he shall not come” and “he may not defile himself”? He said to him, if they warned him because of “he shall not come”, he is whipped; because of “he shall not defile himself” he is not whipped. Rebbi Hila said, Rebbi Joḥanan learned from prostrating, as we have stated there: “If he prostrated himself or stayed there long enough to prostrate himself.” Rebbi Mattaniah said, we thought that was where they do disagree? About lashes, but not about a sacrifice. Since Rebbi Hila said, Rebbi Joḥanan learned from prostrating, that means that lashes and sacrifices are one and the same. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “A nazir who drank wine the entire day is guilty only once.” He explains it, that his throat was never empty. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “If he was defiling himself for the dead the entire day, he is guilty only once.” He explains it about one who waits before every leaving, who is whipped. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: If a Cohen was standing in a cemetery and they were handing another corpse to him, could he accept? The verse says, “the husband shall be defiled for his family.” If he accepted it, I could think that he was guilty. The verse says, “to be profaned”. One who adds impurity to the impurity; that excludes him who does not add impurity to his impurity. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, Rebbi Neḥemiah said, “to be profaned”, that excludes him who does not add impurity to his impurity, lest he say, because I became defiled for my father I may go and collect the bones of X. “To be profaned”, at the time of death; Rebbi said, also “in their death.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, they disagree. It follows that Rebbi Simeon bar Abba follows Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. When Simeon bar Abba was dying, he said, this should be taken out here, that should be taken out there.

If he is still there, Rebbi Joḥanan said, one warns him about everything for every possible leaving, and he is whipped. Rebbi Eleazar said, he does not accept [warning] unless he leaves and returns. Rebbi Abba said: So did Rebbi Joḥanan answer Rebbi Eleazar: Is it not written, “he shall not come” and “he may not defile himself”? He said to him, if they warned him because of “he shall not come”, he is whipped; because of “he shall not defile himself” he is not whipped. Rebbi Hila said, Rebbi Joḥanan learned from prostrating, as we have stated there: “If he prostrated himself or stayed there long enough to prostrate himself.” Rebbi Mattaniah said, we thought that was where they do disagree? About lashes, but not about a sacrifice. Since Rebbi Hila said, Rebbi Joḥanan learned from prostrating, that means that lashes and sacrifices are one and the same. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “A nazir who drank wine the entire day is guilty only once.” He explains it, that his throat was never empty. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “If he was defiling himself for the dead the entire day, he is guilty only once.” He explains it about one who waits before every leaving, who is whipped. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: If a Cohen was standing in a cemetery and they were handing another corpse to him, could he accept? The verse says, “the husband shall be defiled for his family.” If he accepted it, I could think that he was guilty. The verse says, “to be profaned”. One who adds impurity to the impurity; that excludes him who does not add impurity to his impurity. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, Rebbi Neḥemiah said, “to be profaned”, that excludes him who does not add impurity to his impurity, lest he say, because I became defiled for my father I may go and collect the bones of X. “To be profaned”, at the time of death; Rebbi said, also “in their death.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, they disagree. It follows that Rebbi Simeon bar Abba follows Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. When Simeon bar Abba was dying, he said, this should be taken out here, that should be taken out there.

“That was the error of Naḥum from Media.” What was his error? That he found for them an opening due to changed circumstances. “Naḥum from Media said to them: ‘Would you have made a vow to become nezirim if you had known that the Temple would be destroyed at some future time?’ ” Rebbi Ze‘ira said, the following he should have said to them: Did you not know that the prophets already had prophesied that eventually the Temple would be destroyed? Then there are no changed circumstances. Rebbi Hila said, still it is changed circumstances. They could have said to him, we knew it, but it seemed to us that this referred to the distant future: “The vision he sees is for many years.”

HALAKHAH: “One is guilty for wine separately, for grapes separately,” etc. It is written: “Also grapes, fresh or dried, he shall not eat.” One understands, since it said “grapes”, do we not know that they are fresh? Why does the verse say, “grapes, fresh or dried”? To declare guilty for either one separately. This parallels what Ḥizqiah stated: Since at a place where He did not treat the waste of fruits like fruits, He treated fresh and dried equally, here, where He treated the waste of fruits like fruits, would it not be logical that we treat fresh and dried equally? The verse said, “fresh or dried”, to declare guilty for either one separately. This parallels what Rebbi Hila said: “One may not impound the movable and the fixed part of a flour-mill. “One understands, since it said “the fixed part”, do we not know that the entire mill is understood? Why does the verse say, “the movable and the fixed part”? To declare guilty for either part separately.

HALAKHAH: It is written: “He has to vow to the Eternal the days of his nezirut,” from the day he brings his sacrifices, the words of Rebbi. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah says, from the time of his shaving. Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of Rav Hoshaia, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Where do they disagree? If he shaved on the seventh and brought his sacrifices on the eighth. But if he shaved on the eighth and brought his sacrifices on the same day, everybody agrees on the day he brings his sacrifices. Rebbi Yose said, that is, if he immersed himself on the seventh. But if he immersed himself on the eighth, the eighth takes the place of the seventh and the seventh of the eighth; he counts only from that “seventh”. If he became impure and impure again, he brings a sacrifice for each occurrence. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, that statement follows Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah, but following Rebbi this person still stays in impure nezirut. Rebbi Hila said, where do they disagree? To count nezirut in purity. “He has to vow to the Eternal the days of his nezirut and bring.” Rebbi said, until he actually brought. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah says, even if he was enabled to bring the sacrifice for impurity. Everybody agrees that he brings a sacrifice for impurity. It was stated thus: If he became impure on the seventh, and again impure on the eighth, he brings a sacrifice for each occurrence. In Rebbi Ze‘ira’s opinion, following Rebbi the first sacrifice is superseded and he brings the second; following Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah it was not superseded. In Rebbi Hila’s opinion, everybody agrees that nothing is superseded and he brings another.

HALAKHAH: It is written: “He has to vow to the Eternal the days of his nezirut,” from the day he brings his sacrifices, the words of Rebbi. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah says, from the time of his shaving. Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of Rav Hoshaia, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Where do they disagree? If he shaved on the seventh and brought his sacrifices on the eighth. But if he shaved on the eighth and brought his sacrifices on the same day, everybody agrees on the day he brings his sacrifices. Rebbi Yose said, that is, if he immersed himself on the seventh. But if he immersed himself on the eighth, the eighth takes the place of the seventh and the seventh of the eighth; he counts only from that “seventh”. If he became impure and impure again, he brings a sacrifice for each occurrence. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, that statement follows Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah, but following Rebbi this person still stays in impure nezirut. Rebbi Hila said, where do they disagree? To count nezirut in purity. “He has to vow to the Eternal the days of his nezirut and bring.” Rebbi said, until he actually brought. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah says, even if he was enabled to bring the sacrifice for impurity. Everybody agrees that he brings a sacrifice for impurity. It was stated thus: If he became impure on the seventh, and again impure on the eighth, he brings a sacrifice for each occurrence. In Rebbi Ze‘ira’s opinion, following Rebbi the first sacrifice is superseded and he brings the second; following Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah it was not superseded. In Rebbi Hila’s opinion, everybody agrees that nothing is superseded and he brings another.

“Or the Jubilee,” as it is written, “in the Jubilee he shall leave.” “Or reduction of the amount,” as it is written: “If there still are many years.” Do we not know that if there are many there are not few, and if there are few there are not many? Rebbi Hila said, sometimes the years are worth more than the wages, sometimes the wages are worth more than the years. How do you explain the following? If he was sold for a mina each and improved so that now he is worth 200 each, from where that one computes for him only by a mina each? The verse says, “according to the years he shall compute his redemption.” We learned that one sold to a Gentile is advantaged when he comes to be redeemed. From where that one sold to an Israel is advantaged when he comes to be redeemed? “Hireling, hireling” for an equal cut. Since the hireling is advantaged in redemption when he is sold to a Gentile, so too the hireling is advantaged in redemption when he is sold to an Israel. Rebbi says, why does the verse say “he shall be redeemed, he shall be redeemed,” three times? To add all redemptions that they have to follow this order.

Rav Jehudah sent to Rebbi Eleazar: If a keeper give to another keeper. He answered, the first is responsible. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the second is responsible. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, the second is responsible. There, we have stated: “If somebody leases a cow from another person and lends it to a third party; if it died naturally, the lessee has to swear that it died naturally and the borrower has to pay to the lessee. Rebbi Yose said, how can this person make a deal with another’s cow? But the cow’s [price] has to be restituted to the owner.” Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Yannai: Only if he gave permission to lend to others. Also Rebbi Ḥiyya stated thus: “The borrower cannot lend, nor the lessee lease, nor the borrower lease, nor the lessee lend, nor the trustee give to another unless they received permission from the owners. And all who changed the titles without the owners’ knowledge are liable. But the borrower is liable even if he did not change.” But it is because we stated: “An unpaid watchman can stipulate to be exempt from an oath and the borrower may stipulate that he not have to pay.” This means that even if he stipulated to be exempt he is obligated. What if he wanted to let the borrower swear? Let us hear from the following: “If he wrote to her: ‘I have no vow or oath against you,’ he cannot make her swear, but he can ask an oath from the heirs or her business associates.” This implies that if he wanted to make the borrower swear, he can force him to swear. The second case teaches about the first, that if he wants to force the wife to swear, he can make her swear. Rebbi Ḥanina said, it is not necessary to derive the first case from the second, and what does one learn for the second case from the first? Following what Rebbi Hila said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: Only if he gave permission to lend to others. And here, only if he gave permission to let her sons be stewards. Rebbi Yose said, he has to pay the lease the entire time it is leased to him. Rebbi Ze‘ira asked Rebbi Abinna: If the owners borrowed it and it died? He said to him, we hold that they ate it. Rebbi Yose bar Abun said, if they ate it, they ate their own property. Rebbi Ze‘ira asked before Rebbi Yasa: How does one act? He said to him, there are two against four; one does not act following the argument. He said to him, they are two against two! Rebbi Eleazar is the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya’s student; Rebbi Joḥanan is Rebbi Yannai’s student.

Rav Jehudah sent to Rebbi Eleazar: If a keeper give to another keeper. He answered, the first is responsible. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the second is responsible. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, the second is responsible. There, we have stated: “If somebody leases a cow from another person and lends it to a third party; if it died naturally, the lessee has to swear that it died naturally and the borrower has to pay to the lessee. Rebbi Yose said, how can this person make a deal with another’s cow? But the cow’s [price] has to be restituted to the owner.” Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Yannai: Only if he gave permission to lend to others. Also Rebbi Ḥiyya stated thus: “The borrower cannot lend, nor the lessee lease, nor the borrower lease, nor the lessee lend, nor the trustee give to another unless they received permission from the owners. And all who changed the titles without the owners’ knowledge are liable. But the borrower is liable even if he did not change.” But it is because we stated: “An unpaid watchman can stipulate to be exempt from an oath and the borrower may stipulate that he not have to pay.” This means that even if he stipulated to be exempt he is obligated. What if he wanted to let the borrower swear? Let us hear from the following: “If he wrote to her: ‘I have no vow or oath against you,’ he cannot make her swear, but he can ask an oath from the heirs or her business associates.” This implies that if he wanted to make the borrower swear, he can force him to swear. The second case teaches about the first, that if he wants to force the wife to swear, he can make her swear. Rebbi Ḥanina said, it is not necessary to derive the first case from the second, and what does one learn for the second case from the first? Following what Rebbi Hila said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: Only if he gave permission to lend to others. And here, only if he gave permission to let her sons be stewards. Rebbi Yose said, he has to pay the lease the entire time it is leased to him. Rebbi Ze‘ira asked Rebbi Abinna: If the owners borrowed it and it died? He said to him, we hold that they ate it. Rebbi Yose bar Abun said, if they ate it, they ate their own property. Rebbi Ze‘ira asked before Rebbi Yasa: How does one act? He said to him, there are two against four; one does not act following the argument. He said to him, they are two against two! Rebbi Eleazar is the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya’s student; Rebbi Joḥanan is Rebbi Yannai’s student.

“What is a positive commandment that is activated by time? For example sukkah, and shofar, and lulab, and tefillin. What is a positive commandment that is not activated by time? For example lost articles, sending away the [mother from the] nest, railing, and ẓiẓit. Rebbi Simeon exempts women from ẓiẓit because it is a positive commandment activated by time.” Rebbi Simeon said to them: Do you not agree with me that it is a positive commandment activated by time? Because a nightgown is exempt from ẓiẓit. Rebbi Hila said: The reason of the rebbis is that, if a garment is designated both for daytime and for night, it needs ẓiẓit.

Rebbi Eleazar said: The Passover sacrifice of women is voluntary but one pushes the Sabbath away for it. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: The Passover sacrifice by women and slaves is voluntary; certainly one does push the Sabbath away for it. What is their maẓẓah? He said to him, it is obligatory. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, this is in dispute. Rebbi Hila said, it is everybody’s [opinion]. A baraita supports the one and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Ze‘ira: Lettuce, maẓẓah and Passover sacrifice are obligatory in the first night; on all other days they are voluntary. A baraita supports Rebbi Hila: It was said: “Do not eat leavened matter with it,” and it was said: “For seven days you shall eat with it maẓẓot, the bread of deprivation’.” Anybody under the prohibition of leavened matter is under the obligation to eat maẓẓah, and women, being under the prohibition of leavened matter, are under the obligation to eat maẓẓah. But did we not state: “For any positive commandment triggered by time, men are obligated but women are free”? Rebby Mana said, it is a positive commandment which is implied by a prohibition.

Rebbi Eleazar said: The Passover sacrifice of women is voluntary but one pushes the Sabbath away for it. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: The Passover sacrifice by women and slaves is voluntary; certainly one does push the Sabbath away for it. What is their maẓẓah? He said to him, it is obligatory. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, this is in dispute. Rebbi Hila said, it is everybody’s [opinion]. A baraita supports the one and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Ze‘ira: Lettuce, maẓẓah and Passover sacrifice are obligatory in the first night; on all other days they are voluntary. A baraita supports Rebbi Hila: It was said: “Do not eat leavened matter with it,” and it was said: “For seven days you shall eat with it maẓẓot, the bread of deprivation’.” Anybody under the prohibition of leavened matter is under the obligation to eat maẓẓah, and women, being under the prohibition of leavened matter, are under the obligation to eat maẓẓah. But did we not state: “For any positive commandment triggered by time, men are obligated but women are free”? Rebby Mana said, it is a positive commandment which is implied by a prohibition.

As it was stated: “One may say to his worker: Here you have a denar, use it for food, here you have a denar, use it for drink, and not be worried about either the Sabbatical year, tithes, or wine for libations. But if he told him, go and buy yourself a loaf and I shall give you the money, go and buy yourself a reviït of wine and I shall give you the money, he has to worry because of the Sabbatical year, tithes, and wine used for libations.” Rebbi Ze‘ira said, the grocer becomes the agent of the employer to let the worker acquire. [Rebbi Hila said, the worker] acquired for the employer from the grocer and then acquires it himself.

Here also, in the opinion of Rebbi Ze‘ira the husband becomes the wife’s agent to benefit the poor. Rebbi Hila said, the poor person acquired it for the wife from her husband and afterwards acquired it for himself.

What is the difference between them? If the grocer was deaf-mute. According to Rebbi Ze‘ira, he does not have to worry because a deaf-mute cannot become an agent; according to Rebbi Hila, he does have to worry.

If the worker was deaf-mute. According to Rebbi Hila, he does not have to worry because a deaf-mute cannot acquire; according to Rebbi Ze‘ira, he does have to worry.

A person gave a pledge to another; the other reneged on it. Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Hila, and Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa all three say it was a deal about flax seed and he had given partial payment. The case came before Rebbi Joḥanan, who said: Either he delivers the entire contract or one may turn him over to “Him Who exacted retribution.” Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph said, either he delivers for the amount of the pledge or ome may turn him over to “Him Who exacted retribution.” Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph agrees with Rebbi Joḥanan in a sale which is not usually split, such as of a cow or a stole. Is a woman usually acquired split? Rebbi Ḥaggai and Rebbi Yudan both said, a sale usually may be split, the acquisition of a wife cannot be split.

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: “This shall be an elevation sacrifice for thirty days,” it is an elevation sacrifice for thirty days; after thirty days it automatically becomes profane. What is its status regarding larceny? Rebbi Joḥanan said, the larceny is clear. Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rebbi Hila both say, the larceny is in doubt. “You are preliminarily married to me for thirty days,” she is preliminarily married. What is the difference between dedication and woman? We find that a dedication can be eliminated without redemption but we do not find that a woman could leave without a divorce document. Where do we find that a dedication can be eliminated without redemption? Following Rebbi Simeon, since Rebbi Simeon says, “they enter without paying.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, explain it according to everybody regarding a bought field. “This is your bill of divorce for thirty days”: it is no bill of divorce. Rebbi Isaac ben R. Eleazar said, when do you say that she is preliminarily married? If he effectuated the preliminary marriage by money. But if he effectuated the preliminary marriage by a document, since marriage documents were inferred from divorce documents and in the case of a divorce she is not divorced, so in the case of a preliminary marriage she is not preliminarily married.

“As daughter of an Israel married to a Cohen she may eat heave.” Some Tannaïm state: She may not eat heave. Rebbi Hila said, the one who says that she may eat heave refers to the case that the second man is a Cohen, but the one who says that she may not eat heave refers to the case that the second man is not a Cohen.

Only if it be with his and her agreement. If it was symphōn in his opinion and preliminary marriage in her opinion, Rebbi Ḥanina said, it is symphōn, Rebbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rebbi Ze‘ira said, it is preliminary marriage. Rebbi Ḥanina was taking up arms against Rebbi Ḥaggai, when Rebbi Hila said to him, accept Ḥaggai, for Ḥaggai is a thinking man; this is what Rebbi Ze‘ira said. In the first Adar, Rebbi Hila died. In the second Adar, a case came before Rebbi Ḥananiah, the colleague of the rabbis, and he wanted to rule following Rebbi Ḥaggai. Rebbi Samuel bar Immi told him, Rebbi Hila was wrong when he told you, accept Ḥaggai, for Ḥaggai is a thinking man. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, a Mishnah supports him: “ ‘You married me preliminarily’, and he says, ‘I did not marry you preliminarily.’ He is permitted her relatives but she is forbidden his relatives.” Rebbi Borqai asked before Rebbi Mana: Is it the same with symphōn? He answered, a symphōn is not doubtful but the rules are identical for symphōn and preliminary marriage.

Only if it be with his and her agreement. If it was symphōn in his opinion and preliminary marriage in her opinion, Rebbi Ḥanina said, it is symphōn, Rebbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rebbi Ze‘ira said, it is preliminary marriage. Rebbi Ḥanina was taking up arms against Rebbi Ḥaggai, when Rebbi Hila said to him, accept Ḥaggai, for Ḥaggai is a thinking man; this is what Rebbi Ze‘ira said. In the first Adar, Rebbi Hila died. In the second Adar, a case came before Rebbi Ḥananiah, the colleague of the rabbis, and he wanted to rule following Rebbi Ḥaggai. Rebbi Samuel bar Immi told him, Rebbi Hila was wrong when he told you, accept Ḥaggai, for Ḥaggai is a thinking man. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, a Mishnah supports him: “ ‘You married me preliminarily’, and he says, ‘I did not marry you preliminarily.’ He is permitted her relatives but she is forbidden his relatives.” Rebbi Borqai asked before Rebbi Mana: Is it the same with symphōn? He answered, a symphōn is not doubtful but the rules are identical for symphōn and preliminary marriage.

Only if it be with his and her agreement. If it was symphōn in his opinion and preliminary marriage in her opinion, Rebbi Ḥanina said, it is symphōn, Rebbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rebbi Ze‘ira said, it is preliminary marriage. Rebbi Ḥanina was taking up arms against Rebbi Ḥaggai, when Rebbi Hila said to him, accept Ḥaggai, for Ḥaggai is a thinking man; this is what Rebbi Ze‘ira said. In the first Adar, Rebbi Hila died. In the second Adar, a case came before Rebbi Ḥananiah, the colleague of the rabbis, and he wanted to rule following Rebbi Ḥaggai. Rebbi Samuel bar Immi told him, Rebbi Hila was wrong when he told you, accept Ḥaggai, for Ḥaggai is a thinking man. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, a Mishnah supports him: “ ‘You married me preliminarily’, and he says, ‘I did not marry you preliminarily.’ He is permitted her relatives but she is forbidden his relatives.” Rebbi Borqai asked before Rebbi Mana: Is it the same with symphōn? He answered, a symphōn is not doubtful but the rules are identical for symphōn and preliminary marriage.

HALAKHAH: “The find of his small son or daughter,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, only if they are not dependent on their father. But if they are dependent on their father, their finds belong to the latter. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish says, a person cannot acquire a find for another. Rebbi [Hila] said: Not that Rebbi Simeon had formulated thus, but he had a problem with what Rebbi Hoshaiah stated: If a person hires a worker for any work, the latter’s finds belong to the employer. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, should the finds of a person who can resign at any moment belong to his employer?

HALAKHAH: “He who leases a dwelling to another person,” etc. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, if he puts him into it. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if he told him, a dwelling like this I shall lease to you. But if a person leasing a house wants to sell it? Rebbi Immi said, nobody thinks that this one should die of hunger. Rebbi Ze‘ira and Rebbi Hila both say, while certainly it is acquired by him, he has to tell him, let him dwell there until the time of his recall. There came a case before Rebbi Nisi and he did not accept this. Does he disagree? They said, his daughter was given as a pledge to a Roman [and he did not have the wherewhithal to redeem her and Rebbi Assi instructed to sell;] therefore he instructed following Rebbi Immi.

Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If he sacrificed a defective lamb to it, he is guilty. From where this? As Rebbi Hila said, do not do such to the Eternal, your God. Anything that you might do for the Eternal, your God, you may not do in this case.

Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Zeˋira: Do not worship them, a principle. Do not prostrate yourself before them, a detail. For you shall not prostrate yourself before another god; He again stated the principle. Principle, detail, and principle: is nothing covered but the detail? Rebbi Abun bar Cahana asked before Rebbi Hila: Do not do such, a principle. One who sacrifices to gods shall be banned, a detail. Only for the Eternal alone, He again stated the principle. Principle, detail, and principle; is not everything included? Does it not add one who embraces and one who kisses? He told him, why is prostrating mentioned? Not to infer from it that it is an action? He who embraces and he who (prostrates himself) do not exemplify actions.

Rebbi Abba bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Look at the expression which the Torah taught you, Moloch; anything that you make king over yourself, even a chip of wood, even a pebble. I shall extirpate him from amidst his people, to include all other foreign worship in extirpation. Rebbi Nasa in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: to include all other foreign worship relating to sons and daughters, as it was stated: He is guilty whether for the Moloch or any other foreign worship, whether he worshipped them with sons and daughters, or worshipped them with fathers and mothers. Rebbi Zeˋira said: if its worship did not prescribe this; but if its worship did prescribe it, he is free from prosecution. Rebbi Hila said, even if its worship did prescribe it, he is twice guilty. A baraita supports Rebbi Hila: The Moloch was included in all other foreign worships; it is mentioned separately to be lenient in this regard that he be guilty only for his descendants. Rebbi Tanḥum bar Jeremiah said, it follows that Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon follows the argument of his father Rebbi Simeon. Just as Rebbi Simeon said, the Moloch was included in all other foreign worships; it is mentioned separately to be lenient in this regard that he be guilty only for his descendants, so Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon said, the Moloch was included in all other foreign worships; it is mentioned separately to be lenient in this regard that he be guilty only for his descendants.

Rebbi Abba bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Look at the expression which the Torah taught you, Moloch; anything that you make king over yourself, even a chip of wood, even a pebble. I shall extirpate him from amidst his people, to include all other foreign worship in extirpation. Rebbi Nasa in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: to include all other foreign worship relating to sons and daughters, as it was stated: He is guilty whether for the Moloch or any other foreign worship, whether he worshipped them with sons and daughters, or worshipped them with fathers and mothers. Rebbi Zeˋira said: if its worship did not prescribe this; but if its worship did prescribe it, he is free from prosecution. Rebbi Hila said, even if its worship did prescribe it, he is twice guilty. A baraita supports Rebbi Hila: The Moloch was included in all other foreign worships; it is mentioned separately to be lenient in this regard that he be guilty only for his descendants. Rebbi Tanḥum bar Jeremiah said, it follows that Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon follows the argument of his father Rebbi Simeon. Just as Rebbi Simeon said, the Moloch was included in all other foreign worships; it is mentioned separately to be lenient in this regard that he be guilty only for his descendants, so Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon said, the Moloch was included in all other foreign worships; it is mentioned separately to be lenient in this regard that he be guilty only for his descendants.

Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If he sacrificed a defective lamb to it, he is guilty. From where this? As Rebbi Hila said, do not do such to the the Eternal, your God. Anything that be for the Eternal, your God, you may not do.

Rebbi Phineas said before Rebbi Yose in the name of Rav Ḥisda: If its worship prescribed sons or daughters but he worshipped it with fathers or mothers, he is twice guilty. Rebbi Zeˋira enjoyed this; he thought that this was said following his teacher’s Rebbi Hila’s system and referred to Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon. He told him, what do you have in your hand? It referred to the rabbis! He answered, did you need it for this?

The words of the rabbis support Rebbi Yasa, as Rebbi Yasa said in the rabbis’ name: Because they burn incense to spirits. Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Yasa: Because they all were included by actions.

What is a thief and what is a robber? Rebbi Hila said, if he stole in the presence of witnesses, he is a thief, in the presence of the owners he is a robber. Rebbi Ze`ura asked: but if he intended to rob in front of its owners, he is not a robber. What is a robber according to Rebbi Ze`ura? Rebbi Samuel ben Sosarta in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: only if he rob in the presence of ten people. The prototype for all these: He robbed the spear from the hand of the Egyptian and killed him with his own spear.

What is the reason of Rebbi Jehudah? A man may not take his father’s wife, and he should not uncover his father’s wing; that is his rape victim. How do the rabbis explain “his father’s wing”? There, they say and they do not know the origin of the tradition, that refers to a wing which is in need of his father. Would he not anyhow be [criminally] liable for her because of “his father’s wife”? Rebbi Hila said, because of forewarning; if he was warned because of his father’s wife he will be whipped, and because of his father’s wing he will be whipped. Rebbi Jehudah agrees about whipping. Rebbi Jehudah agrees about sacrifice. Rebbi Jehudah agrees about all other men that he is free. Rebbi Jehudah agrees that if he marries her preliminarily that the preliminary marriage is legally valid.

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.

Another interpretation: That is one who mentions teachings of the Torah at a filthy place. As the following: Rebbi Hila and the colleagues were sitting in front of a hostelry in the evening. They asked, may one say words of the Torah? They said, since if it were daytime we would see what is before us, therefore now it is forbidden.

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.

What is a thief and what is a robber? Rebbi Hila said, if he stole in the presence of witnesses, he is a thief, in the presence of the owners he is a robber. Rebbi Zeˋira asked: but if he intended to rob (for copulation), he is not a robber. What is a robber according to Rebbi Zeˋira? Rebbi Samuel ben Sosarta in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: only if he rob in the presence of ten people. The prototype for all these: He robbed the spear from the hand of the Egyptian, etc.

A rebellious Elder who instructed to act and acted is punishable. If he instructed but did not act, he is not prosecutable. If he instructed not for application, he is not prosecutable. If he instructed for application, even if he himself did not act, he is punishable. Rebbi Hila said, Rebbi Ismael stated thus: Who would act, even in he did not act himself. Rav Huna said, if he was instructing for practice and later a case came up, one acts on his instruction. If he taught it on the occasion of a case, one acts on it for others but not for himself.

How does Rebbi Ismael explain the verse? Or a person, if he would swear blurting out with his lips, a general statement. To cause evil or cause good, a detail. A general statement followed by a detail; the general statement contains only what is in the detail. But the detail only contains matters of causing evil or good! But it is so: To cause evil or cause good, a detail. Anything which a person will blurt out, a general statement. A detail followed by a general statement, everything is included; this adds matters directed towards the past. But it is so: Or a person, if he would swear blurting out with his lips, a general statement. To cause evil or cause good, a detail. Anything which a person will blurt out, a general statement. A general statement followed by a detail followed by a general statement, you only argue in the pattern of the detail. Since the detail is explicit, matters of causing evil or good, from where matters not causing evil or good? “He answered him, from the additional text of the verse. He answered, just as the verse added for this, the verse added for the other.” You cannot, as Rebbi Hila said in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: So did Rebbi Ismael answer Rebbi Aqiba. Do we find cases where one is liable for intentional action because of a false oath but if in oblivion because of a blurted oath? Could he not have objected, do we find cases where one is liable for intentional action because of a false oath and he has to bring a sacrifice? He said to him, do you agree that there are cases which are not matters of causing evil or good, even if they are not written? He told him, even though I accept cases which are not matters of causing evil or good, are they only written if they be matters of causing evil or good? Therefore never for the past.

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.

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.

Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: If one cuts an idol in stone, even though you say that nothing connected to the ground is forbidden, one warns him on every single chiseling and when it will be separated from the rock he will be flogged. Rebbi Yose said, from this you understand that if somebody makes a statue for idol worship, even though you say that nothing breathing can be forbidden, one warns him about each single mallet and he will be flogged when it is finished.

It is written, do not make idols for yourselves, statue and stele you shall not erect for yourselves. Is not making the same as erecting? Rebbi Hila said, making is from new; erecting, if it falls down one shall not re-erect it. It is written, you shall tear down their altars and break their steles. From where to apply one to the other? Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, it was said to refer to both sides; either breaking, or cutting down, or tearing down for each of them.

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.

What is Rebbi Jonah’s reason? Because it already became impure when it was prepared by the grape harvest. What is the reason of Rebbi Yose? They were pure by biblical standards. You are the one who decided that they be impure. The strength of Rebbi Yose is the following, as Rebbi Yose said in the name of Rebbi Hila It should be logical that one may (free) his ṭevel as it is written, you should give from it the Eternal’s heave to Aaron the priest. You have to give it to Aaron in his quality of priest. But here, since you cannot give it to Aaron the priest in his quality of priest, you may make it impure.

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.”

Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Yannai: The buyer has the same status as the seller. It was stated thus: Whether the seller or the buyer [stores] on the Gentile’s property. If the wine is the Jew’s and a Jew lives there it is permitted on condition that in his hand are key and seal. If the wine is the Gentile’s and a Jew lives there it is permitted on condition that in his hand are key and seal; but if no Jew lives there it is forbidden even if key and seal are in his hand.

So far when they fell in one after the other. What can one say if they fell together? Let us hear from the following: “When is leavened matter of Samaritans permitted after Passover? Of private persons after three weekly bakings, of city bakers after three days, of rural ones after three baking loads.” Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says, even when they said of private persons after three weekly bakings, if he was an important personality or he married off his son, if he baked three loads in one week one after the other it is permitted. Even when they said of (rural) [city] bakers after three days, if he was under pressure and baked three loads one after the other, it is permitted. It was stated: Rebbi Simeon says, even when they said of rural bakers after three baking loads, it is forbidden at least three days since in the morning he prepares sourdough for the entire day.” Does the second dough not become sour from forbidden and permitted? And Rebbi Jeremiah said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, who is the Tanna of “the leavened matter of the Samaritans”? Rebbi Eliezer! And Rebbi Yose said to Rebbi Ḥanina Eyntanaya: Do you remember that you and Rebbi Jeremiah were instructing in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, who is the Tanna of “the leavened matter of the Samaritans”? Rebbi Eliezer! But here we do not instruct so but Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, they treated leavened matter of the Samaritans following Rebbi Eliezer. In addition from the following:: Rebbi Ḥananiah bar Rebbi Abbahu said, my father had a case; he sent to Rebbi Ḥiyya, and Rebbi Immi, and Rebbi Yasa, and they instructed him following Rebbi Eliezer. How? Would they instruct following an isolated opinion? No, since they treated leavened matter of the Samaritans following Rebbi Eliezer.

“Whose sentence was passed,” etc. If somebody wrote all his property over to two persons in one document and the testimony of the witnesses was valid for one but invalid for the other. Rebbi Hila said, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagreed; one said, since it is invalid for one it is invalid for the other, but the other said, it is valid for one and invalid for the other. Rebbi Mana did not specify; Rebbi Abun specified: Rebbi Joḥanan said, since it is invalid for one it is invalid for the other; but Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it is valid for one and invalid for the other. Rebbi Eleazar said, the Mishnah supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “Since the testimony of two [witnesses] is invalid if one of them is found to be a relative or a disqualified person, the same holds for three if one of them is found to be a relative or a disqualified person. From where even for a hundred? The verse says, witnesses.” Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Rebbi Ḥanina the colleague of the rabbis and the rabbis disagree. One says, the argument of Rebbi Eleazar is correct, but the other says, the argument of Rebbi Eleazar is not correct. For him who says, the argument of Rebbi Eleazar is correct, it is a single testimony and a single warning, and any testimony which is partially disqualified is totally disqualified. For him who says, the argument of Rebbi Eleazar is not correct, it is as if two groups of witnesses came, valid for one and invalid for the other.

“And a single person went and acted inadvertently following their pronouncement.” Is there an intentional inadvertent action concerning an instruction by the Court? 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 knows the entire Torah but does not know this detail, he is not Simeon ben Azzai. If he knows this particular subject but not the entire Torah, he is Simeon ben Azzai for this particular subject. But we must hold that he knows the entire Torah and knows the particular subject, but he errs to believe that the Torah said, after them, after them. If he errs to believe that the Torah said, after them, after them, he is not Simeon ben Azzai. As we have stated, I could think that if they tell you about right that it is left, and about left that it is right, you should listen to them? The verse says, “to go to the right or to the left;” that they should tell you about the right that it is right, and about the left that it is left. What about it? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Hila: Because everywhere for an inadvertent sin one is not liable but for an intentional one is liable, and here even intentionally he is not liable.

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.

It was stated: The Anointed Priest brings a bull, the one clothed in multiple garb does not bring a bull. This disagrees with Rebbi Meïr. What is Rebbi Meïr’s reason? The Anointed. Why does the verse say priest? To exclude the one clothed in multiple garb. What is the rabbis’ reason? The anointed. I could think that this is the king. Why does the verse say, priest? To include the one clothed in multiple garb. Here you say, to exclude the one clothed in multiple garb. But there you say, to include the one clothed in multiple garb. Rebbi Hila said, each inference refers to its meaning. If it had said the Anointed but not priest, I would have said, he brings a bull for forgetting a topic, but for acting in error he brings a goat. Therefore it is necessary that it mention priest. But if it had mentioned priest but not the Anointed, I would have said, this refers to the king. If you would say by a bull, preceding the paragraph about the king, assuming that for forgetting a topic he brings a bull but for acting in error he brings a goat. Therefore it is necessary that it mention the Anointed and that it mention priest.