hit

And the battle went sore against Saul, and the archers hit him; and he was sore wounded of the archers.

And the battle went sore against Saul, and the archers hit him, and he was wounded of the archers.

Then Lamech shot at Cain with his arrow and hit him in his side. And Lamech struck him with a stone from his sling, that fell upon his face, and knocked out both his eyes; then Cain fell at once and died.

O my boy! thou hast been to me like a man who took a stone, and threw it up to heaven to stone his Lord with it. And the stone did not hit, and did not reach high enough, but it became the cause of guilt and sin.

And one of their mighty men whose name was Arud approached to strike Judah upon the head with his sword, when Judah hastily put his shield to his head, and the sword hit the shield, and it was split in two.

And the powerful man ran to Judah to strike him upon the head with the sword, and there was no shield in the hand of Judah; and whilst he was aiming to strike him, Naphtali hastily took his shield and put it to Judah's head, and the sword of the powerful man hit the shield of Naphtali and Judah escaped the sword.

But the next day six thousand of the enemy came down from the tops of the mountains to fight the Romans, which greatly terrified them; and the soldiers that were in light armor came near, and pelted the king's guards that were come out with darts and stones, and one of them hit him on the side with a dart. Antigonus also sent a commander against Samaria, whose name was Pappus, with some forces, being desirous to show the enemy how potent he was, and that he had men to spare in his war with them. He sat down to oppose Macheras; but Herod, when he had taken five cities, took such as were left in them, being about two thousand, and slew them, and burnt the cities themselves, and then returned to go against Pappus, who was encamped at a village called Isanas; and there ran in to him many out of Jericho and Judea, near to which places he was, and the enemy fell upon his men, so stout were they at this time, and joined battle with them, but he beat them in the fight; and in order to be revenged on them for the slaughter of his brother, he pursued them sharply, and killed them as they ran away; and as the houses were full of armed men, and many of them ran as far as the tops of the houses, he got them under his power, and pulled down the roofs of the houses, and saw the lower rooms full of soldiers that were caught, and lay all on a heap; so they threw stones down upon them as they lay piled one upon another, and thereby killed them; nor was there a more frightful spectacle in all the war than this, where beyond the walls an immense multitude of dead men lay heaped one upon another. This action it was which chiefly brake the spirits of the enemy, who expected now what would come; for there appeared a mighty number of people that came from places far distant, that were now about the village, but then ran away; and had it not been for the depth of winter, which then restrained them, the king's army had presently gone to Jerusalem, as being very courageous at this good success, and the whole work had been done immediately; for Antigonus was already looking about how he might fly away and leave the city.

For these reasons he went away from Rome, and sailed to Judea, but in evil circumstances, being dejected with the loss of that money which he once had, and because he had not wherewithal to pay his creditors, who were many in number, and such as gave him no room for escaping them. Whereupon he knew not what to do; so, for shame of his present condition, he retired to a certain tower, at Malatha, in Idumea, and had thoughts of killing himself; but his wife Cypros perceived his intentions, and tried all sorts of methods to divert him from his taking such a course; so she sent a letter to his sister Herodias, who was now the wife of Herod the tetrarch, and let her know Agrippa's present design, and what necessity it was which drove him thereto, and desired her, as a kinswoman of his, to give him her help, and to engage her husband to do the same, since she saw how she alleviated these her husband's troubles all she could, although she had not the like wealth to do it withal. So they sent for him, and allotted him Tiberias for his habitation, and appointed him some income of money for his maintenance, and made him a magistrate of that city, by way of honor to him. Yet did not Herod long continue in that resolution of supporting him, though even that support was not sufficient for him; for as once they were at a feast at Tyre, and in their cups, and reproaches were cast upon one another, Agrippa thought that was not to be borne, while Herod hit him in the teeth with his poverty, and with his owing his necessary food to him. So he went to Flaccus, one that had been consul, and had been a very great friend to him at Rome formerly, and was now president of Syria.

After these men's performances, Josephus, and the rest of the multitude with him, took a great deal of fire, and burnt both the machines and their coverings, with the works belonging to the fifth and to the tenth legion, which they put to flight; when others followed them immediately, and buried those instruments and all their materials under ground. However, about the evening, the Romans erected the battering ram again, against that part of the wall which had suffered before; where a certain Jew that defended the city from the Romans hit Vespasian with a dart in his foot, and wounded him a little, the distance being so great, that no mighty impression could be made by the dart thrown so far off. However, this caused the greatest disorder among the Romans; for when those who stood near him saw his blood, they were disturbed at it, and a report went abroad, through the whole army, that the general was wounded, while the greatest part left the siege, and came running together with surprise and fear to the general; and before them all came Titus, out of the concern he had for his father, insomuch that the multitude were in great confusion, and this out of the regard they had for their general, and by reason of the agony that the son was in. Yet did the father soon put an end to the son's fear, and to the disorder the army was under, for being superior to his pains, and endeavoring soon to be seen by all that had been in a fright about him, he excited them to fight the Jews more briskly; for now every body was willing to expose himself to danger immediately, in order to avenge their general; and then they encouraged one another with loud voices, and ran hastily to the walls.

But Vespasian removed from Emmaus, where he had last pitched his camp before the city Tiberias, [now Emmaus, if it be interpreted, may be rendered "a warm bath," for therein is a spring of warm water, useful for healing,] and came to Gamala; yet was its situation such that he was not able to encompass it all round with soldiers to watch it; but where the places were practicable, he set men to watch it, and seized upon the mountain which was over it. And as the legions, according to their usual custom, were fortifying their camp upon that mountain, he began to cast up banks at the bottom, at the part towards the east, where the highest tower of the whole city was, and where the fifteenth legion pitched their camp; while the fifth legion did duty over against the midst of the city, and whilst the tenth legion filled up the ditches and the valleys. Now at this time it was that as king Agrippa was come nigh the walls, and was endeavoring to speak to those that were on the walls about a surrender, he was hit with a stone on his right elbow by one of the slingers; he was then immediately surrounded with his own men. But the Romans were excited to set about the siege, by their indignation on the king's account, and by their fear on their own account, as concluding that those men would omit no kinds of barbarity against foreigners and enemies, who where so enraged against one of their own nation, and one that advised them to nothing but what was for their own advantage.

But now it is proper to satisfy the inquiry of those that disbelieve the records of barbarians, and think none but Greeks to be worthy of credit, and to produce many of these very Greeks who were acquainted with our nation, and to set before them such as upon occasion have made mention of us in their own writings. Pythagoras, therefore, of Samos, lived in very ancient times, and was esteemed a person superior to all philosophers in wisdom and piety towards God. Now it is plain that he did not only know our doctrines, but was in very great measure a follower and admirer of them. There is not indeed extant any writing that is owned for his but many there are who have written his history, of whom Hermippus is the most celebrated, who was a person very inquisitive into all sorts of history. Now this Hermippus, in his first book concerning Pythagoras, speaks thus: "That Pythagoras, upon the death of one of his associates, whose name was Calliphon, a Crotonlate by birth, affirmed that this man's soul conversed with him both night and day, and enjoined him not to pass over a place where an ass had fallen down; as also not to drink of such waters as caused thirst again; and to abstain from all sorts of reproaches." After which he adds thus: "This he did and said in imitation of the doctrines of the Jews and Thracians, which he transferred into his own philosophy." For it is very truly affirmed of this Pythagoras, that he took a great many of the laws of the Jews into his own philosophy. Nor was our nation unknown of old to several of the Grecian cities, and indeed was thought worthy of imitation by some of them. This is declared by Theophrastus, in his writings concerning laws; for he says that "the laws of the Tyrians forbid men to swear foreign oaths." Among which he enumerates some others, and particularly that called Corban: which oath can only be found among the Jews, and declares what a man may call "A thing devoted to God." Nor indeed was Herodotus of Halicarnassus unacquainted with our nation, but mentions it after a way of his own, when he saith thus, in the second book concerning the Colchians. His words are these: "The only people who were circumcised in their privy members originally, were the Colchians, the Egyptians, and the Ethiopians; but the Phoenicians and those Syrians that are in Palestine confess that they learned it from the Egyptians. And for those Syrians who live about the rivers Thermodon and Parthenius, and their neighbors the Macrones, they say they have lately learned it from the Colchians; for these are the only people that are circumcised among mankind, and appear to have done the very same thing with the Egyptians. But as for the Egyptians and Ethiopians themselves, I am not able to say which of them received it from the other." This therefore is what Herodotus says, that "the Syrians that are in Palestine are circumcised." But there are no inhabitants of Palestine that are circumcised excepting the Jews; and therefore it must be his knowledge of them that enabled him to speak so much concerning them. Cherilus also, a still ancienter writer, and a poet, makes mention of our nation, and informs us that it came to the assistance of king Xerxes, in his expedition against Greece. For in his enumeration of all those nations, he last of all inserts ours among the rest, when he says, "At the last there passed over a people, wonderful to be beheld; for they spake the Phoenician tongue with their mouths; they dwelt in the Solymean mountains, near a broad lake: their heads were sooty; they had round rasures on them; their heads and faces were like nasty horse-heads also, that had been hardened in the smoke." I think, therefore, that it is evident to every body that Cherilus means us, because the Solymean mountains are in our country, wherein we inhabit, as is also the lake called Asphaltitis; for this is a broader and larger lake than any other that is in Syria: and thus does Cherilus make mention of us. But now that not only the lowest sort of the Grecians, but those that are had in the greatest admiration for their philosophic improvements among them, did not only know the Jews, but when they lighted upon any of them, admired them also, it is easy for any one to know. For Clearchus, who was the scholar of Aristotle, and inferior to no one of the Peripatetics whomsoever, in his first book concerning sleep, says that "Aristotle his master related what follows of a Jew," and sets down Aristotle's own discourse with him. The account is this, as written down by him: "Now, for a great part of what this Jew said, it would be too long to recite it; but what includes in it both wonder and philosophy it may not be amiss to discourse of. Now, that I may be plain with thee, Hyperochides, I shall herein seem to thee to relate wonders, and what will resemble dreams themselves. Hereupon Hyperochides answered modestly, and said, For that very reason it is that all of us are very desirous of hearing what thou art going to say. Then replied Aristotle, For this cause it will be the best way to imitate that rule of the Rhetoricians, which requires us first to give an account of the man, and of what nation he was, that so we may not contradict our master's directions. Then said Hyperochides, Go on, if it so pleases thee. This man then, [answered Aristotle,] was by birth a Jew, and came from Celesyria; these Jews are derived from the Indian philosophers; they are named by the Indians Calami, and by the Syrians Judaei, and took their name from the country they inhabit, which is called Judea; but for the name of their city, it is a very awkward one, for they call it Jerusalem. Now this man, when he was hospitably treated by a great many, came down from the upper country to the places near the sea, and became a Grecian, not only in his language, but in his soul also; insomuch that when we ourselves happened to be in Asia about the same places whither he came, he conversed with us, and with other philosophical persons, and made a trial of our skill in philosophy; and as he had lived with many learned men, he communicated to us more information than he received from us." This is Aristotle's account of the matter, as given us by Clearchus; which Aristotle discoursed also particularly of the great and wonderful fortitude of this Jew in his diet, and continent way of living, as those that please may learn more about him from Clearchus's book itself; for I avoid setting down any more than is sufficient for my purpose. Now Clearchus said this by way of digression, for his main design was of another nature. But for Hecateus of Abdera, who was both a philosopher, and one very useful ill an active life, he was contemporary with king Alexander in his youth, and afterward was with Ptolemy, the son of Lagus; he did not write about the Jewish affairs by the by only, but composed an entire book concerning the Jews themselves; out of which book I am willing to run over a few things, of which I have been treating by way of epitome. And, in the first place, I will demonstrate the time when this Hecateus lived; for he mentions the fight that was between Ptolemy and Demetrius about Gaza, which was fought in the eleventh year after the death of Alexander, and in the hundred and seventeenth olympiad, as Castor says in his history. For when he had set down this olympiad, he says further, that "in this olympiad Ptolemy, the son of Lagus, beat in battle Demetrius, the son of Antigonus, who was named Poliorcetes, at Gaza." Now, it is agreed by all, that Alexander died in the hundred and fourteenth olympiad; it is therefore evident that our nation flourished in his time, and in the time of Alexander. Again, Hecateus says to the same purpose, as follows: "Ptolemy got possession of the places in Syria after that battle at Gaza; and many, when they heard of Ptolemy's moderation and humanity, went along with him to Egypt, and were willing to assist him in his affairs; one of whom [Hecateus says] was Hezekiah the high priest of the Jews; a man of about sixty-six years of age, and in great dignity among his own people. He was a very sensible man, and could speak very movingly, and was very skillful in the management of affairs, if any other man ever were so; although, as he says, all the priests of the Jews took tithes of the products of the earth, and managed public affairs, and were in number not above fifteen hundred at the most." Hecateus mentions this Hezekiah a second time, and says, that "as he was possessed of so great a dignity, and was become familiar with us, so did he take certain of those that were with him, and explained to them all the circumstances of their people; for he had all their habitations and polity down in writing." Moreover, Hecateus declares again, "what regard we have for our laws, and that we resolve to endure any thing rather than transgress them, because we think it right for us to do so." Whereupon he adds, that "although they are in a bad reputation among their neighbors, and among all those that come to them, and have been often treated injuriously by the kings and governors of Persia, yet can they not be dissuaded from acting what they think best; but that when they are stripped on this account, and have torments inflicted upon them, and they are brought to the most terrible kinds of death, they meet them after an extraordinary manner, beyond all other people, and will not renounce the religion of their forefathers." Hecateus also produces demonstrations not a few of this their resolute tenaciousness of their laws, when he speaks thus: "Alexander was once at Babylon, and had an intention to rebuild the temple of Belus that was fallen to decay, and in order thereto, he commanded all his soldiers in general to bring earth thither. But the Jews, and they only, would not comply with that command; nay, they underwent stripes and great losses of what they had on this account, till the king forgave them, and permitted them to live in quiet." He adds further, that "when the Macedonians came to them into that country, and demolished the [old] temples and the altars, they assisted them in demolishing them all but [for not assisting them in rebuilding them] they either underwent losses, or sometimes obtained forgiveness." He adds further, that "these men deserve to be admired on that account." He also speaks of the mighty populousness of our nation, and says that "the Persians formerly carried away many ten thousands of our people to Babylon, as also that not a few ten thousands were removed after Alexander's death into Egypt and Phoenicia, by reason of the sedition that was arisen in Syria." The same person takes notice in his history, how large the country is which we inhabit, as well as of its excellent character, and says, that "the land in which the Jews inhabit contains three millions of arourae, and is generally of a most excellent and most fruitful soil; nor is Judea of lesser dimensions." The same man describe our city Jerusalem also itself as of a most excellent structure, and very large, and inhabited from the most ancient times. He also discourses of the multitude of men in it, and of the construction of our temple, after the following manner: "There are many strong places and villages [says he] in the country of Judea; but one strong city there is, about fifty furlongs in circumference, which is inhabited by a hundred and twenty thousand men, or thereabouts; they call it Jerusalem. There is about the middle of the city a wall of stone, whose length is five hundred feet, and the breadth a hundred cubits, with double cloisters; wherein there is a square altar, not made of hewn stone, but composed of white stones gathered together, having each side twenty cubits long, and its altitude ten cubits. Hard by it is a large edifice, wherein there is an altar and a candlestick, both of gold, and in weight two talents: upon these there is a light that is never extinguished, either by night or by day. There is no image, nor any thing, nor any donations therein; nothing at all is there planted, neither grove, nor any thing of that sort. The priests abide therein both nights and days, performing certain purifications, and drinking not the least drop of wine while they are in the temple." Moreover, he attests that we Jews went as auxiliaries along with king Alexander, and after him with his successors. I will add further what he says he learned when he was himself with the same army, concerning the actions of a man that was a Jew. His words are these: "As I was myself going to the Red Sea, there followed us a man, whose name was Mosollam; he was one of the Jewish horsemen who conducted us; he was a person of great courage, of a strong body, and by all allowed to be the most skillful archer that was either among the Greeks or barbarians. Now this man, as people were in great numbers passing along the road, and a certain augur was observing an augury by a bird, and requiring them all to stand still, inquired what they staid for. Hereupon the augur showed him the bird from whence he took his augury, and told him that if the bird staid where he was, they ought all to stand still; but that if he got up, and flew onward, they must go forward; but that if he flew backward, they must retire again. Mosollam made no reply, but drew his bow, and shot at the bird, and hit him, and killed him; and as the augur and some others were very angry, and wished imprecations upon him, he answered them thus: Why are you so mad as to take this most unhappy bird into your hands? for how can this bird give us any true information concerning our march, who could not foresee how to save himself? for had he been able to foreknow what was future, he would not have come to this place, but would have been afraid lest Mosollam the Jew should shoot at him, and kill him." But of Hecateus's testimonies we have said enough; for as to such as desire to know more of them, they may easily obtain them from his book itself. However, I shall not think it too much for me to name Agatharchides, as having made mention of us Jews, though in way of derision at our simplicity, as he supposes it to be; for when he was discoursing of the affairs of Stratonice, "how she came out of Macedonia into Syria, and left her husband Demetrius, while yet Seleueus would not marry her as she expected, but during the time of his raising an army at Babylon, stirred up a sedition about Antioch; and how, after that, the king came back, and upon his taking of Antioch, she fled to Seleucia, and had it in her power to sail away immediately yet did she comply with a dream which forbade her so to do, and so was caught and put to death." When Agatharehides had premised this story, and had jested upon Stratonice for her superstition, he gives a like example of what was reported concerning us, and writes thus: "There are a people called Jews, and dwell in a city the strongest of all other cities, which the inhabitants call Jerusalem, and are accustomed to rest on every seventh day on which times they make no use of their arms, nor meddle with husbandry, nor take care of any affairs of life, but spread out their hands in their holy places, and pray till the evening. Now it came to pass, that when Ptolemy, the son of Lagus, came into this city with his army, that these men, in observing this mad custom of theirs, instead of guarding the city, suffered their country to submit itself to a bitter lord; and their law was openly proved to have commanded a foolish practice. This accident taught all other men but the Jews to disregard such dreams as these were, and not to follow the like idle suggestions delivered as a law, when, in such uncertainty of human reasonings, they are at a loss what they should do." Now this our procedure seems a ridiculous thing to Agatharehides, but will appear to such as consider it without prejudice a great thing, and what deserved a great many encomiums; I mean, when certain men constantly prefer the observation of their laws, and their religion towards God, before the preservation of themselves and their country.

I had nearly forgotten an additional remark I have to make about the prino-prisein and schino-schisein difficulty; that is, that in our Scriptures there are many etymological fancies, so to call them, which in the Hebrew are perfectly suitable, but not in the Greek. It need not surprise us, then, if the translators of the History of Susanna contrived it so that they found out some Greek words, derived from the same root, which either corresponded exactly to the Hebrew form (though this I hardly think possible), or presented some analogy to it. Here is an instance of this in our Scripture. When the woman was made by God from the rib of the man, Adam says, “She shall be called woman, because she was taken out of her husband.” Now the Jews say that the woman was called “Essa,” and that “taken” is a translation of this word, as is evident from “chos isouoth essa,” which means, “I have taken the cup of salvation;” and that “is” means “man,” as we see from “Hesre aïs,” which is, “Blessed is the man.” According to the Jews, then, “is” is “man,” and “essa” “woman,” because she was taken out of her husband (is). It need not then surprise us if some interpreters of the Hebrew “Susanna,” which had been concealed among them at a very remote date, and had been preserved only by the more learned and honest, should have either given the Hebrew word for word, or hit upon some analogy to the Hebrew forms, that the Greeks might be able to follow them. For in many other passages we can find traces of this kind of contrivance on the part of the translators, which I noticed when I was collating the various editions.

Celsus appears to me to have heard that there are treatises in existence which contain allegorical explanations of the law of Moses. These, however, he could not have read; for if he had, he would not have said: “The allegorical explanations, however, which have been devised, are much more shameful and absurd than the fables themselves, inasmuch as they endeavour to unite with marvellous and altogether insensate folly things which cannot at all be made to harmonize.” He seems to refer in these words to the works of Philo, or to those of still older writers, such as Aristobulus. But I conjecture that Celsus has not read their books, since it appears to me that in many passages they have so successfully hit the meaning [of the sacred writers], that even Grecian philosophers would have been captivated by their explanations; for in their writings we find not only a polished style, but exquisite thoughts and doctrines, and a rational use of what Celsus imagines to be fables in the sacred writings. I know, moreover, that Numenius the Pythagorean—a surpassingly excellent expounder of Plato, and who held a foremost place as a teacher of the doctrines of Pythagoras—in many of his works quotes from the writings of Moses and the prophets, and applies to the passages in question a not improbable allegorical meaning, as in his work called Epops, and in those which treat of “Numbers” and of “Place.” And in the third book of his dissertation on The Good, he quotes also a narrative regarding Jesus—without, however, mentioning His name—and gives it an allegorical signification, whether successfully or the reverse I may state on another occasion. He relates also the account respecting Moses, and Jannes, and Jambres. But we are not elated on account of this instance, though we express our approval of Numenius, rather than of Celsus and other Greeks, because he was willing to investigate our histories from a desire to acquire knowledge, and was [duly] affected by them as narratives which were to be allegorically understood, and which did not belong to the category of foolish compositions.

When Rebbi Yasa ascended here, he went to a barber. He wanted to bathe in a public bath of Tiberias. He met a scoffer who hit him once on his neck and said: The noose of this man is loose. There was an admistrator sitting who was interrogating a robber. He went and stood there all laughing opposite him. The administrator asked him: Who was with you? He looked around and said: The one who is laughing here was with me. He fetched him, interrogated him, and he confessed about one murder. When they both went out, carrying two beams, Rebbi Yasa passed by going to the bath. He said to him: That noose which was loose you already tightened. He answered him: That is the bad luck of this man, is it not written (Is. 28:22): “Now do not scoff, that your fetters should not be tightened.” Rebbi Phineas, Rebbi Jeremiah, in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: Scoffing is hard since its start is pain and its end destruction. Its start is pain since it is written “Now do not scoff, that your fetters should not be tightened,” and its end is destruction as it is written (loc. cit.) “For destruction and finality I heard from the Lord of Hosts over the entire earth.”

What did Ẓiv‘on and Anah do? He prepared a female donkey and mated her with a male horse; a mule came out from them. The Holy One, praise to Him, said to them: You brought into the world a harmful thing, I shall bring over that man something that will harm him. What did the Holy One, praise to Him, do? He prepared a snake and mated her with a Ḥardaun; a brightly colored snake came out of them. Nobody will ever tell you that he was bitten by a brightly colored snake and survived, bitten by a rabid dog and survived, hit by a mule and survived (but only by a white female mule.)

HALAKHAH: A student of Rebbi had 199 denar; Rebbi used to let him receive the tithe of the poor once every three years. His students cast an evil eye on him and completed for him. The next time, when he wanted to let him receive, he said: My teacher, I have the measure. He said, this one was hit by a beast of prey. He gave a hint to his student who took him to a store, made him spend a carat, then he (Rebbi) let him receive as he was used to do.

“ They used to graft quince onto pears in the markets of Sepphoris. A student saw them and said to them, you are forbidden [to do so.] They went and cut them down. Then they went and asked at Jabneh. They said to them, the one who hit you was from the students of the House of Shammai.” It says only, quince on a pear tree. Hence, not a pear tree on a ḥizrar.

The boys of Rebbi Jehudah Neśia hit Diodes the swine-herd. He became king and descended to Paneas. He sent letters to the rabbis that they should be at his place immediately after the end of the Sabbath. He said to his courier, do not deliver the letters before the evening, near sundown. The courier came to them in he evening, near sundown. Rebbi Jehudah Neśia and Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman had gone to bathe in the public baths of Tiberias. An אנגיטרוס came to them; Rebbi Jehudah Neśia wanted to scold him. Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman said, let him; he appears for wonders. He said to them, how are the rabbis? They told him about their problem. He said to them, go and bathe; your Creator will perform a miracle for you at Sabbath’s end. He carried them and brought them up. They said to him, the rabbis are outside. There was that bathhouse, he let it be heated for seven days and seven nights. He went out and cooled it before them. They went in and then appeared before him. He said to them: Because your Creator performs miracles for you, you insult the majesty! They said, we insulted Diocles the swine-herd; we do not insult Diocletianus the king. Even so, one should never vex a little Roman or a little Gueber.

HALAKHAH: It was stated: One gives him time to hit it a first, second, and third time. Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Zeїra: If he collected the second one during the time allotted for the first, both became ṭevel.

HALAKHAH: “Because of three sins women die in childbirth,” etc. There are Tannaim who state, as children. There are Tannaim who state, in childbirth. He who said as children, it was stated in the name of Rebbi Jehudah: Children die because of the sin of vows. What is the reason? For the vain I did hit your sons. But he who said in childbirth, from here that Satan accuses only in times of danger.

Rebbi Levi said, in the end it will come over anybody engaged in divination. What is the reason? For there is no divination in Jacob; for divination is his. Rebbi Aḥa bar Zeˋira said, the place of anybody not divining will be like that of the Angels of Service. What is the reason? At that time it will be said to Israel what God wrought. Rebbi Ḥanina the son of Rebbi Abbahu said, this evildoer lived halfway through the existence of the world. What is the reason? At that time it will be said to Israel what God wrought. Rebbi Jeremiah ben Eleazar said, in the future a disembodied voice will explode in the tents of the Just and say, everybody who worked with God should come and take his reward. Rebbi Berekhiah in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Cahana: In the future the Holy One, praise to Him, will make place for the Just inside the place of the Angels of Service; the Angels of Service will ask them and say to them, what did God do? What did the Holy One, praise to Him, teach you? Rebbi Levi bar Ḥayta said, did He not already do this in this world? That is what is written, Nebuchadnezzar started and said, but I am seeing four free men walking in the fire and no blemish is on them. Why does the verse say, and no blemish is on them? This teaches that they were eunuchs but were healed. It is not written “and the looks of the first”, but and the looks of the fourth; they were suppressing the fire before him. Is similar to a son of gods. [Rebbi] Reuben said, at that moment an angel descended, hit that evildoer on his mouth, and told him, correct your words; does He have a son? He continued and said, praised be the God of Shadrak, Meshak, and Abed-Nego; it does not say “Who sent His son” but Who sent His angel and rescued His servants who trusted in Him.

“Gospels and books of heretics, some Tannaim say, one tears out the Names and burns them; some Tannaim say, one burns them with their Names. Rebbi Tarphon said, I would hit my sons; if they came into my house I would burn them together with their Names. For if a persecutor would persecute me I would seek asylum in a pagan temple but would not seek asylum in heretics’ houses, for the worshippers of idolatry do not know about Him, how could they disavow Him? But the heretics know Him and disavow Him; about them David said, Your haters,o Eternal, I shall hate, etc. This homily they preached: If in order to bring peace between a man and his wife the verse commands that the Name written in holiness be erased, it is only logical that the books of heretics which propagate ill will and quarrel between Israel and their Father in Heaven should be burned with their Names.”

Rav went to a certain place; he saw a certain alley, he understood that [the beam] was [rotten], he hit it with a stick and felled it. Rav Ḥuna said to him, the date palm stands. Rav told him, the eyes of Rav Ḥuna are high, the eyes of Rav are not high; but I am forbidding it for them because of a beam and the next Sabbath I am permitting it to them because of a lath, that they should know that if the palm tree were removed they would be forbidden to carry. Some want to say, that they should not think following Rebbi Jehudah, as Rebbi Jehudah said, “wide enough even if not strong enough.”

And from where that he was asked in eight? Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan : And Aaron’s holy garments shall be for his descendants [in his stead]. Why does the verse say, in his stead? For greatness after him. And from where that he officiated in eight? Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan : And Aaron’s holy garments shall be for his descendants. Why does the verse say, in his stead? For sanctity after him. Rebbi Jonah said to him, I was with you; he did not say “officiated” but “was asked”. [In how many was he asked?] Rav Hoshaia brought a Mishnah of Bar Qappara from the South which stated: He officiates neither in the eight of a High Priest nor in the four of a common priest. Rebbi Abba said, it would be logical that he officiate in four. Why did they say that he did not officiate? Lest people say, we saw a High Priest who sometimes officiated in four like a simple priest. Rebbi Jonah said, would he not officiate inside and would he not be asked outside? Does one err between inside and outside? But did Rebbi Tarphon, the father of all of Israel, not err between blowing for assembly and the blowing for a sacrifice? As it is written: The descendants of Aaron, the priests, shall blow the trumpets, blameless ones, not with bodily defects, the words of Rebbi Aqiba. Rebbi Tarphon said to him, I would hit my sons if I did not see my mother’s brother, lame in one of his legs, standing in the Temple court with his trumpet in his hand and blowing! Rebbi Aqiba answered him, Rebbi, maybe you saw him only at the time of assembly; but I was saying, at the time of sacrifices. Rebbi Tarphon said to him, I would hit my sons but you did not deviate right or left. I am the one who heard but I could not explain. You derive it and agree with tradition. Therefore, anybody who separates from you is as if he separated himself from his life.

And from where that he was asked in eight? Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan : And Aaron’s holy garments shall be for his descendants [in his stead]. Why does the verse say, in his stead? For greatness after him. And from where that he officiated in eight? Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan : And Aaron’s holy garments shall be for his descendants. Why does the verse say, in his stead? For sanctity after him. Rebbi Jonah said to him, I was with you; he did not say “officiated” but “was asked”. [In how many was he asked?] Rav Hoshaia brought a Mishnah of Bar Qappara from the South which stated: He officiates neither in the eight of a High Priest nor in the four of a common priest. Rebbi Abba said, it would be logical that he officiate in four. Why did they say that he did not officiate? Lest people say, we saw a High Priest who sometimes officiated in four like a simple priest. Rebbi Jonah said, would he not officiate inside and would he not be asked outside? Does one err between inside and outside? But did Rebbi Tarphon, the father of all of Israel, not err between blowing for assembly and the blowing for a sacrifice? As it is written: The descendants of Aaron, the priests, shall blow the trumpets, blameless ones, not with bodily defects, the words of Rebbi Aqiba. Rebbi Tarphon said to him, I would hit my sons if I did not see my mother’s brother, lame in one of his legs, standing in the Temple court with his trumpet in his hand and blowing! Rebbi Aqiba answered him, Rebbi, maybe you saw him only at the time of assembly; but I was saying, at the time of sacrifices. Rebbi Tarphon said to him, I would hit my sons but you did not deviate right or left. I am the one who heard but I could not explain. You derive it and agree with tradition. Therefore, anybody who separates from you is as if he separated himself from his life.

But the rabbis say, the Ark was hidden in the storage room of the wood. It happened that a blemished Cohen was splitting wood in the storage room of the wood and saw a floor plate different from the others. He came and said to a colleague, come and see this floor plate which is different from the others. They did not finish the matter before his soul left him; then they knew that there the Ark was hidden. Rebbi Hoshaia stated: He hit on it with a sledgehammer; fire erupted and burned him.

MISHNAH: How is the order of the lulav? Everybody brings their lulav to the Temple Mount; the beadles accept from them and arrange them on the roof of the stoa; but the Elders deposit theirs in the lodge. One teaches them to say, it should be a gift to anybody into whose hands my lulav will come. They come early and the beadles throw them before them, and they grab and hit one another. When the Court saw that it involves danger they instituted that each person should take it in his house.

Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba asked, from which judgment was grain hit which was hit on Passover eve? If you want to say, from the coming year, up to then it did not come. If you want to say from the past year, it was weak the entire year to be hit in this way. From which judgment are those dying who die between New Year’s day and the Day of Atonement? If you want to say, from the coming year, up to then it did not come. If you want to say from the past year, he was weak the entire year to die in this way. He had not heard what Rebbi Crispus said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, there are three ledgers. One for perfectly just people, one for perfectly evil people, and one for average ones. Those of the one for the perfectly just already took judgment of life from New Year’s Day. Those of the one for the perfectly evil already took their verdict from New Year’s Day. Those of the average ones already were given the ten days of repentance between New Year’s day and the Day of Atonement. If they repented, they were inscribed with the just ones; otherwise they are inscribed with the evil ones. What is the reason? May they be erased from the book, these are the evil ones; of life, these are the just ones; and with the just ones not being inscribed, these are the average ones.

Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba asked, from which judgment was grain hit which was hit on Passover eve? If you want to say, from the coming year, up to then it did not come. If you want to say from the past year, it was weak the entire year to be hit in this way. From which judgment are those dying who die between New Year’s day and the Day of Atonement? If you want to say, from the coming year, up to then it did not come. If you want to say from the past year, he was weak the entire year to die in this way. He had not heard what Rebbi Crispus said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, there are three ledgers. One for perfectly just people, one for perfectly evil people, and one for average ones. Those of the one for the perfectly just already took judgment of life from New Year’s Day. Those of the one for the perfectly evil already took their verdict from New Year’s Day. Those of the average ones already were given the ten days of repentance between New Year’s day and the Day of Atonement. If they repented, they were inscribed with the just ones; otherwise they are inscribed with the evil ones. What is the reason? May they be erased from the book, these are the evil ones; of life, these are the just ones; and with the just ones not being inscribed, these are the average ones.

Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba asked, from which judgment was grain hit which was hit on Passover eve? If you want to say, from the coming year, up to then it did not come. If you want to say from the past year, it was weak the entire year to be hit in this way. From which judgment are those dying who die between New Year’s day and the Day of Atonement? If you want to say, from the coming year, up to then it did not come. If you want to say from the past year, he was weak the entire year to die in this way. He had not heard what Rebbi Crispus said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, there are three ledgers. One for perfectly just people, one for perfectly evil people, and one for average ones. Those of the one for the perfectly just already took judgment of life from New Year’s Day. Those of the one for the perfectly evil already took their verdict from New Year’s Day. Those of the average ones already were given the ten days of repentance between New Year’s day and the Day of Atonement. If they repented, they were inscribed with the just ones; otherwise they are inscribed with the evil ones. What is the reason? May they be erased from the book, these are the evil ones; of life, these are the just ones; and with the just ones not being inscribed, these are the average ones.

Rebbi Ze`ira, Rav Ḥananel in the name of Rav: Its sewing is practice of Moses from Sinai. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: the knots of Tefillin are practice of Moses from Sinai. A Tefillin strip of Rebbi Jeremiah broke; he asked Rebbi Abba bar Mamal who said to him, and you stall tie them, even simple tying. Rebbi Ze`ira’s wall of the strip broke. He asked Rav Huna and Rav Qatina, and they permitted him. It broke a second time and they permitted him, not from what they had learned. Rebbi Abba the son of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The practice is that he who sews must leave space on top and bottom so it should not tear. They hit him on the skull, if it is practice why “should not tear”? And if “should not tear” why practice? It is practice of Moses from Sinai that one write on leather, and write with ink, and rule with a ruler, and ties with hair, and patches with a patch, and glues with glue, and sews with sinews. As he sews, he has to sew this stitch. One needs to leave between line and line the width of a line, between word and word the width of a letter, between letter and letter something, between column and column a thumb-width. If he made the end of the column equal to its beginning he disqualified it. One must leave on the top of the scroll {a margin of} two finger-breadths and at the bottom three. Rebbi says, in the Torah at the top three and at the bottom a hand-breadth. Between book and book one has to leave four lines empty, in the Twelve Prophets three. One has to end in the middle of a column and start in its middle; but for a Prophet he ends at the bottom and starts at the top; but for the Twelve Prophets it is forbidden. One makes no sheet less than three columns and none more than eight. That you are saying, at the start. But at the end even a little; and for parchment the Sages did not give any size.

And from where that he was asked in eight? Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: And Aaron’s holy garments shall be for his descendants in his stead. Why does the verse say, in his stead? For greatness after him. And from where that he officiated in eight? Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: And Aaron’s holy garments shall be for his descendants. Why does the verse say, in his stead? For greatness after him. Rebbi Jonah said to him, I was with you; he did not say “officiated” but “was asked”. Rav Hoshaia brought a Mishnah of Bar Qappara from the South which stated: But the Sages are saying that he is qualified neither in the four of a common priest nor in the eight of a High Priest. Rebbi Abba said, it would be logical that he officiate in four. Why did they say that he does not officiate? Lest people say, we saw a High Priest, sometimes he officiates in four, sometimes he officiates in eight. Rebbi Jonah said, would he not officiate inside and would he not be asked outside? Does one err between inside and outside? But did Rebbi Tarphon, the father of all of Israel, not err between blowing for assembly and the blowing for a sacrifice? As it is stated: The descendants of Aaron, the priests, shall blow the trumpets, blameless ones, not with bodily defects, the words of Rebbi Aqiba. Rebbi Tarphon said to him, I would hit my sons if I did not see Simeon, my mother’s brother, lame in one of his legs, standing in the Temple court with his trumpet in his hand and blowing! Rebbi Aqiba answered him, maybe you saw him only at the time of assembly; but I was saying, at the time of sacrifices. Rebbi Tarphon said to him, I would hit my sons but you did not deviate right or left. I am the one who saw the act and forgot. You derive it and agree with tradition. Therefore, anybody who separates from you is as if he separated himself from his life.

And from where that he was asked in eight? Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: And Aaron’s holy garments shall be for his descendants in his stead. Why does the verse say, in his stead? For greatness after him. And from where that he officiated in eight? Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: And Aaron’s holy garments shall be for his descendants. Why does the verse say, in his stead? For greatness after him. Rebbi Jonah said to him, I was with you; he did not say “officiated” but “was asked”. Rav Hoshaia brought a Mishnah of Bar Qappara from the South which stated: But the Sages are saying that he is qualified neither in the four of a common priest nor in the eight of a High Priest. Rebbi Abba said, it would be logical that he officiate in four. Why did they say that he does not officiate? Lest people say, we saw a High Priest, sometimes he officiates in four, sometimes he officiates in eight. Rebbi Jonah said, would he not officiate inside and would he not be asked outside? Does one err between inside and outside? But did Rebbi Tarphon, the father of all of Israel, not err between blowing for assembly and the blowing for a sacrifice? As it is stated: The descendants of Aaron, the priests, shall blow the trumpets, blameless ones, not with bodily defects, the words of Rebbi Aqiba. Rebbi Tarphon said to him, I would hit my sons if I did not see Simeon, my mother’s brother, lame in one of his legs, standing in the Temple court with his trumpet in his hand and blowing! Rebbi Aqiba answered him, maybe you saw him only at the time of assembly; but I was saying, at the time of sacrifices. Rebbi Tarphon said to him, I would hit my sons but you did not deviate right or left. I am the one who saw the act and forgot. You derive it and agree with tradition. Therefore, anybody who separates from you is as if he separated himself from his life.

One who is excommunicated by the teacher is excommunicated for the student; excommunicated by the student is not excommunicated for the teacher. One who is excommunicated by the chief judge is excommunicated for the rabbi; excommunicated by the rabbi is not excommunicated for the chief judge. One who is excommunicated by the patriarch is excommunicated for everybody. So far if an ordained rabbi excommunicated; even a fellow? Let us hear from the following: A slave woman of Bar Pata passed by a synagogue. She saw a Bible teacher who hit a child more than necessary. He said to him, this man has to be put in the ban. He went and asked Rebbi Aḥa who told him, you have to worry about yourself. This implies that a person who does something unbecoming needs to be excommunicated. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish was looking after figs at Barbarit. Robbers came and stole from them during the night. At the end he noticed them. He said to them, these people shall be excommunicated. They said to him, this person shall be excommunicated. He was worried about himself. He said, they owe me money; maybe souls? He went out after them, said to them: permit me. They said to him, if you permit us we shall permit you. This implies that if somebody excommunicated somebody unnecessarily and he in turn excommunicated him, his excommunication is excommunication.

“If one witness says,” etc. “If one witness says that he died and she remarried, then another comes and says that he is not dead, she shall not leave.” Because he said that after she had remarried. Therefore if [the second witness came] before she remarried, if she remarried she has to leave. Rebbi Joḥanan said, these are the words of Rebbi Menaḥem ben Rebbi Yose. But the words of the Sages [are], whether he testified after she remarried or before she remarried, she should not remarry, but if she remarried she shall not leave. Rav Naḥman bar Jacob said in the name of Rav, if she was married by the testimony of two witnesses, even if he returns, one says to him, “you are not he.” Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac asked, think of it, if he is a famous person like Immi? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, is there nobody who would look like Rebbi Immi? There came a case before the rabbis there. They said to him, “you are not he.” Abba bar Abba got up and whispered in his ear saying, by your life, give her a bill of divorce because of the doubt. Rav’s students got up and beat him. Somebody said, the whip is burning and the footstool is burning. Samuel said, I was there, no whip was burning and no footstool was burning, but my father was hit and got up. There came a case before Rebbi Immi. He said to him, yes, it is sure that she is permitted to you but you should know that the child of this man is a bastard before Heaven. Rebbi Ze‘ira was praising him because he made the situation clear.

“Hits by the predatory”. That is the one who counsels the orphans to hide support from the widow. As the following: Rebbi Sabbatai’s widow was wasting the estate. The orphans came before Rebbi Eleazar. He said to them, what can one do for you; you are stupid. Some scribe came out and said to them: I shall tell you what he said: Behave as if you would sell and she will demand her ketubah and lose her support. In the evening she came before Rebbi Eleazar. He said, this one was hit by the predatory. It should come over me if I had intended that.

A student of Rebbi had 199 denar; Rebbi used to let him receive the tithe of the poor once every three years. His students cast an evil eye on him and completed for him. The next time, when he wanted to let him receive as usual, he said: My teacher, I have the measure. He said, this one was hit by a beast of prey. He gave a hint to his student who took him to a store, made him spend a carat, then he (Rebbi) let him receive as he was used to do.

In earlier times they required payment only from a person alone. But now they require payment from him and his family. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said in the name of Rav Ḥuna: In earlier times, for every trouble that came over the community they have a joyous occasion to make up for it. But after the Synhedrion was abolished, song disappeared from wedding feasts. After both disappeared, “our heart’s joy stopped, our dance turned into mourning.” But what was the high court good for? But because it was said “if the people of the Land consistently turn away their eyes from that man when he is giving of his seed to the Moloch, not to kill him,” in any death they would choose. They gave a parable, to what can this be compared? To one who was a criminal in a town. They delivered him to the one wielding reeds, who jailed him, but he turned out to be stronger than the one wielding reeds. They delivered him to the one wielding sticks who hit him, but he turned out to be stronger than the one wielding sticks. They delivered him to the wielder of leather straps who whipped him, but he turned out to be stronger than the wielder of leather straps. They delivered him to the ruler who hung him in the kiln. So the later troubles cause the earlier ones to be forgotten.

“And they spread out the cloth.” That is all simile. Rebbi Ismael stated: That is one of three verses in the Torah which have been written as simile. “If he gets up and walks outside on his support, the one who hit him is not prosecuted.” Could anybody think that one walks in the market and the other is executed because of him? But what is “on his support”, in his health. “If the sun shone on him, he has blood.” Does the sun shine only on him? But just as the sun is particular that it brings peace to the entire world, so also this one, if one knows that [the other] is at peace with him and he kills him, he is guilty.

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Rebbi Jehudah bar Ḥaninah: They voted in Usha that one who insults an Elder or hits him has to indemnify him fully for his shame. It happened, that somebody who insulted an Elder and hit him had to indemnify him fully for his shame. They said, it happened to Rebbi Jehudah ben Ḥanina.

MISHNAH: Exaggeration vows: If he said, if I did not see on this road [crowds] like those who left Egypt; if I did not see a snake [as thick] as the beam of the olive press. Vows in error how? If he said, if I ate or drank, and he remembers that he had eaten or drunk, that I shall not eat or shall not drink, and he forgot and ate or drank. If he said, a qônām that my wife cannot enjoy anything from me because she stole my wallet or hit my son, and it turns out that she did not hit him or became known that she did not steal. If he saw people eating [his] figs and said to them, these are for you as qorbān, but the persons turned out to be his father or brothers with others. The House of Shammai say, these are permitted, those with them forbidden. But the House of Hillel say, these and those are permitted.

MISHNAH: Exaggeration vows: If he said, if I did not see on this road [crowds] like those who left Egypt; if I did not see a snake [as thick] as the beam of the olive press. Vows in error how? If he said, if I ate or drank, and he remembers that he had eaten or drunk, that I shall not eat or shall not drink, and he forgot and ate or drank. If he said, a qônām that my wife cannot enjoy anything from me because she stole my wallet or hit my son, and it turns out that she did not hit him or became known that she did not steal. If he saw people eating [his] figs and said to them, these are for you as qorbān, but the persons turned out to be his father or brothers with others. The House of Shammai say, these are permitted, those with them forbidden. But the House of Hillel say, these and those are permitted.

Ḥizqiah said, he who swears that two are two is whipped for a vain oath. Rebbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: One who saw rain falling and said: “O Lord, inundate with much water”, is whipped for a vain oath. Rebbi Onias, Rebbi Jacob bar Abun in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman: 24 city councils were in Judea and they all were destroyed because of true vain oaths, as it is written: “For the vain did I hit your sons.”

HALAKHAH: It is written: “You should not take revenge or nurse hatred against your fellow countrymen.” How is that? He was cutting meat and the knife fell down on his hand. Should he go and hit his hand?

If he hit him on his hand and it withered. The physicians said, if it is amputated he will live. Does he have to pay for the [hand]? Let us hear from the following: “If people quarrel,” “if people brawl.” Is not quarrel brawl and brawl quarrel? Why does the verse say, “if people quarrel, if people brawl”? To apply the rules of the unintended to the intended and of the intended to the unintended. It must be the following: If he hit him on his hand and it withered. The physicians said, if it is amputated he will live. Does he have to pay for the [hand]? Since you say there, it is an extraordinary decree of Scripture that he pay for the hand, so here it is an extraordinary decree of Scripture that he pay for the hand.

If he hit him on his hand and it withered. The physicians said, if it is amputated he will live. Does he have to pay for the [hand]? Let us hear from the following: “If people quarrel,” “if people brawl.” Is not quarrel brawl and brawl quarrel? Why does the verse say, “if people quarrel, if people brawl”? To apply the rules of the unintended to the intended and of the intended to the unintended. It must be the following: If he hit him on his hand and it withered. The physicians said, if it is amputated he will live. Does he have to pay for the [hand]? Since you say there, it is an extraordinary decree of Scripture that he pay for the hand, so here it is an extraordinary decree of Scripture that he pay for the hand.

MISHNAH: Five harmless and five notorious animals. An animal is not known to gore, nor to hit, nor to bite, nor to lie down, nor to kick. The tooth is known to eat what is appropriate for it. A notorious bull, a bull of the person who causes the damage on the property of the person who suffered the damage, and the human.

MISHNAH: How does one treat the bull of the person causing the damage in the domain of the person sustaining the damage? If it gored, hit, bit, wallowed, or kicked, in the public domain he pays half of the damages. In the domain of the person sustaining the damage, Rebbi Ṭarphon said, full damages; but the Sages say, half damages. Rebbi Tarphon said to them: Since in a case where He was lenient with [damage by] tooth or foot in the public domain, where one is free, He was restrictive for them in the domain of the person sustaining the damage, when full damages must be paid, and He was restrictive regarding damage by the horn in the public domain, where one has to pay half damages; is it not logical that we should be restrictive in this case in the domain of the person sustaining the damage, that full damages must be paid? They said to him, it is sufficient for the result of an argument de minore ad majus that it should be like the premiss. Since in the public domain [one pays] half damages, also in the domain of the person sustaining the damage half damages. He said to them, I do not argue horn from horn, I argue horn from foot! Since in a case where He was lenient with [damage by] tooth or foot in the public domain, He was restrictive for damage by the horn, when He was restrictive with [damage by] tooth or foot in the domain of the person sustaining the damage; is it not logical that we should be restrictive [in case of damage] by the horn? They said to him, it is sufficient for the result of an argument de minore ad majus that it should be like the premiss. Since in the public domain [one pays] half damages, also in the domain of the person sustaining the damage half damages.

Rebbi Joḥanan said: A person put down a stone and his load in the public domain, a second person stumbled over it while he held a flask in his hand. Whether he stumbled over the stone and hit the ground or hit the stone and stumbled over the ground, [the first] has to pay damages to the person but is free from damages to the flask. The statement of Rebbi Joḥanan implies that for “pit” damages one is free from damages to vessels. But if he hit it in walking, he has to pay even for the flask.

Rebbi Joḥanan said: A person put down a stone and his load in the public domain, a second person stumbled over it while he held a flask in his hand. Whether he stumbled over the stone and hit the ground or hit the stone and stumbled over the ground, [the first] has to pay damages to the person but is free from damages to the flask. The statement of Rebbi Joḥanan implies that for “pit” damages one is free from damages to vessels. But if he hit it in walking, he has to pay even for the flask.

Rebbi Joḥanan said: A person put down a stone and his load in the public domain, a second person stumbled over it while he held a flask in his hand. Whether he stumbled over the stone and hit the ground or hit the stone and stumbled over the ground, [the first] has to pay damages to the person but is free from damages to the flask. The statement of Rebbi Joḥanan implies that for “pit” damages one is free from damages to vessels. But if he hit it in walking, he has to pay even for the flask.

Abba bar Rab Huna said: This implies that somebody who hit another person’s animal which as a consequence went and did damage is responsible for the damage caused.

HALAKHAH: “A bull which was rubbing itself against a wall,” etc. “A man who kills any human soul,” to include a hit which is potentially deadly. Some Tannaïm state, even if it is not deadly. Rebbi La said, even if it is deadly but a third person came and killed, the killer is guilty. “And it killed a man or a woman,” just as a man lets his sons inherit his injury claims, so a woman lets her sons inherit her injury claims. But does not a man inherit from his wife? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, so did Rebbi Hoshaiah, the father of the Mishnah, explain: One teaches here about weregilt which is due after death.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody put a bull in a private courtyard,” etc. “If somebody put a bull in a private courtyard without permission, and a bull came from another place. If it gored, hit, bit, walloped, or kicked, he pays full damages, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, for ‘tooth’ and ‘foot’ he is liable; for goring, or hitting, or biting, or walloping, or kicking, or pushing, a tame [bull] pays half the damages, a notorious full damages from storage.”

MISHNAH: If a bull intended [to hurt] another bull but hit a woman who then had a miscarriage, he is not liable. But if a man intended [to hurt] a neighbor but hit a woman who then had a miscarriage, he pays for the children. How does he pay for the children? One estimates the worth of the woman before and after she gave birth. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, but the value of a woman increses after giving birth! But one estimates how much the children would have been worth and gives [the value] to the husband; if she does not have a husband, to the latter’s heirs. If she was a freedwoman or a proselyte, he is not liable.

MISHNAH: If a bull intended [to hurt] another bull but hit a woman who then had a miscarriage, he is not liable. But if a man intended [to hurt] a neighbor but hit a woman who then had a miscarriage, he pays for the children. How does he pay for the children? One estimates the worth of the woman before and after she gave birth. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, but the value of a woman increses after giving birth! But one estimates how much the children would have been worth and gives [the value] to the husband; if she does not have a husband, to the latter’s heirs. If she was a freedwoman or a proselyte, he is not liable.

HALAKHAH: “If a bull intended,” etc. A bull which intended [to attack] another; therefore, if it intended to hit the woman is he liable? Does it make a difference whether it intended to hit the woman or intended to hit another [bull]? Then why was it stated here? Abba bar Rav Ḥana said, because he had to state the next clause: “But if a human intended [to hurt] another human but hit a woman who then had a miscarriage, he pays for the children.”

HALAKHAH: “If a bull intended,” etc. A bull which intended [to attack] another; therefore, if it intended to hit the woman is he liable? Does it make a difference whether it intended to hit the woman or intended to hit another [bull]? Then why was it stated here? Abba bar Rav Ḥana said, because he had to state the next clause: “But if a human intended [to hurt] another human but hit a woman who then had a miscarriage, he pays for the children.”

HALAKHAH: “If a bull intended,” etc. A bull which intended [to attack] another; therefore, if it intended to hit the woman is he liable? Does it make a difference whether it intended to hit the woman or intended to hit another [bull]? Then why was it stated here? Abba bar Rav Ḥana said, because he had to state the next clause: “But if a human intended [to hurt] another human but hit a woman who then had a miscarriage, he pays for the children.”

HALAKHAH: “If a bull intended,” etc. A bull which intended [to attack] another; therefore, if it intended to hit the woman is he liable? Does it make a difference whether it intended to hit the woman or intended to hit another [bull]? Then why was it stated here? Abba bar Rav Ḥana said, because he had to state the next clause: “But if a human intended [to hurt] another human but hit a woman who then had a miscarriage, he pays for the children.”

It was stated: “I am selling you a fertile slave girl, her children increase her value. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, this is buttocks.” It is written: “If quarrelling men hit a pregnant woman and she loses her children.” Abba Yose ben Ḥanan said, from the meaning of “and she loses her children” would I not know that she was pregnant? Then why does the verse say “pregnant”? It tells you that he is not liable unless he hits her at the place of her pregnancy. Therefore, if he hit her on the palm of her hand or the sole of her foot, he is not liable. “As the woman’s husband will put on him”. Do I understand, even if the pregnancy is not his? The verse says, “pregnant”. It tells that he pays only to the master of the pregnancy. Rebbi Uqba asked, if somebody sleeps with his mother or his sister, is that one not also the master of the pregnancy? The verse says “husband”, somebody who may be called “husband”. This excludes those who cannot be called “husband”.

It was stated: “I am selling you a fertile slave girl, her children increase her value. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, this is buttocks.” It is written: “If quarrelling men hit a pregnant woman and she loses her children.” Abba Yose ben Ḥanan said, from the meaning of “and she loses her children” would I not know that she was pregnant? Then why does the verse say “pregnant”? It tells you that he is not liable unless he hits her at the place of her pregnancy. Therefore, if he hit her on the palm of her hand or the sole of her foot, he is not liable. “As the woman’s husband will put on him”. Do I understand, even if the pregnancy is not his? The verse says, “pregnant”. It tells that he pays only to the master of the pregnancy. Rebbi Uqba asked, if somebody sleeps with his mother or his sister, is that one not also the master of the pregnancy? The verse says “husband”, somebody who may be called “husband”. This excludes those who cannot be called “husband”.

“If an ox and its equipment fell in and broke, a donkey and its equipment and was torn, he is liable for the animal but not liable for the equipment.” Samuel said, when it became disoriented because of the air, but if it hit the ground he is liable. Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both say, even if it hit the ground, he is not liable: The Torah absolved from liability when it fell down. “An ox or a donkey fell in there;” “an ox” and not an ox and its equipment; “a donkey” and not a donkey and its equipment. Since it looked logical: If a pit of damages, where one is not liable for death, one is liable for vessels; would it not be logical that for a pit ten handbreadths deep, for which one is liable for death, should one not be liable for vessels? The verse says, “an ox or a donkey fell in there;” “an ox” and not an ox and its equipment; “a donkey” and not a donkey and its equipment.

“If an ox and its equipment fell in and broke, a donkey and its equipment and was torn, he is liable for the animal but not liable for the equipment.” Samuel said, when it became disoriented because of the air, but if it hit the ground he is liable. Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both say, even if it hit the ground, he is not liable: The Torah absolved from liability when it fell down. “An ox or a donkey fell in there;” “an ox” and not an ox and its equipment; “a donkey” and not a donkey and its equipment. Since it looked logical: If a pit of damages, where one is not liable for death, one is liable for vessels; would it not be logical that for a pit ten handbreadths deep, for which one is liable for death, should one not be liable for vessels? The verse says, “an ox or a donkey fell in there;” “an ox” and not an ox and its equipment; “a donkey” and not a donkey and its equipment.

HALAKHAH: “One who injures another person,” etc. It was stated: “One who injures another person in five [respects] pays him for five categories, in four he pays him four, in three he pays him three, in two he pays him two, in one he pays him one.” How? If he hit him on his hand and severed it, he pays him five times: Damages, suffering, medical costs, loss of earnings, and embarassment. If he hit him on his hand and it became swollen, he pays four times: Suffering, medical costs, loss of earnings, and embarassment. If he hit him on his head which became swollen, he pays three times, suffering, medical costs, loss of earnings. At a place where it is not visible he pays twice, suffering and medical costs. With a tome in his hand he pays only once, for embarrassment.

HALAKHAH: “One who injures another person,” etc. It was stated: “One who injures another person in five [respects] pays him for five categories, in four he pays him four, in three he pays him three, in two he pays him two, in one he pays him one.” How? If he hit him on his hand and severed it, he pays him five times: Damages, suffering, medical costs, loss of earnings, and embarassment. If he hit him on his hand and it became swollen, he pays four times: Suffering, medical costs, loss of earnings, and embarassment. If he hit him on his head which became swollen, he pays three times, suffering, medical costs, loss of earnings. At a place where it is not visible he pays twice, suffering and medical costs. With a tome in his hand he pays only once, for embarrassment.

HALAKHAH: “One who injures another person,” etc. It was stated: “One who injures another person in five [respects] pays him for five categories, in four he pays him four, in three he pays him three, in two he pays him two, in one he pays him one.” How? If he hit him on his hand and severed it, he pays him five times: Damages, suffering, medical costs, loss of earnings, and embarassment. If he hit him on his hand and it became swollen, he pays four times: Suffering, medical costs, loss of earnings, and embarassment. If he hit him on his head which became swollen, he pays three times, suffering, medical costs, loss of earnings. At a place where it is not visible he pays twice, suffering and medical costs. With a tome in his hand he pays only once, for embarrassment.

MISHNAH: Medical costs. If he hit a person, he has to pay that person’s medical costs. In case a growth on that person’s body developed, if it was a consequence of the injury, he has to pay medical costs. If it started to heal but regressed several times, he has to pay medical costs. After it was healed completely he no longer has to pay medical costs.

HALAKHAH: “Medical costs. If he hit a person, he has to pay that person’s medical costs,” etc. Rebbi Jeremiah asked: If there was a growth around the wound and complications ensued because of the wound, what is the rule? Since it is written: “And healing he shall heal,” if [the patient] did not follow the doctor’s instructions, he is [not liable]. It was stated in another baraita: If [the wound] was covered with scab, he must pay for medical treatment. It was stated: “Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah says, if there was a growth around the wound, even if complications ensued because of the wound, he must pay for medical treatment but he is not liable to pay for his loss of earnings. Rebbi Simeon says, in this paragraph Scripture introduced a novelty stating that he has to pay for loss of earnings together with medical treatment: ‘Only his loss of earnings he shall compensate and healing he shall heal.’ ”

HALAKHAH: “Loss of earnings. One considers him,” etc. Here you say, “one considers him as if he were a watchman of pumpkins.” But there, you say, “if he was earning a mina per day, he pays him a mina; a tetradrachma, he gives him a tetradrachma.” Rebbi Isaac said, there are two kinds of inability to work. If he hit him on his hand and cut it off, one does not consider him as if he earned a mina a day but one considers him as if he were a lame person watching pumpkins, because he already compensated him for the loss of his hand or loss of his foot. But if he burned him on the palm of his hand and it swelled, on the flat of his head and it swelled, or he put on him snow or cold water at a place which is not visible, then he has to pay his medical expenses.

“if you hit upon.” I could think, really if you hit upon him; the verse says, “if you see.” Concerning “if you see,” I could think even at a distance of a hundred mil? The verse says, “if you hit upon.” How is this? The Sages estimated one in 7 1/2 of a mil, i. e., a stadion. Putting in order you shall put in order,” this is unloading. “Uplifting you shall uplift,” this is loading. Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai says, just as his unloading is [an obligation] from the Torah, so his loading is from the Torah. If the donkey was a Jew’s but the load a Gentile’s, everybody says that he unloads and loads. If the donkey was a Gentile’s but the load a Jew’s, according to the Sages one neither unloads nor loads. According to Rebbi Simeon one unloads but does not load.

“if you hit upon.” I could think, really if you hit upon him; the verse says, “if you see.” Concerning “if you see,” I could think even at a distance of a hundred mil? The verse says, “if you hit upon.” How is this? The Sages estimated one in 7 1/2 of a mil, i. e., a stadion. Putting in order you shall put in order,” this is unloading. “Uplifting you shall uplift,” this is loading. Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai says, just as his unloading is [an obligation] from the Torah, so his loading is from the Torah. If the donkey was a Jew’s but the load a Gentile’s, everybody says that he unloads and loads. If the donkey was a Gentile’s but the load a Jew’s, according to the Sages one neither unloads nor loads. According to Rebbi Simeon one unloads but does not load.

“if you hit upon.” I could think, really if you hit upon him; the verse says, “if you see.” Concerning “if you see,” I could think even at a distance of a hundred mil? The verse says, “if you hit upon.” How is this? The Sages estimated one in 7 1/2 of a mil, i. e., a stadion. Putting in order you shall put in order,” this is unloading. “Uplifting you shall uplift,” this is loading. Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai says, just as his unloading is [an obligation] from the Torah, so his loading is from the Torah. If the donkey was a Jew’s but the load a Gentile’s, everybody says that he unloads and loads. If the donkey was a Gentile’s but the load a Jew’s, according to the Sages one neither unloads nor loads. According to Rebbi Simeon one unloads but does not load.

MISHNAH: If a person appropriates a deposit, the House of Shammai say, he shall be hit by less or more, but the House of Hillel say, [at the price] at the time of delivery; Rebbi Aqiba says, at the time of claim. If somebody intends to take the deposit, the House of Shammai hold him liable but the House of Hillel say, he is liable only from the moment he takes it. How is this? If he tilted the amphora and took a quartarius, and then it broke, he pays only for a quartarius. If he lifted it and took a quartarius, and then it broke, he pays for all.

HALAKHAH: “One who contracts with another for a field,” etc. Rav Huna said, if the entire area in that direction was scorched. Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan. But only if it was sown. [But if he did not sow], the other can tell him, if you had sown it would have produced a lot. Think of it, if there were other fields [which were not hit]? He may tell him, the Holy One, praise to Him, is forbearing with the evildoers. If there were other fields which were damaged? He may tell him, so far I was liable in the case; from now on I am no longer liable.

As the following: Rebbi Sabbatai’s widow was wasting the estate. His sons came before Rebbi Eleazar. He said to them, what can one do for you; they are stupid. When they left, they said, let us ask the scribe what to do. He told them: Behave as if you would sell of the real estate and she will demand her ketubah and will no longer have support. After some time she came before Rebbi Eleazar. He said, It should come over me if I had told them anything. What can one do, this one was hit by predatory people.

It is written: To amusement I said, be praised. The Holy One, praise to him, said to Solomon: What is this crown on your head? Descend from My throne! Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, at that moment an angel came down looking like Solomon, removed him from his throne, and sat in his stead. He was going around in synagogues and houses of study, saying I am Ecclesiastes, I used to be king over Israel in Jerusalem. They were telling him, the king sits on his chair of honor and you say, I am Ecclesiastes? They hit him with a stick and brought a dish of split beans before him. At that moment, he said: that is my part. Some say, a staff. Others say, a rod. Others say, with his belt. Who had accused him? Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, י in יַרְבֶּה accused him. Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai stated: The book Deuteronomy ascended, bowed down before the Holy One, praise to Him, and said to Him: Master of the Universe, You wrote in Your Torah that any disposition which is partially invalid is totally invalid, and now Solomon wants to uproot a י from me! The Holy One, praise to Him, said to it: Solomon and a thousand like him will disappear but nothing from you will disappear.

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

We have it stated here, we have it stated in Keritut. One understands in Keritut that he brings one sacrifice and then has to bring a second. What can you say in Sanhedrin? That he is stoned and then stoned again? Rebbi Yudan, Rebbi Mattaniah’s father, said: explain it for warnings. For if they warned him because of the father’s wife, he is hit, because of the mother, he is hit. Could they not also warn him because of a married woman? Rebbi Abun said, explain it if she was unmarried.

We have it stated here, we have it stated in Keritut. One understands in Keritut that he brings one sacrifice and then has to bring a second. What can you say in Sanhedrin? That he is stoned and then stoned again? Rebbi Yudan, Rebbi Mattaniah’s father, said: explain it for warnings. For if they warned him because of the father’s wife, he is hit, because of the mother, he is hit. Could they not also warn him because of a married woman? Rebbi Abun said, explain it if she was unmarried.

MISHNAH: The blasphemer is not liable unless he explicitly use the Name. Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥa said, during the trial one deals with the witnesses by substitute name, may Yose hit Yose. At the end of the proceedings one does not sentence him to death by substitute name but one dismisses the public, retains the most prestigious among them and says to him, tell us explicitly what you heard. He says it while the judges are standing; they tear their garments and never mend them. The second one says, also I [heard] like him; the third one says, also I [heard] like him.

Example. Rebbi Eliezer, Rebbi Joshua, and Rebbi Aqiba went to bathe at the public baths of Tiberias. A Minean saw them, said what he said, and the cupola caught them. Rebbi Eliezer said to Rebbi Joshua: Joshua ben Ḥanania, look what you can do. When this Minean was leaving, Rebbi Joshua said what he said and the door trapped him. Anybody who entered hit him with his fist, anybody leaving hit him when forcing the door open. He told them, undo what you did; they told him, you undo, then we shall undo. They mutually undid. When they left, Rebbi Joshua said to this Minean, is that all you are wise to? He answered, let us go down to the sea. When they had descended to the sea, this Minean said what he said and the sea was split. He told them, is that not what your teacher Moses did to the sea? They answered, do you not agree that our teacher Moses walked through it? He said to them, yes. They told him, enter it. He entered it. Rebbi Joshua commanded the prince of the sea who swallowed him.

Example. Rebbi Eliezer, Rebbi Joshua, and Rebbi Aqiba went to bathe at the public baths of Tiberias. A Minean saw them, said what he said, and the cupola caught them. Rebbi Eliezer said to Rebbi Joshua: Joshua ben Ḥanania, look what you can do. When this Minean was leaving, Rebbi Joshua said what he said and the door trapped him. Anybody who entered hit him with his fist, anybody leaving hit him when forcing the door open. He told them, undo what you did; they told him, you undo, then we shall undo. They mutually undid. When they left, Rebbi Joshua said to this Minean, is that all you are wise to? He answered, let us go down to the sea. When they had descended to the sea, this Minean said what he said and the sea was split. He told them, is that not what your teacher Moses did to the sea? They answered, do you not agree that our teacher Moses walked through it? He said to them, yes. They told him, enter it. He entered it. Rebbi Joshua commanded the prince of the sea who swallowed him.

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

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

If he hit him on his hand and it withered. The physicians said, if his hand is amputated he will live. Does he have to pay for the hand? Let us hear from the following: If people quarrel, if people brawl. Is not brawl quarrel? Why does the verse say, if people quarrel, if people brawl? To apply the rules of the intended to the unintended and of the unintended to the intended. One understands from the intended to the unintended. Of the unintended to the intended? It must be the following: If he hit him on his hand and it withered. The physicians said, if his hand is amputated he will live. Does he have to pay for the hand? Since you say there, it is an extraordinary decree of Scripture that he pay for the hand, so here it is an extraordinary decree of Scripture that he pay for the hand.

If he hit him on his hand and it withered. The physicians said, if his hand is amputated he will live. Does he have to pay for the hand? Let us hear from the following: If people quarrel, if people brawl. Is not brawl quarrel? Why does the verse say, if people quarrel, if people brawl? To apply the rules of the intended to the unintended and of the unintended to the intended. One understands from the intended to the unintended. Of the unintended to the intended? It must be the following: If he hit him on his hand and it withered. The physicians said, if his hand is amputated he will live. Does he have to pay for the hand? Since you say there, it is an extraordinary decree of Scripture that he pay for the hand, so here it is an extraordinary decree of Scripture that he pay for the hand.

MISHNAH: If one intended to kill an animal but he killed a human, a Non-Jew but he killed a Jew, a stillborn but he killed a viable baby, he is not criminally liable. If one intended to hit someone on his hips where it would not have been enough to kill but it went on his heart where it was enough to kill and he died, he cannot be prosecuted. If one intended to hit someone on his heart where it would have been enough to kill but it went on his hips where it was not enough to kill but he died, he cannot be prosecuted. If one intended to hit someone big whom it would not have been enough to kill but it went on somebody small whom it was enough to kill and he died, he cannot be prosecuted. If one intended to hit someone small whom it would have been enough to kill but it went on somebody big whom it was not enough to kill but he died, he cannot be prosecuted. If one intended to hit someone on his hips where it was enough to kill but it went on his heart and he died; [or] if one intended to hit someone big and it was enough to kill but it went on somebody small and he died; he is [criminally] liable. Rebbi Simeon says, even if he intended to kill one person but killed another, he is not criminally liable.

MISHNAH: If one intended to kill an animal but he killed a human, a Non-Jew but he killed a Jew, a stillborn but he killed a viable baby, he is not criminally liable. If one intended to hit someone on his hips where it would not have been enough to kill but it went on his heart where it was enough to kill and he died, he cannot be prosecuted. If one intended to hit someone on his heart where it would have been enough to kill but it went on his hips where it was not enough to kill but he died, he cannot be prosecuted. If one intended to hit someone big whom it would not have been enough to kill but it went on somebody small whom it was enough to kill and he died, he cannot be prosecuted. If one intended to hit someone small whom it would have been enough to kill but it went on somebody big whom it was not enough to kill but he died, he cannot be prosecuted. If one intended to hit someone on his hips where it was enough to kill but it went on his heart and he died; [or] if one intended to hit someone big and it was enough to kill but it went on somebody small and he died; he is [criminally] liable. Rebbi Simeon says, even if he intended to kill one person but killed another, he is not criminally liable.

MISHNAH: If one intended to kill an animal but he killed a human, a Non-Jew but he killed a Jew, a stillborn but he killed a viable baby, he is not criminally liable. If one intended to hit someone on his hips where it would not have been enough to kill but it went on his heart where it was enough to kill and he died, he cannot be prosecuted. If one intended to hit someone on his heart where it would have been enough to kill but it went on his hips where it was not enough to kill but he died, he cannot be prosecuted. If one intended to hit someone big whom it would not have been enough to kill but it went on somebody small whom it was enough to kill and he died, he cannot be prosecuted. If one intended to hit someone small whom it would have been enough to kill but it went on somebody big whom it was not enough to kill but he died, he cannot be prosecuted. If one intended to hit someone on his hips where it was enough to kill but it went on his heart and he died; [or] if one intended to hit someone big and it was enough to kill but it went on somebody small and he died; he is [criminally] liable. Rebbi Simeon says, even if he intended to kill one person but killed another, he is not criminally liable.

MISHNAH: If one intended to kill an animal but he killed a human, a Non-Jew but he killed a Jew, a stillborn but he killed a viable baby, he is not criminally liable. If one intended to hit someone on his hips where it would not have been enough to kill but it went on his heart where it was enough to kill and he died, he cannot be prosecuted. If one intended to hit someone on his heart where it would have been enough to kill but it went on his hips where it was not enough to kill but he died, he cannot be prosecuted. If one intended to hit someone big whom it would not have been enough to kill but it went on somebody small whom it was enough to kill and he died, he cannot be prosecuted. If one intended to hit someone small whom it would have been enough to kill but it went on somebody big whom it was not enough to kill but he died, he cannot be prosecuted. If one intended to hit someone on his hips where it was enough to kill but it went on his heart and he died; [or] if one intended to hit someone big and it was enough to kill but it went on somebody small and he died; he is [criminally] liable. Rebbi Simeon says, even if he intended to kill one person but killed another, he is not criminally liable.

MISHNAH: If one intended to kill an animal but he killed a human, a Non-Jew but he killed a Jew, a stillborn but he killed a viable baby, he is not criminally liable. If one intended to hit someone on his hips where it would not have been enough to kill but it went on his heart where it was enough to kill and he died, he cannot be prosecuted. If one intended to hit someone on his heart where it would have been enough to kill but it went on his hips where it was not enough to kill but he died, he cannot be prosecuted. If one intended to hit someone big whom it would not have been enough to kill but it went on somebody small whom it was enough to kill and he died, he cannot be prosecuted. If one intended to hit someone small whom it would have been enough to kill but it went on somebody big whom it was not enough to kill but he died, he cannot be prosecuted. If one intended to hit someone on his hips where it was enough to kill but it went on his heart and he died; [or] if one intended to hit someone big and it was enough to kill but it went on somebody small and he died; he is [criminally] liable. Rebbi Simeon says, even if he intended to kill one person but killed another, he is not criminally liable.

MISHNAH: If one intended to kill an animal but he killed a human, a Non-Jew but he killed a Jew, a stillborn but he killed a viable baby, he is not criminally liable. If one intended to hit someone on his hips where it would not have been enough to kill but it went on his heart where it was enough to kill and he died, he cannot be prosecuted. If one intended to hit someone on his heart where it would have been enough to kill but it went on his hips where it was not enough to kill but he died, he cannot be prosecuted. If one intended to hit someone big whom it would not have been enough to kill but it went on somebody small whom it was enough to kill and he died, he cannot be prosecuted. If one intended to hit someone small whom it would have been enough to kill but it went on somebody big whom it was not enough to kill but he died, he cannot be prosecuted. If one intended to hit someone on his hips where it was enough to kill but it went on his heart and he died; [or] if one intended to hit someone big and it was enough to kill but it went on somebody small and he died; he is [criminally] liable. Rebbi Simeon says, even if he intended to kill one person but killed another, he is not criminally liable.

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is written: One of the young prophets said to his neighbor by the Word of the Eternal, etc. He told him, since you did not listen to the Word of the Eternal, when you depart from me the lion will hit you; he departed from him, the lion found him and hit him. He found another man, said to him, hit me, and he hit him etc. The prophet went, stood in the king’s way, and had disguised himself by a band over his eyes. When the king passed by, he cried to the king, etc. Your servant went to and fro, etc. He told him, so says the Eternal: Because you sent away from your hand the man whom I had banned, your life will be for his life, and your people for his people. And it is written: The man of God approached and said, so says the Eternal. Why two times “and said”? But in the first address he told him, if Ben Hadad falls into you hand, do not have mercy on him and do not spare him. In the second address he told him, because you sent away from your hand the man whom I had banned, how many traps and hunting nets I made for him until I delivered him into your hand, and you sent him away and he went in peace. Therefore, your life will be for his life, and your people for his people. You find that when Israel went to war, nobody of them died but Ahab, the king of Israel. That is what is written: A man shot from his bow without aiming and hit the king of Israel between the joints of his armor; he told the driver, take me out of the camp because I became sick. How can I confirm your people for his people? Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai: That drop of blood which was drawn from the just man did atone for all of Israel.