hoshaiah

And after them went Hoshaiah, and half of the princes of Judah,

Then all the captains of the forces, and Johanan the son of Kareah, and Jezaniah the son of Hoshaiah, and all the people from the least even unto the greatest, came near,

Then spake Azariah the son of Hoshaiah, and Johanan the son of Kareah, and all the proud men, saying unto Jeremiah, Thou speakest falsely: the LORD our God hath not sent thee to say, Go not into Egypt to sojourn there:

Rebbi Samuel bar Ḥanina in the name of Rebbi Hoshaiah: “He Who forms light and creates darkness”; one should not say: “He Who forms light and creates radiance.” Rebbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Zavda: “There they sang for You”, one should not say: “There they praised You”. Rebbi Levi, Rebbi Eudaimon of Haifa, in the name of Rebbi Levi bar Sisi: one has to pronounce tizkeru voiced. Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rav Ḥisda: one has to pronounce ki lĕ‘ôlām ḥasdȏ voiced. It was stated: One does not take as reader anyone from Haifa, Beth Sheän or Tiv‘on since they read ח like ה and ע like א. If his pronunciation was orderly, it would be permitted.

Rav Jeremiah said, one should start to pray only from a practical rule. Rav Jeremiah said, he who deals with public needs is like him who studies Torah. Rav Ḥuna said: a woman who saw a spot like a mustard seed sits and watches seven days of purification because of it; then he stood up and prayed. Zeïra bar Ḥinena said: He who draws blood from a dedicated animal committed larceny; that is one of the decided practices. Bar Qappara stated: Eleven days between periods is a practice taught to Moses at Sinai. Rebbi Hoshaiah stated: One may add produce on the stalk and be tricky in order to free it from tithes. Abdan asked Rebbi: How many levels are there for dedicated things? He answered him: four. And how many levels for Terumah? He answered: three, then he stood up and prayed.

Rebbi Phineas in the name of Rebbi Hoshaiah: He who prays in the synagogue is as if he had sacrificed a pure flour offering. What is the reason? (Is. 66:20) “As the children of Israel bring flour offering in a pure vessel in the Eternal’s House.” Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: (Is. 55:6) “Seek the Eternal where He is to be found”. Where is He to be found? In synagogues and houses of study. “Call on Him when He is close.” Where is He close? In synagogues and houses of study. Rebbi Isaac ben Rebbi Eleazar said, not only that but their God stands over them. What is the reason? (Ps. 82:1) “God stands in the assembly of the mighty; from the inside God will judge.”

Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Hoshaiah: Only one should not mention less than three separations. Rebbi Yoḥanan said, they said that he who says little should not say less than three and he who adds should not add more than seven separations. Levi said, but only separations mentioned in the Torah. Naḥum ben Rebbi Simai went out and said in his father’s name: even one separation. But Rebbi Abbahu said, one must seal with “separation”. Rebbi Mana objected, even if he started by “He Who separates between holy and worldly” and ends, seals by “He Who separates between holy and worldly”? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, is it not from the benedictions that one starts with “praised” and ends with “praised”?

There (Mishnah Sukkah 4:5) we have stated: “Sukkah seven days, how is this? If he finished to eat he should not take down his sukkah, but he takes out the vessels starting from the time of afternoon prayers because of the honor due to the last holiday.” Rebbi Abba bar Cahana, Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Rav: A person must make his sukkah invalid as long as it is still day. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, a person must make Qiddush inside his house. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Samuel: If one made Qiddush in one house and changed his mind to eat in another house he must make Qiddush. Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥinena in the name of Rebbi Hoshaiah: He who loves his sukkah makes Qiddush of the last holiday in his house and goes to eat in his sukkah. Rebbi Abun said, they do not disagree. What Rav said was, if he did not have the intention to eat in another house. But what Samuel said was if he had the intention to eat in another house. Rebbi Mana said, Samuel comes like Rebbi Ḥiyya and Rebbi Hoshaiah like Rebbi Joshua ben Levi.

There (Mishnah Sukkah 4:5) we have stated: “Sukkah seven days, how is this? If he finished to eat he should not take down his sukkah, but he takes out the vessels starting from the time of afternoon prayers because of the honor due to the last holiday.” Rebbi Abba bar Cahana, Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Rav: A person must make his sukkah invalid as long as it is still day. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, a person must make Qiddush inside his house. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Samuel: If one made Qiddush in one house and changed his mind to eat in another house he must make Qiddush. Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥinena in the name of Rebbi Hoshaiah: He who loves his sukkah makes Qiddush of the last holiday in his house and goes to eat in his sukkah. Rebbi Abun said, they do not disagree. What Rav said was, if he did not have the intention to eat in another house. But what Samuel said was if he had the intention to eat in another house. Rebbi Mana said, Samuel comes like Rebbi Ḥiyya and Rebbi Hoshaiah like Rebbi Joshua ben Levi.

Rebbi Zeïra asked before Rebbi Yasa: If he intended to let them acquire from the boundary strip? He avoided answering him. The opinions of Rebbi Yasa are contradictory since we have stated there (Mishnah 3:2): “The sages agree with Rebbi Aqiba about someone who sowed dill or mustard in three places.” (The Mishnah means: dill in three places or mustard in three places.) Samuel said, because the first of them does not wait for the last. Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Because they are usually sown in separate beds. And here he says so? It is obvious for him that it separates. What he could not decide is whether it does become sanctified as peah or maybe it does not become sanctified! Rebbi Hoshaiah stated: If someone gave peah from one field for another one, it does not acquire holiness. One understands that this means even the boundary strip.

Rebbi Jonah said that Rebbi Hoshaiah asked: What are we talking about? If this was within four cubits from him, he was rich. If it was outside of four cubits, may anybody dedicate anything that is not his? We confirmed it if he dedicated it piece by piece.

Clarification. Rebbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina and Rebbi Hoshaiah were strolling through the synagogue of Lod. Rebbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina said to Rebbi Hoshaiah: How much money did my forefathers invest here! He answered him: How many souls did your forefathers invest here, there is no one in here who studies Torah!

Clarification. Rebbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina and Rebbi Hoshaiah were strolling through the synagogue of Lod. Rebbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina said to Rebbi Hoshaiah: How much money did my forefathers invest here! He answered him: How many souls did your forefathers invest here, there is no one in here who studies Torah!

Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaiah: It is a condition imposed by the Court that the fat be on the butcher and the sciatic tendon on the buyer. Rebbi Abbahu made it common usage in Caesarea that both should be on the buyer, so that they would amply take out.

Rebbi Aḥa said, in the days of Rebbi Hoshaiah they wanted to vote on King’s Mountain, to free it from tithes. They said, let Rebbi Hoshaiah come. Before he could come, the opportunity was lost.

Rebbi Aḥa said, in the days of Rebbi Hoshaiah they wanted to vote on King’s Mountain, to free it from tithes. They said, let Rebbi Hoshaiah come. Before he could come, the opportunity was lost.

Rebbi Judah ben Pazi in the name of Rebbi Hoshaiah: Practice follows Rebbi Simeon. Otherwise, we would say, between Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon, practice does not follow Rebbi Simeon. But because it was stated: “Rebbi Simeon from Shezur said, once some produce that was ṭevel was mixed up with my produce. I asked Rebbi Ṭarphon, and he told me: Go and buy from a Gentile and tithe for it.” On that we have stated: “Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Simeon say, a Gentile may acquire real estate in the Land of Israel to free it from tithe.” Lest you think that this case has two opposed by two. Therefore, he had to say that practice follows Rebbi Simeon.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaiah: They considered him a worker who does not trust his employer. The following is obvious: If the produce was burned, the heave is ṭevel. If the heave is burned, when the produce is eaten the heave will have been sanctified retroactively.

“ Reeds, spiny bushes, roses, and way-thorn are trees and not kilaim in a vineyard. Reed-mace, rush, and bulrush, and all other plants growing in ashes are kinds of grasses and not kilaim in a vineyard.” But did Rebbi Hoshaiah not state: “The following are the kinds of grasses: artichoke, ḥalimah,demua, and lycium.” There for benedictions, here for kilaim. Rebbi Yose said, this means that while one says the benediction “Creator of the fruit of the tree” for an etrog, one says the benediction “Creator of kinds of grasses” for its tmrz.

Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Hoshaiah: Practice follows the student. The words of the Sages are that all kinds of mules are the same.

Rebbi Jeremiah said, the Mishnah deals with the leaves of false arum. Rav Hoshaiah brought a baraita of Bar Qappara from the South and stated: “The leaves of arum or of onions.” Can you speak of leaves of false onions? The word of Rebbi Jeremiah implies that anything subject to removal found inside something not subject to removal is subject to removal. How does Rebbi Jeremiah deal with this? He explains it if he trampled on the leaves.

Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: If somebody measures with a box in which he made a sign two or three times, he may no longer use it for measuring. Rebbi Hoshaiah said, it is forbidden to say, give me your finger’s length.

Rebbi Ḥananiah said in the name of Rebbi Hillel: We have stated in support of the statement of Rebbi Hoshaiah: “[If one gave heave of] olives for olives and in the future he will crush them, grapes for grapes and in the future he will press them, it is heave and he has to give heave a second time.” And we have stated: “If one gave oil as heave for table olives, olives for table olives, wine for table grapes, or grapes for table grapes when he changed his mind to press them he does not have to give heave.” Because he changed his mind! Therefore, if he did not change his mind he has to give a second heave.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaiah: They treated it following the rules of a worker who does not trust his employer.

Rebbi Simon says, Rebbi Eliezer stays with his opinion. Just as he says there, all that is defective was in his hand, so he says here all that is impure is in his hand. Rebbi Zeїra asked, may we not say that Rebbi Eliezer said it only because of a fence? Does not Rebbi Eliezer agree that for a seah lifted from ṭevel he must give a name to its tithes? If you say the seah which fell is the seah which came up, it would not be necessary to give a name to its tithes! Rebbi Mana said, Rebbi Zeїra is correct since we have stated after this: “A seah of pure heave which fell into a hundred of impure profane produce,” and Rebbi Eliezer does not disagree! The colleagues argued before Rebbi Yose: Rebbi Simon is correct, because otherwise would one burn heave because of a “fence”? He said to them, are the six doubts which we have stated not because of their “fences”? Do we not also burn here because of its “fence”? The colleagues said, we asked before Rebbi Yose: In any case, if it is impure heave, it should be burned, if it is profane, why could it not become impure? He said to us, is it not eaten as heave? Heave cannot be eaten except if it is pure, maybe impure? Do you not agree that if a doubt of impurity arose in its place that he cannot burn it? What is the difference whether a doubt of impurity arose at another place or at its place? But if you want to question, then question what Rebbi Hoshaiah stated, since Rebbi Hoshaiah stated: “A seah of pure heave that fell into 100 seah of impure heave.”

Rebbi Simon says, Rebbi Eliezer stays with his opinion. Just as he says there, all that is defective was in his hand, so he says here all that is impure is in his hand. Rebbi Zeїra asked, may we not say that Rebbi Eliezer said it only because of a fence? Does not Rebbi Eliezer agree that for a seah lifted from ṭevel he must give a name to its tithes? If you say the seah which fell is the seah which came up, it would not be necessary to give a name to its tithes! Rebbi Mana said, Rebbi Zeїra is correct since we have stated after this: “A seah of pure heave which fell into a hundred of impure profane produce,” and Rebbi Eliezer does not disagree! The colleagues argued before Rebbi Yose: Rebbi Simon is correct, because otherwise would one burn heave because of a “fence”? He said to them, are the six doubts which we have stated not because of their “fences”? Do we not also burn here because of its “fence”? The colleagues said, we asked before Rebbi Yose: In any case, if it is impure heave, it should be burned, if it is profane, why could it not become impure? He said to us, is it not eaten as heave? Heave cannot be eaten except if it is pure, maybe impure? Do you not agree that if a doubt of impurity arose in its place that he cannot burn it? What is the difference whether a doubt of impurity arose at another place or at its place? But if you want to question, then question what Rebbi Hoshaiah stated, since Rebbi Hoshaiah stated: “A seah of pure heave that fell into 100 seah of impure heave.”

Nathan bar Hoshiah said, one speaks about a girl, the other about an adult woman. The girl has a fine but cannot be sold, the adult has no fine, she cannot be sold; has she no claim for shame and blemish? The rabbis of Caesarea said, explain it that she seduced him or forgave him. Nathan bar Hoshaiah thinks that in a case of flogging and payment he pays and is not flogged. Why should he not be flogged and have to pay? (Deut. 25:2) “Because of his guilt.” You sentence him for one guilt but you may not sentence him for two guilts. Why should he pay and not have to be flogged? From perjured witnesses. Just as perjured witnesses pay and are not flogged, here also he pays and is not flogged. Rebbi Jonah said, the reason of Nathan bar Hoshaiah: (Deut. 25:2): “The judge shall have him laid down and flogged in his presence.” It refers to one whose flogging frees him from his guilt, excluding one who is told: get up and pay.

Nathan bar Hoshiah said, one speaks about a girl, the other about an adult woman. The girl has a fine but cannot be sold, the adult has no fine, she cannot be sold; has she no claim for shame and blemish? The rabbis of Caesarea said, explain it that she seduced him or forgave him. Nathan bar Hoshaiah thinks that in a case of flogging and payment he pays and is not flogged. Why should he not be flogged and have to pay? (Deut. 25:2) “Because of his guilt.” You sentence him for one guilt but you may not sentence him for two guilts. Why should he pay and not have to be flogged? From perjured witnesses. Just as perjured witnesses pay and are not flogged, here also he pays and is not flogged. Rebbi Jonah said, the reason of Nathan bar Hoshaiah: (Deut. 25:2): “The judge shall have him laid down and flogged in his presence.” It refers to one whose flogging frees him from his guilt, excluding one who is told: get up and pay.

Our Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish! Did we not state “If somebody eats heave in error”? He explains it following Rebbi Meïr, since Rebbi Meïr said, he is whipped and pays. But did we not state: “If somebody eats heave intentionally”? In the opinion of Nathan bar Hoshaiah who said, when he pays he is not flogged, it is understandable. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan who said, if he was cautioned he is flogged, but if he was not cautioned he pays, he explains it as intentional without cautioning. In the opinion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish there is no difference between intentional and unintentional, between cautioned or not cautioned. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish holds with Rebbi Meïr since Rebbi Meïr says, he is flogged and he pays.

Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Hoshaiah asked: What is the difference between this and worms in peas, squash bugs in sweet vetch, worms in dates and dried figs? There, they are in their bodies; here it is not in its body.

Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: The hot, the bitter, and the sweet are not under the rules for being uncovered. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: The hot, the bitter, and the sweet are not under the rules for being uncovered or under those of libation wine. Rebbi Simeon explains: The hot, spice wine. And the bitter, vermouth wine. And the sweet, cooked wine. Rebbi Joshua ben Zeidal had cooked wine which was left unsupervised in the possession of a Gentile. He asked Rebbi Yannai ben Rebbi Ismael who said to him, so says Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: The sweet is not under the rules for being uncovered or under those of libation wine. Rebbi Yannai ben Rebbi Ismael fell ill. Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Hoshaiah, Rebbi Abun bar Cahana, and Rebbi Ḥananiah the colleague of the rabbis went to visit him. They saw that Rebbi Joshua ben Zeidal was sitting [there]. They said, there is the master of the decision and the person of the happening; they went and asked him. Rebbi Yannai ben Rebbi Ismael said to them, so says Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, the sweet is not under the rules for being uncovered or under those of libation wine. Rebbi Zeïra said to him, maybe that statement of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is for argument’s sake? He told him no, it is for action and you can rely on me. When they came back, there was Rebbi Hila standing with Rebbi Abun bar Cahana. He told him, if you did not prefer decisions, is it not a baraita? Since Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: “Why is cooked wine of Gentiles forbidden? Because it started out as wine. Why is vinegar of Gentiles forbidden? Because it started out as wine.” Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah says so: “wine and vinegar of Gentiles which originally was wine.”

How long? Rebbi Mana bar Tanḥum said, until the soap-wort blossoms. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose in the name of Rav: Until they become like goose feet. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, when it became permitted on the field, it became permitted in the house. Rebbi Hoshaiah stated: [The rules of] uncovering apply in the Land and outside the Land, in summer and in winter.

Rebbi Ḥanina Tortayya in the name of Rebbi Hoshaiah: Bulb vegetables with bulb vegetables, a kind with itself, Rebbi Aqiba permits but the Sages forbid. Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The Sages agree with Rebbi Aqiba that meat with meat is permitted. Rebbi Zeїra said to Rebbi Assi: If that had not been said, we would not know that it is so, but maybe it was said as follows: Rebbi Aqiba agrees with the Sages that meat with meat is forbidden. Rebbi Abbahu came in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi Aqiba agrees with the Sages that meat with meat is forbidden. Rebbi Ḥinena understood it from the next Mishnah: “Rebbi Aqiba says, all those which are cooked together are permitted except with meat.” Therefore, “meat with meat is forbidden.” Maybe it was formulated as: The Sages agree with Rebbi Aqiba that meat with meat is forbidden. Rebbi Ḥinena: Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, the Sages agree with Rebbi Aqiba that meat with meat is forbidden.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Hoshaiah asked Cahana: From where that these are subject to ḥallah but exempt from tithes? He said to him, do not tell me (Num. 15:19): “you shall lift”; (v. 20) “so you shall lift.” He came back and said, from 14 [years]. Just as in the 14 years they were subject to ḥallah but exempt from tithes, so these are subject to ḥallah but exempt from tithes.

For all other things one goes after compacting. If one made a dough from wheat and rice, after what do you go, after rolling or after compacting? Rebbi Hoshaiah stated: ḥallah in a form, after it was rolled for wheat flour or compacted for barley flour. Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaiah, after if was well formed. Do they differ? One is for practice, the other for study matters.

For all other things one goes after compacting. If one made a dough from wheat and rice, after what do you go, after rolling or after compacting? Rebbi Hoshaiah stated: ḥallah in a form, after it was rolled for wheat flour or compacted for barley flour. Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaiah, after if was well formed. Do they differ? One is for practice, the other for study matters.

Rabban Gamliel the son of Rebbi wanted to institute demay in Syria but Rebbi Hoshaiah did not let him do it. He said to him, then Cohanim would have to worry about their ḥallah! The argument of Rebbi Hoshaiah seems inverted. There, he says the fear of sacred things is on him and he will not give to the Cohen anything that is not in order, and here he says so? Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, I am saying that he gave him that of the fire. Rebbi Mana said to him, Rebbi Hoshaiah only stated: then Cohanim would have to worry about their ḥallah! “ He who buys from a baker and from a woman who bakes to sell on the market has to separate ḥallah of demay; from a private person and if he is a guest he does not have to separate ḥallah of demay.” Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Ḥananiah the colleague of the rabbis, if he is a guest for his dough. Rebbi Jonah said, only if they saw him kneading at another’s place. It is a standing assumption that from a private person in Syria one does not have to separate ḥallah of demay; but if he knows that most of what is in his storage is his own produce, he has to separate ḥallah of demay. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked, does this not disagree with Rebbi Hoshaiah? Rebbi Mana said, here in the Land, there outside the Land.

Rabban Gamliel the son of Rebbi wanted to institute demay in Syria but Rebbi Hoshaiah did not let him do it. He said to him, then Cohanim would have to worry about their ḥallah! The argument of Rebbi Hoshaiah seems inverted. There, he says the fear of sacred things is on him and he will not give to the Cohen anything that is not in order, and here he says so? Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, I am saying that he gave him that of the fire. Rebbi Mana said to him, Rebbi Hoshaiah only stated: then Cohanim would have to worry about their ḥallah! “ He who buys from a baker and from a woman who bakes to sell on the market has to separate ḥallah of demay; from a private person and if he is a guest he does not have to separate ḥallah of demay.” Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Ḥananiah the colleague of the rabbis, if he is a guest for his dough. Rebbi Jonah said, only if they saw him kneading at another’s place. It is a standing assumption that from a private person in Syria one does not have to separate ḥallah of demay; but if he knows that most of what is in his storage is his own produce, he has to separate ḥallah of demay. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked, does this not disagree with Rebbi Hoshaiah? Rebbi Mana said, here in the Land, there outside the Land.

Rabban Gamliel the son of Rebbi wanted to institute demay in Syria but Rebbi Hoshaiah did not let him do it. He said to him, then Cohanim would have to worry about their ḥallah! The argument of Rebbi Hoshaiah seems inverted. There, he says the fear of sacred things is on him and he will not give to the Cohen anything that is not in order, and here he says so? Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, I am saying that he gave him that of the fire. Rebbi Mana said to him, Rebbi Hoshaiah only stated: then Cohanim would have to worry about their ḥallah! “ He who buys from a baker and from a woman who bakes to sell on the market has to separate ḥallah of demay; from a private person and if he is a guest he does not have to separate ḥallah of demay.” Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Ḥananiah the colleague of the rabbis, if he is a guest for his dough. Rebbi Jonah said, only if they saw him kneading at another’s place. It is a standing assumption that from a private person in Syria one does not have to separate ḥallah of demay; but if he knows that most of what is in his storage is his own produce, he has to separate ḥallah of demay. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked, does this not disagree with Rebbi Hoshaiah? Rebbi Mana said, here in the Land, there outside the Land.

Rabban Gamliel the son of Rebbi wanted to institute demay in Syria but Rebbi Hoshaiah did not let him do it. He said to him, then Cohanim would have to worry about their ḥallah! The argument of Rebbi Hoshaiah seems inverted. There, he says the fear of sacred things is on him and he will not give to the Cohen anything that is not in order, and here he says so? Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, I am saying that he gave him that of the fire. Rebbi Mana said to him, Rebbi Hoshaiah only stated: then Cohanim would have to worry about their ḥallah! “ He who buys from a baker and from a woman who bakes to sell on the market has to separate ḥallah of demay; from a private person and if he is a guest he does not have to separate ḥallah of demay.” Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Ḥananiah the colleague of the rabbis, if he is a guest for his dough. Rebbi Jonah said, only if they saw him kneading at another’s place. It is a standing assumption that from a private person in Syria one does not have to separate ḥallah of demay; but if he knows that most of what is in his storage is his own produce, he has to separate ḥallah of demay. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked, does this not disagree with Rebbi Hoshaiah? Rebbi Mana said, here in the Land, there outside the Land.

“The agent”. Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: When he gathered in order to send by a third person; but if he gathered to bring them himself he cannot send them by a third person. He did not finish this; Rebbi Jonah finished this. Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Ammi, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Rebbi Hoshaiah: When he gathered in order to send by a third person; but if he gathered to bring them himself he cannot send them by a third person since all First Fruits which could become permitted by making the declaration become permitted only by making the declaration. Rebbi Mana said, even though Rebbi Yose did not say that, he said something similar: Rebbi Zeïra said to Rebbi Assi, do you remember that when the statement of Rebbi Hoshaiah was formulated, Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina said that a Mishnah disagrees: “If he designated his First Fruits and then sold his field he brings but does not make the declaration”! We upheld this if he had prior intention to sell. But did we not state: “If the tree dried up or was cut down”; that also if earlier it already was almost dry. Does making the declaration prevent? Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, where making the declaration is possible, making the declaration does not prevent. If he gathered to deliver them through a third person, would he be forbidden to deliver them through a third person because maybe he would change his mind to deliver them himself?

“The agent”. Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: When he gathered in order to send by a third person; but if he gathered to bring them himself he cannot send them by a third person. He did not finish this; Rebbi Jonah finished this. Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Ammi, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Rebbi Hoshaiah: When he gathered in order to send by a third person; but if he gathered to bring them himself he cannot send them by a third person since all First Fruits which could become permitted by making the declaration become permitted only by making the declaration. Rebbi Mana said, even though Rebbi Yose did not say that, he said something similar: Rebbi Zeïra said to Rebbi Assi, do you remember that when the statement of Rebbi Hoshaiah was formulated, Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina said that a Mishnah disagrees: “If he designated his First Fruits and then sold his field he brings but does not make the declaration”! We upheld this if he had prior intention to sell. But did we not state: “If the tree dried up or was cut down”; that also if earlier it already was almost dry. Does making the declaration prevent? Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, where making the declaration is possible, making the declaration does not prevent. If he gathered to deliver them through a third person, would he be forbidden to deliver them through a third person because maybe he would change his mind to deliver them himself?

Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Putting down prevents, making the declaration does not prevent. But did we not state: “He who eats First Fruits before the declaration was made for them”? Rav Hoshaiah, Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: That is Rebbi Aqiba’s. Rebbi Yose asked, which statement of Rebbi Aqiba? Rebbi Mana said, I heard my father state: Putting down prevents, making the declaration does not prevent; Rebbi Aqiba says, making the declaration does prevent. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Why did they say that putting down prevents? Because it applies to everybody. Rebbi Tanḥuma, Rebbi Huna in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Because it is repeated. Rebbi Abba Mari said both, one following Rebbi Jehudah, the other following the rabbis. For Rebbi Judah who said it had to be repeated, because it applies to everybody. For the rabbis who instruct that it did not need to be repeated, because it was repeated.

Rebbi Jonah said, Rav Hoshaia asked: Do proselytes from Libya have to wait three generations? Rebbi Jonah (Ben Ṣeruya) [from Bostra] said, from what we see that they call a green Egyptian bean Libyan but a dry one Egyptian, that means a proselyte from Libya has to wait three generations; it means that Libyan is identical with Egyptian. Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Hoshaiah: Practice follows the student. The words of the Sages are that all kinds of mules are one.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaiah: Until he cut two or most of two. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah says so, “[they brought him the daily sacrifice;] he cut it.”

Clarification. Rebbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina and Rebbi Hoshaiah were strolling through the synagogue of Lod. Rebbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina said to Rebbi Hoshaiah: How much money did my forefathers invest here! He answered him: How many souls did your forefathers invest here, there is no one in here who studies Torah!

Clarification. Rebbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina and Rebbi Hoshaiah were strolling through the synagogue of Lod. Rebbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina said to Rebbi Hoshaiah: How much money did my forefathers invest here! He answered him: How many souls did your forefathers invest here, there is no one in here who studies Torah!

“How the sukkah seven? If he finished eating one may not undo his sukkah but one removes his vessels after afternoon prayers in honor of the last day of the festival.” Rebbi Abba bar Cahana, Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Rav: A person must make his sukkah invalid as long as it is still day. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, a person must make Qiddush inside his house. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Samuel: If one made Qiddush in one house and changed his mind to eat in another house he must make Qiddush. Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥinena in the name of Rav (Hoshaiah): He who loves his sukkah makes Qiddush of the last holiday in his house and eats in his sukkah. Rebbi Abun said, they do not disagree. What Rav said was, if he did not have the intention to eat in another house. But what Samuel said was if he had the intention to eat in another house. Rebbi Mana said, Samuel comes like Rebbi Ḥiyya and Rebbi Hoshaiah like Rebbi Joshua ben Levi. Rebbi Immi, this implies that they disagree explicitly.

“How the sukkah seven? If he finished eating one may not undo his sukkah but one removes his vessels after afternoon prayers in honor of the last day of the festival.” Rebbi Abba bar Cahana, Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Rav: A person must make his sukkah invalid as long as it is still day. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, a person must make Qiddush inside his house. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Samuel: If one made Qiddush in one house and changed his mind to eat in another house he must make Qiddush. Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥinena in the name of Rav (Hoshaiah): He who loves his sukkah makes Qiddush of the last holiday in his house and eats in his sukkah. Rebbi Abun said, they do not disagree. What Rav said was, if he did not have the intention to eat in another house. But what Samuel said was if he had the intention to eat in another house. Rebbi Mana said, Samuel comes like Rebbi Ḥiyya and Rebbi Hoshaiah like Rebbi Joshua ben Levi. Rebbi Immi, this implies that they disagree explicitly.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody performed ḥalîṣah with his sister-in-law but she turns out to have been pregnant,” etc. If he transgressed, but not from the start. That follows the Mishnah: “The widow should not perform ḥalîṣah or have levirate until after three months.” Why can she not have ḥalîṣah immediately? As you take it, if she has a live birth, ḥalîṣah did not affect her. If she has a still birth, she holds ḥalîṣah in her hand. Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rebbi Ḥiyya, Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, that she should not need a proclamation for the priesthood. Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Jacob bar Idi, in the name of Rebbi Hoshaiah, that she should not need a proclamation for the priesthood. Rebbi Hoshaiah stated: “My levir refuses.” To the one to whom one says: perform levirate, to him one says: perform ḥalîṣah; but to the one to whom one cannot say: perform levirate, to him one cannot say: perform ḥalîṣah! What is the difference between them? If she had been acceptable and was desecrated, e. g., a widow for the High Priest or a divorcee or one who had performed ḥalîṣah for a common priest. According to him who says that she should not need a proclamation for the priesthood; that one, who does not need a proclamation for the priesthood, should have ḥalîṣah. According to him who says that to the one to whom one says: perform levirate, to him does one say: perform ḥalîṣah?

HALAKHAH: “If somebody performed ḥalîṣah with his sister-in-law but she turns out to have been pregnant,” etc. If he transgressed, but not from the start. That follows the Mishnah: “The widow should not perform ḥalîṣah or have levirate until after three months.” Why can she not have ḥalîṣah immediately? As you take it, if she has a live birth, ḥalîṣah did not affect her. If she has a still birth, she holds ḥalîṣah in her hand. Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rebbi Ḥiyya, Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, that she should not need a proclamation for the priesthood. Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Jacob bar Idi, in the name of Rebbi Hoshaiah, that she should not need a proclamation for the priesthood. Rebbi Hoshaiah stated: “My levir refuses.” To the one to whom one says: perform levirate, to him one says: perform ḥalîṣah; but to the one to whom one cannot say: perform levirate, to him one cannot say: perform ḥalîṣah! What is the difference between them? If she had been acceptable and was desecrated, e. g., a widow for the High Priest or a divorcee or one who had performed ḥalîṣah for a common priest. According to him who says that she should not need a proclamation for the priesthood; that one, who does not need a proclamation for the priesthood, should have ḥalîṣah. According to him who says that to the one to whom one says: perform levirate, to him does one say: perform ḥalîṣah?

Rebbi Abbahu, Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaiah. If there are two prohibitions and one liability to extirpation, the prohibitions split the extirpation. What is the reason? “On human flesh it may not be rubbed and in its proportions you should not make [a compound] like it.” And it is written: “A man who would compound like it”. Here are two prohibitions and one liability to extirpation. The prohibitions divide the extirpation. This follows Rebbi Ismael, since Rebbi Ismael said one infers from an argument de minore ad majus but one does not punish from an argument de minore ad majus. Where does he have that from? It comes following what Ḥizqiah stated: “If the daughter of a Cohen is desecrated by whoring.” Why does the verse say, “a man”? To include him who cohabits with his daughter’s daughter from a rape that she should be [under sentence of] burning. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, one may even understand this from the warning: “Do not desecrate your daughter.”

What means “intentional”? Rebbi Joḥanan said, anytime one mentions a woman. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, anybody one asks and he responds. Rebbi Ḥaggai said to Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, does the Rabbi remember that thirty and some Elders were up in arms against Rebbi Hoshaiah to follow the rule of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish but he did not accept it

Nathan bar Hoshiah said, one speaks about an adolescent girl, the other about an adult woman. The adolescent has a fine but nobody is flogged for her; for the adult he is flogged but pays no fine, she cannot be sold; she has no claim for shame and blemish. The rabbis of Caesarea said, explain it that she seduced him or remitted [the fine] for him. Nathan bar Hoshaiah thinks that in a case of flogging and payment he pays but is not flogged. Why should he not be flogged and have to pay? (Deut. 25:2) “Because of his guilt.” You sentence him for one offence but you may not sentence him for two offences. From perjured witnesses. Just as you say there, perjured witnesses pay but are not flogged, here also he pays and is not flogged. Rebbi Jonah said, the reason of Rebbi Nathan bar Hoshaiah: (Deut. 25:2): “For his evil deed.” It refers to one whose flogging frees him from his guilt, excluding one who is told: get up and pay.

Nathan bar Hoshiah said, one speaks about an adolescent girl, the other about an adult woman. The adolescent has a fine but nobody is flogged for her; for the adult he is flogged but pays no fine, she cannot be sold; she has no claim for shame and blemish. The rabbis of Caesarea said, explain it that she seduced him or remitted [the fine] for him. Nathan bar Hoshaiah thinks that in a case of flogging and payment he pays but is not flogged. Why should he not be flogged and have to pay? (Deut. 25:2) “Because of his guilt.” You sentence him for one offence but you may not sentence him for two offences. From perjured witnesses. Just as you say there, perjured witnesses pay but are not flogged, here also he pays and is not flogged. Rebbi Jonah said, the reason of Rebbi Nathan bar Hoshaiah: (Deut. 25:2): “For his evil deed.” It refers to one whose flogging frees him from his guilt, excluding one who is told: get up and pay.

Our Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish! “If somebody eats heave intentionally he pays the principal but not the fifth.” In the opinion of Nathan bar Hoshaiah who said he pays, it is understandable. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan who said, if he was cautioned he is flogged, but if he was not cautioned he pays, he explains it as intentional without cautioning. In the opinion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish there is no difference between intentional and unintentional, between cautioned or not cautioned. He explains following Rebbi Meïr who says, he is flogged and he pays.

Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina: One who rapes or seduces an orphan is free. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, this is in dispute; following Rebbi Yose the Galilean. But following Rebbi Aqiba a fine is due, and the fine belongs to herself. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah says so: “She has neither a door to her father’s house nor 100 tetradrachmas;” is she not like an orphan? Rebbi Immi and Rebbi Joshua ben Levi both say, one who calumniates an underage girl is free. Rebbi Hoshaiah said, that is correct. If she were an adult who was not warned, would there be any case? And an underage girl who was warned is like an adult who was not warned.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody causes a vow of his wife that she should not adorn herself,” etc. Rav Huna said, so is the Mishnah: “Among the poor if he did not give a time limit.” Ulla bar Ismael said, among the poor if he did not give a time limit; but if he gave a time limit even if it were for ten years it is permitted, for no fox dies if he gets dusty from his lair. Nathan bar Hoshaiah said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Except holidays.

“That I will not eat from yours, that I will not taste from yours.” Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaiah. One catches him because of a handle for qorbān. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked, if he said, I shall not eat from you, does one catch him because of a handle of an oath? Rebbi Yose said, people usually say “handle of an axe”, do they ever say “axe of a handle”?

“I am” is a handle for nezirut, “I am obligated” is a handle for qorban. Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaiah: one catches him because of a handle for qorbān. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked, if he said, I shall not eat from you, does one catch him because of a handle of an oath? Rebbi Yose said, people usually say “an oath that I shall not eat from yours;” do they ever say “that I shall not eat from yours, an oath”? Rebbi Mattaniah said, people usually say “handle of an axe”; do they ever say “axe of a handle”?

HALAKHAH: “If the minor received it and became an adult,” etc. There came a case before Rebbi Immi that a slave brought a bill of divorce; [he declared it] valid. Rebbi Abba said to him, did not Rebbi Ḥiyya state that if a slave brought a bill of divorce, it would be invalid? Rebbi Assi said, if not for Rebbi Abba, we would have permitted a married woman! Even if you say that Rebbi Assi did not accept what Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, did he not accept what the rabbis said? Let us hear from the following which Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rebbi Ḥiyya said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It is reasonable that a slave could accept a bill of manumission [for delivery] but he should not accept [a bill of divorce] as we do. They thought, he formulated “he should not accept,” therefore, if he transgressed and accepted, it would be valid. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rav Hoshaiah: It happened that she was a Cohen’s wife and they were not afraid of a hint of invalidity.

But are her garden and her courtyard not subject to her husband’s having the usufruct? Rebbi Joshua in the name of Rebbi Yannai: Only if he writes to her, “I have nothing to do with your properties.” Rebbi Isaac bar Ḥaqulah in the name of Rebbi Hoshaiah: Even if he did not write to her, “I have nothing to do with your properties.” It turns out that Rebbi Yannai follows the rabbis and Rebbi Hoshaiah follows Rebbi Meїr. Rebbi Yannai follows the rabbis, for the rabbis say, even though the slave’s hand is his master’s hand, he can acquire his document of manumission from [his master’s] hand. But her garden and her courtyard are subject to her husband’s having the usufruct unless he writes to her, “I have nothing to do with your properties.” It is difficult for the rabbis: since the slave’s hand is his master’s hand, how can he acquire his document of manumission from [his master’s] hand? Rebbi Hoshaiah follows Rebbi Meїr, for Rebbi Meїr said since the wife’s hand is not her husband’s hand, she can acquire her bill of divorce from her husband. Her garden and her courtyard will not be subject to her husband, even if he has the usufruct, even if he did not write to her, “I have nothing to do with your properties.” If he inherited properties together with her, even if he wrote it is as if he did not write; [for example] if he had married his brother’s daughter, even if he wrote it is as if he did not write. If another person gave her a gift and told her, on condition that your husband have no rights to it, but it is for you to trade on your own account, then even if he did not write it is as if he wrote.

But are her garden and her courtyard not subject to her husband’s having the usufruct? Rebbi Joshua in the name of Rebbi Yannai: Only if he writes to her, “I have nothing to do with your properties.” Rebbi Isaac bar Ḥaqulah in the name of Rebbi Hoshaiah: Even if he did not write to her, “I have nothing to do with your properties.” It turns out that Rebbi Yannai follows the rabbis and Rebbi Hoshaiah follows Rebbi Meїr. Rebbi Yannai follows the rabbis, for the rabbis say, even though the slave’s hand is his master’s hand, he can acquire his document of manumission from [his master’s] hand. But her garden and her courtyard are subject to her husband’s having the usufruct unless he writes to her, “I have nothing to do with your properties.” It is difficult for the rabbis: since the slave’s hand is his master’s hand, how can he acquire his document of manumission from [his master’s] hand? Rebbi Hoshaiah follows Rebbi Meїr, for Rebbi Meїr said since the wife’s hand is not her husband’s hand, she can acquire her bill of divorce from her husband. Her garden and her courtyard will not be subject to her husband, even if he has the usufruct, even if he did not write to her, “I have nothing to do with your properties.” If he inherited properties together with her, even if he wrote it is as if he did not write; [for example] if he had married his brother’s daughter, even if he wrote it is as if he did not write. If another person gave her a gift and told her, on condition that your husband have no rights to it, but it is for you to trade on your own account, then even if he did not write it is as if he wrote.

But are her garden and her courtyard not subject to her husband’s having the usufruct? Rebbi Joshua in the name of Rebbi Yannai: Only if he writes to her, “I have nothing to do with your properties.” Rebbi Isaac bar Ḥaqulah in the name of Rebbi Hoshaiah: Even if he did not write to her, “I have nothing to do with your properties.” It turns out that Rebbi Yannai follows the rabbis and Rebbi Hoshaiah follows Rebbi Meїr. Rebbi Yannai follows the rabbis, for the rabbis say, even though the slave’s hand is his master’s hand, he can acquire his document of manumission from [his master’s] hand. But her garden and her courtyard are subject to her husband’s having the usufruct unless he writes to her, “I have nothing to do with your properties.” It is difficult for the rabbis: since the slave’s hand is his master’s hand, how can he acquire his document of manumission from [his master’s] hand? Rebbi Hoshaiah follows Rebbi Meїr, for Rebbi Meїr said since the wife’s hand is not her husband’s hand, she can acquire her bill of divorce from her husband. Her garden and her courtyard will not be subject to her husband, even if he has the usufruct, even if he did not write to her, “I have nothing to do with your properties.” If he inherited properties together with her, even if he wrote it is as if he did not write; [for example] if he had married his brother’s daughter, even if he wrote it is as if he did not write. If another person gave her a gift and told her, on condition that your husband have no rights to it, but it is for you to trade on your own account, then even if he did not write it is as if he wrote.

Ulla bar Ismael said, he never thought to have a right to her wool basket. Think of it, if her wool basket was of gold? Certainly he never thought to have a right to her wool basket. Rebbi Joḥanan said, only if it is being used. Rebbi Yose said, only if she is using it at that moment. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, if it is tied to her; Rebbi Yose said, if she lifts it for her purpose. Rebbi Hoshaiah stated in support of Rebbi Joḥanan: Even if he threw it into her maloš she is divorced.

Rebbi Jonah said that Rebbi Hoshaiah asked: What are we talking about? If this was within four cubits from him, he was rich. If it was outside of four cubits, may anybody dedicate anything that is not his? We confirmed it if he dedicated it piece by piece.

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

“His wife’s find after he divorced her.” Rebbi Yosana in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: A man who divorced his wife without paying her ketubah is liable for her upkeep until he gave her the last penny. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah says this, “his wife’s find after he divorced her.” Rebbi Hoshaiah said, the Mishnah is needed lest you say that because he is liable for her upkeep until he gave her the last penny, her find should be his.

So far a daughter. A son? Since the daughter, whose power is diminished regarding the father’s property, has her power increased regarding the mother’s property, should the son’s power not be increased regarding the mother’s property, since his power is increased regarding the father’s property? It turns out that for the daughter one infers from the verse and for the son from an argument de minore ad majus. Does the son precede the daughter? Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar said in the name of Rebbi Zachariah the butcher’s son: So did Rebbi Simeon ben Jehudah say in the name of Rebbi Simeon: Both son and daughter are equal for the mother’s tribe Rebbi Mallukh in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Practice follows Rebbi Zachariah. Rebbi Yannai the Kappadokian had a case; the judges were Rav Huna, Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi, and Rebbi Aḥa. Rebbi Aḥa told them: Our brothers outside the Land are unqualified and err in practice; in particular they rely on Rebbi Mallukh in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, but it is not so. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Practice does not follow Rebbi Zachariah. Rebbi Abba the son of Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Practice does not follow Rebbi Zachariah. Rebbi Eleazar the father of Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Hoshaiah: Practice does not follow Rebbi Zachariah. Rebbi Yannai and Rebbi Joḥanan were sitting when Rebbi Yudan the Prince came and asked concerning: “Any daughter who is an heiress of the tribes,” what is the rule? He said to him, it binds the father’s tribe together with the mother’s tribe. Since from the father’s tribe there is nothing for the daughter when there is a son, so also from the mother’s tribe there is nothing for the daughter when there is a son. Or is it the other way around? Since from the mother’s tribe there is something for the daughter when there is a son, so also from the father’s tribe is there something for the daughter when there is a son? Rebbi Joḥanan said to him, let us leave; that man does not want to listen to words of instruction.

Rebbi Huna in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: The י which the Holy One, praise to Him, lifted from our mother Sarah was given half to Sarah and half to Abraham. Rebbi Hoshaiah stated: The י ascended, bowed down before the Holy One, praise to Him, and said to Him: Master of the Universes, you uprooted me from this just woman! The Holy One, praise to Him, said to him: leave. In the past you were the last letter of a woman’s name. By your life, I shall make you the first letter of a man’s name. That is what is written: Moses called Hoshea bin Nun Yehoshua.

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

Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: In every situation in which the Sages said that her husband would be obligated for a sacrifice, pure food became impure; her husband would be exempt from a sacrifice, pure food remains pure; her husband would have to bring a sacrifice for a doubt, pure food is in limbo. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac asked: If an old man and a child walk in a dining room, does the old man not enter first? But the child can come and make a fool of him. Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Yudan: I say, it was here but the intercourse stopped it from leaving; but there, what hindered it to leave? The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Hoshaiah: “If she left [the bed] and saw blood, she is impure but all the food is pure.” The Mishnah disagrees with Bar Pedaiah: “Rebbi Jehudah says, also when they stop eating heave.” Why? Not that if she would bleed, the food should not retroactively become impure? Rebbi Ezra said before Rebbi Mana: Explain it for a woman who has no regular period. He said to him, so says my teacher Rebbi Yose: All that is described here is about a woman who has a regular period. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, the Mishnah rises: Up to this point [it speaks] about a woman who has a regular period; from there on about a woman who has no regular period. But even if you say that the Mishnah does not rise, and we deal only with a woman who has a regular period, where does Bar Pedaiah hold? One differs with Rebbi Jehudah.

Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rav: If she checked herself with an unchecked hand or if she hit hard with her body on her genitals, the presumption is that her body was checked. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, the Mishnah says so: “If it was found on his [cloth], they are impure and obligated for a sacrifice.” Does that not mean that there is a presumption that the body was checked? Rebbi Ḥanina said, explain it if he had checked himself. Rebbi Ze‘ira was offended. Do people do that? Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of Rav Jeremiah: Up to a broken bean she hangs it, more than that its needs an explanation. They said, Rav Jeremiah retracted this. They said, he retracted it when he was informed of the words of the rabbis. Rebbi praised Rebbi Ḥama, the father of Rebbi Hoshaiah, before Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose. Rebbi Ḥama, the father of Rebbi Hoshaiah, asked before Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose: If she checked herself with an unchecked hand or if she hit hard with her body on her genitals? He said to him, according to him are you asking me? Following the teacher or following the student? My father said, a stain. But Rebbi said, an episode of bleeding. He said to him: That is the one of whom you are proud? Rebbi Ze‘ira said, it profits a man to learn his own teacher’s reasons.

Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rav: If she checked herself with an unchecked hand or if she hit hard with her body on her genitals, the presumption is that her body was checked. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, the Mishnah says so: “If it was found on his [cloth], they are impure and obligated for a sacrifice.” Does that not mean that there is a presumption that the body was checked? Rebbi Ḥanina said, explain it if he had checked himself. Rebbi Ze‘ira was offended. Do people do that? Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of Rav Jeremiah: Up to a broken bean she hangs it, more than that its needs an explanation. They said, Rav Jeremiah retracted this. They said, he retracted it when he was informed of the words of the rabbis. Rebbi praised Rebbi Ḥama, the father of Rebbi Hoshaiah, before Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose. Rebbi Ḥama, the father of Rebbi Hoshaiah, asked before Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose: If she checked herself with an unchecked hand or if she hit hard with her body on her genitals? He said to him, according to him are you asking me? Following the teacher or following the student? My father said, a stain. But Rebbi said, an episode of bleeding. He said to him: That is the one of whom you are proud? Rebbi Ze‘ira said, it profits a man to learn his own teacher’s reasons.

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

“And like mixed wine.” Abba bar Ḥana in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: As one sees a cup of mixed wine from the outside. They wanted to say, in a Tiberian cup. Rebbi Eudaimon from Sepphoris said before Rebbi Mana: As in a small phial whose walls do not cast a shadow. Samuel said, anybody who has no experience in seeing kinds of pure blood should not judge kinds of impure blood. Rav said, only if he is competent about them and their names. The words of Rebbi Joḥanan say so: I know all kinds of pure blood and of impure blood. The pure is the most red; the impure is like earth water. “If he has no experience,” therefore, if he has experience he can judge it. In addition, from what we have stated: clear but not turbid. Rebbi Ḥanina used it turbid. They said before Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi Ḥanina uses it turbid, but you said, not turbid. He said to them, Rebbi Ḥanina drinks old [wine], Rebbi Joḥanan does not drink old [wine], Rebbi Ḥanina drinks oldest [wine]. Rebbi Hoshaiah said: Since Rebbi Hoshaiah’s eye is full of happenings, even turbid is not disqualified for him. Rebbi Shammai in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: Rebbi Ḥanina estimated with a lump of earth. Rebbi Abun, Rebbi Shammai in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: Since we know that Rebbi Ḥanina is competent, do we follow his precedents? Rebbi Ḥanina was living in Sepphoris, they brought cases before him and he decided on the basis of three precedents. Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish were there but he did not invite them to sit with him. They said, the old man is a Sage since his irons are sharp! Once he invited them to sit with him. They said, for what reason do you take notice of us this time? He said, so should come over me if I had not heard every single case from Rebbi in theory as many times as there are hairs on my head, and in a practical way three times; but the present case did come before Rebbi only twice. Therefore, I adjoined you with me.

“And like mixed wine.” Abba bar Ḥana in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: As one sees a cup of mixed wine from the outside. They wanted to say, in a Tiberian cup. Rebbi Eudaimon from Sepphoris said before Rebbi Mana: As in a small phial whose walls do not cast a shadow. Samuel said, anybody who has no experience in seeing kinds of pure blood should not judge kinds of impure blood. Rav said, only if he is competent about them and their names. The words of Rebbi Joḥanan say so: I know all kinds of pure blood and of impure blood. The pure is the most red; the impure is like earth water. “If he has no experience,” therefore, if he has experience he can judge it. In addition, from what we have stated: clear but not turbid. Rebbi Ḥanina used it turbid. They said before Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi Ḥanina uses it turbid, but you said, not turbid. He said to them, Rebbi Ḥanina drinks old [wine], Rebbi Joḥanan does not drink old [wine], Rebbi Ḥanina drinks oldest [wine]. Rebbi Hoshaiah said: Since Rebbi Hoshaiah’s eye is full of happenings, even turbid is not disqualified for him. Rebbi Shammai in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: Rebbi Ḥanina estimated with a lump of earth. Rebbi Abun, Rebbi Shammai in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: Since we know that Rebbi Ḥanina is competent, do we follow his precedents? Rebbi Ḥanina was living in Sepphoris, they brought cases before him and he decided on the basis of three precedents. Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish were there but he did not invite them to sit with him. They said, the old man is a Sage since his irons are sharp! Once he invited them to sit with him. They said, for what reason do you take notice of us this time? He said, so should come over me if I had not heard every single case from Rebbi in theory as many times as there are hairs on my head, and in a practical way three times; but the present case did come before Rebbi only twice. Therefore, I adjoined you with me.