householder

So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares?

Then said he unto them, Therefore every scribe which is instructed unto the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is an householder, which bringeth forth out of his treasure things new and old.

For the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is an householder, which went out early in the morning to hire labourers into his vineyard.

Hear another parable: There was a certain householder, which planted a vineyard, and hedged it round about, and digged a winepress in it, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country:

A householder acquired everything, whether child or slave or cattle or dog or pig or wheat [or] barley or straw or hay or […] or meat and acorn. [But they're] wise and understand what to feed each [one]. To the children they served bread […] but [… the] slaves they served […], and to the cattle [they threw barley] and straw and hay. To [the] dogs they threw bones [and] to [the pigs] they threw acorns and slops. That's what it's like with the disciple of God. If they're wise, they understand what it means to be a disciple. The bodily forms won't deceive them, but they'll look at the condition of the soul of each one and speak with them. There are many animals in the world that are made in human form. They (the disciple) recognizes them. To the pigs they'll throw acorns, but to the cattle they'll throw barley with straw and hay. To the dogs they'll throw bones, to the slaves they'll give the appetizer, and to the children they'll give the perfect (food).

They are trusted concerning raw vegetables, but they are not trusted concerning are cooked ones, unless he has only a little bit, for so it was the custom of a householder to take out of his stew-pot [and give a little to the poor].

For Rabbi Meir used to say: anything that is normally [sold] by counting causes [a mixture] to become consecrated [in even the smallest amount]. But the sages say only six things consecrate [a mixture in even the smallest amount], and Rabbi Akiba says seven [things]. And these are they: Nuts with soft shells; badan pomegranates; stopped-up casks; beet shoots; cabbage-heads; Greek pumpkins. Rabbi Akiba says: also loaves [baked by] a householder. To those to which orlah applies [they prohibit the mixture] as orlah, [to those of which] kilayim of the vineyard apply [they prohibit the mixture as] kilayim of the vineyard.

The carryings out of Shabbat are two which are four from the inside, and two which are four from the outside. How is this so? The poor man stands outside and the householder stands inside: If the poor man reaches his hand inside and places [something] into the hand of the householder, or if he takes [something] from it and carries it out, the poor man is liable, and the householder is exempt. If the householder reaches his hand outside and places [an object] in the poor man's hand, or takes [something] and carries it in, the master is liable, while the poor man is exempt. If the poor man reaches his hand inside and the master takes [an object] from it, or places [an object] in it and he carries it out, both are exempt; If the householder stretches his hand outside and the poor man takes [an object] from it, or places [an article] in it and he carries it inside, both are exempt.

The carryings out of Shabbat are two which are four from the inside, and two which are four from the outside. How is this so? The poor man stands outside and the householder stands inside: If the poor man reaches his hand inside and places [something] into the hand of the householder, or if he takes [something] from it and carries it out, the poor man is liable, and the householder is exempt. If the householder reaches his hand outside and places [an object] in the poor man's hand, or takes [something] and carries it in, the master is liable, while the poor man is exempt. If the poor man reaches his hand inside and the master takes [an object] from it, or places [an object] in it and he carries it out, both are exempt; If the householder stretches his hand outside and the poor man takes [an object] from it, or places [an article] in it and he carries it inside, both are exempt.

The carryings out of Shabbat are two which are four from the inside, and two which are four from the outside. How is this so? The poor man stands outside and the householder stands inside: If the poor man reaches his hand inside and places [something] into the hand of the householder, or if he takes [something] from it and carries it out, the poor man is liable, and the householder is exempt. If the householder reaches his hand outside and places [an object] in the poor man's hand, or takes [something] and carries it in, the master is liable, while the poor man is exempt. If the poor man reaches his hand inside and the master takes [an object] from it, or places [an object] in it and he carries it out, both are exempt; If the householder stretches his hand outside and the poor man takes [an object] from it, or places [an article] in it and he carries it inside, both are exempt.

The carryings out of Shabbat are two which are four from the inside, and two which are four from the outside. How is this so? The poor man stands outside and the householder stands inside: If the poor man reaches his hand inside and places [something] into the hand of the householder, or if he takes [something] from it and carries it out, the poor man is liable, and the householder is exempt. If the householder reaches his hand outside and places [an object] in the poor man's hand, or takes [something] and carries it in, the master is liable, while the poor man is exempt. If the poor man reaches his hand inside and the master takes [an object] from it, or places [an object] in it and he carries it out, both are exempt; If the householder stretches his hand outside and the poor man takes [an object] from it, or places [an article] in it and he carries it inside, both are exempt.

The carryings out of Shabbat are two which are four from the inside, and two which are four from the outside. How is this so? The poor man stands outside and the householder stands inside: If the poor man reaches his hand inside and places [something] into the hand of the householder, or if he takes [something] from it and carries it out, the poor man is liable, and the householder is exempt. If the householder reaches his hand outside and places [an object] in the poor man's hand, or takes [something] and carries it in, the master is liable, while the poor man is exempt. If the poor man reaches his hand inside and the master takes [an object] from it, or places [an object] in it and he carries it out, both are exempt; If the householder stretches his hand outside and the poor man takes [an object] from it, or places [an article] in it and he carries it inside, both are exempt.

The straw [lying] upon a bed one may not move it with his hand, but he may move it with his body. But if it is animal feed, or a pillow or a sheet was upon it [on the eve of Shabbat], he may move it with his hand. A householder’s clothes press one may undo it, but not force it down. But a launderer’s [press] one may not touch it. Rabbi Judah says: if it was undone before Shabbat, one may unfasten the whole and remove it.

A householder who was in partnership with his neighbors: with this one in wine and with the other in wine, they need not prepare an eruv. But if his partnership was with the one in wine and with the other in oil, they must make an eruv. Rabbi Shimon says: neither in the one case nor in the other need they make an eruv.

If one put his eruv in a gate-house, a portico or a gallery it is not a valid eruv; And one who dwells in it does not prohibit [others from carrying if he doesn’t participate in the eruv]. [If one put his eruv] in a straw-shed, a cattle-shed, a wood-shed or storehouse it is a valid eruv; And one who dwells in it prohibits [others from carrying if he doesn’t participate in the eruv]. Rabbi Judah says: if the householder has there any ownership the resident does not prohibit.

A man may say [on Yom Tov] to his fellow, “Fill me this vessel,” but not in a specific measure. Rabbi Judah says: if it was a measuring-vessel he may not fill it. It happened that Abba Shaul ben Batnit used to fill up his measures on the eve of Yom Tov and give them to his customers on Yom Tov. Abba Shaul says: he used to do so even during hol hamoed (the intermediate days of the festival), on account of clarifying the measures. But the sages say: he used also to do so on an ordinary day for the sake of the draining of the measures. A man may go to a shopkeeper to whom he generally goes and say to him, “Give me [so many] eggs and nuts” since this is the way of a householder to reckon in his own home.

If orphans relied on a householder or if their father appointed a guardian for them, he must tithe their produce. A guardian who was appointed by the father of the orphans is required to take an oath. [A guardian who was] appointed by the court does not need to take an oath. Abba Shaul says that the rule is the reverse. One who renders impure [someone else’s pure food] or mixes terumah [with someone else’s non-terumah produce] or makes a libation [with someone else’s wine], if he does so inadvertently, he is exempt, but if intentionally he is liable. Priests who intentionally made someone else’s sacrifice piggul in the Temple are liable.

If a potter brought his pots into the courtyard of a householder without permission, and the householder’s cattle broke them, the householder is not liable. And if the cattle were injured by them (by the pots) the owner of the pots is liable. But if he brought them in by permission the owner of the courtyard is liable. If a man brought his produce into the courtyard of a householder without permission, and the householder’s cattle ate it, the householder is not liable. And if the cattle were injured by it (by the produce) the owner of the produce is liable. But if he brought it in by permission the owner of the courtyard is liable.

If a potter brought his pots into the courtyard of a householder without permission, and the householder’s cattle broke them, the householder is not liable. And if the cattle were injured by them (by the pots) the owner of the pots is liable. But if he brought them in by permission the owner of the courtyard is liable. If a man brought his produce into the courtyard of a householder without permission, and the householder’s cattle ate it, the householder is not liable. And if the cattle were injured by it (by the produce) the owner of the produce is liable. But if he brought it in by permission the owner of the courtyard is liable.

If a potter brought his pots into the courtyard of a householder without permission, and the householder’s cattle broke them, the householder is not liable. And if the cattle were injured by them (by the pots) the owner of the pots is liable. But if he brought them in by permission the owner of the courtyard is liable. If a man brought his produce into the courtyard of a householder without permission, and the householder’s cattle ate it, the householder is not liable. And if the cattle were injured by it (by the produce) the owner of the produce is liable. But if he brought it in by permission the owner of the courtyard is liable.

If a potter brought his pots into the courtyard of a householder without permission, and the householder’s cattle broke them, the householder is not liable. And if the cattle were injured by them (by the pots) the owner of the pots is liable. But if he brought them in by permission the owner of the courtyard is liable. If a man brought his produce into the courtyard of a householder without permission, and the householder’s cattle ate it, the householder is not liable. And if the cattle were injured by it (by the produce) the owner of the produce is liable. But if he brought it in by permission the owner of the courtyard is liable.

If a potter brought his pots into the courtyard of a householder without permission, and the householder’s cattle broke them, the householder is not liable. And if the cattle were injured by them (by the pots) the owner of the pots is liable. But if he brought them in by permission the owner of the courtyard is liable. If a man brought his produce into the courtyard of a householder without permission, and the householder’s cattle ate it, the householder is not liable. And if the cattle were injured by it (by the produce) the owner of the produce is liable. But if he brought it in by permission the owner of the courtyard is liable.

If a potter brought his pots into the courtyard of a householder without permission, and the householder’s cattle broke them, the householder is not liable. And if the cattle were injured by them (by the pots) the owner of the pots is liable. But if he brought them in by permission the owner of the courtyard is liable. If a man brought his produce into the courtyard of a householder without permission, and the householder’s cattle ate it, the householder is not liable. And if the cattle were injured by it (by the produce) the owner of the produce is liable. But if he brought it in by permission the owner of the courtyard is liable.

If a man brought his ox into the courtyard of a householder without permission and the householder’s ox gored it or the householder’s dog bit it, the householder is not liable. If it gored the householder's ox, [its owner] is liable. If [the first man’s ox] fell into [the householder’s] cistern and polluted its water, he is liable. If [the householder’s] father or son was in [the cistern and it killed them] the ox’s owner must pay the ransom price. But if he had brought his ox in by permission the owner of the courtyard is liable. Rabbi says: “In no case is [the householder] liable unless he had agreed to watch over it.

If a man brought his ox into the courtyard of a householder without permission and the householder’s ox gored it or the householder’s dog bit it, the householder is not liable. If it gored the householder's ox, [its owner] is liable. If [the first man’s ox] fell into [the householder’s] cistern and polluted its water, he is liable. If [the householder’s] father or son was in [the cistern and it killed them] the ox’s owner must pay the ransom price. But if he had brought his ox in by permission the owner of the courtyard is liable. Rabbi says: “In no case is [the householder] liable unless he had agreed to watch over it.

If a man brought his ox into the courtyard of a householder without permission and the householder’s ox gored it or the householder’s dog bit it, the householder is not liable. If it gored the householder's ox, [its owner] is liable. If [the first man’s ox] fell into [the householder’s] cistern and polluted its water, he is liable. If [the householder’s] father or son was in [the cistern and it killed them] the ox’s owner must pay the ransom price. But if he had brought his ox in by permission the owner of the courtyard is liable. Rabbi says: “In no case is [the householder] liable unless he had agreed to watch over it.

If a man brought his ox into the courtyard of a householder without permission and the householder’s ox gored it or the householder’s dog bit it, the householder is not liable. If it gored the householder's ox, [its owner] is liable. If [the first man’s ox] fell into [the householder’s] cistern and polluted its water, he is liable. If [the householder’s] father or son was in [the cistern and it killed them] the ox’s owner must pay the ransom price. But if he had brought his ox in by permission the owner of the courtyard is liable. Rabbi says: “In no case is [the householder] liable unless he had agreed to watch over it.

If a man brought his ox into the courtyard of a householder without permission and the householder’s ox gored it or the householder’s dog bit it, the householder is not liable. If it gored the householder's ox, [its owner] is liable. If [the first man’s ox] fell into [the householder’s] cistern and polluted its water, he is liable. If [the householder’s] father or son was in [the cistern and it killed them] the ox’s owner must pay the ransom price. But if he had brought his ox in by permission the owner of the courtyard is liable. Rabbi says: “In no case is [the householder] liable unless he had agreed to watch over it.

If a man brought his ox into the courtyard of a householder without permission and the householder’s ox gored it or the householder’s dog bit it, the householder is not liable. If it gored the householder's ox, [its owner] is liable. If [the first man’s ox] fell into [the householder’s] cistern and polluted its water, he is liable. If [the householder’s] father or son was in [the cistern and it killed them] the ox’s owner must pay the ransom price. But if he had brought his ox in by permission the owner of the courtyard is liable. Rabbi says: “In no case is [the householder] liable unless he had agreed to watch over it.

If a man brought his ox into the courtyard of a householder without permission and the householder’s ox gored it or the householder’s dog bit it, the householder is not liable. If it gored the householder's ox, [its owner] is liable. If [the first man’s ox] fell into [the householder’s] cistern and polluted its water, he is liable. If [the householder’s] father or son was in [the cistern and it killed them] the ox’s owner must pay the ransom price. But if he had brought his ox in by permission the owner of the courtyard is liable. Rabbi says: “In no case is [the householder] liable unless he had agreed to watch over it.

Shreds of wool which the laundryman pulls out belong to him, but those which the woolcomber pull out belong to the householder. If the laundryman pulled out three threads, they belong to him, but if more than this they belong to the householder. If there were black threads among the white, he may take them all and they are his. If the tailor left over thread sufficient to sew with or a piece of cloth three fingerbreadths by three fingerbreadths, these belong to the householder. What a carpenter takes off with a plane belongs to him; but what [he takes off] with a hatchet belongs to the householder. And if he was working in the householder’s domain, even the sawdust belongs to the householder.

Shreds of wool which the laundryman pulls out belong to him, but those which the woolcomber pull out belong to the householder. If the laundryman pulled out three threads, they belong to him, but if more than this they belong to the householder. If there were black threads among the white, he may take them all and they are his. If the tailor left over thread sufficient to sew with or a piece of cloth three fingerbreadths by three fingerbreadths, these belong to the householder. What a carpenter takes off with a plane belongs to him; but what [he takes off] with a hatchet belongs to the householder. And if he was working in the householder’s domain, even the sawdust belongs to the householder.

Shreds of wool which the laundryman pulls out belong to him, but those which the woolcomber pull out belong to the householder. If the laundryman pulled out three threads, they belong to him, but if more than this they belong to the householder. If there were black threads among the white, he may take them all and they are his. If the tailor left over thread sufficient to sew with or a piece of cloth three fingerbreadths by three fingerbreadths, these belong to the householder. What a carpenter takes off with a plane belongs to him; but what [he takes off] with a hatchet belongs to the householder. And if he was working in the householder’s domain, even the sawdust belongs to the householder.

Shreds of wool which the laundryman pulls out belong to him, but those which the woolcomber pull out belong to the householder. If the laundryman pulled out three threads, they belong to him, but if more than this they belong to the householder. If there were black threads among the white, he may take them all and they are his. If the tailor left over thread sufficient to sew with or a piece of cloth three fingerbreadths by three fingerbreadths, these belong to the householder. What a carpenter takes off with a plane belongs to him; but what [he takes off] with a hatchet belongs to the householder. And if he was working in the householder’s domain, even the sawdust belongs to the householder.

Shreds of wool which the laundryman pulls out belong to him, but those which the woolcomber pull out belong to the householder. If the laundryman pulled out three threads, they belong to him, but if more than this they belong to the householder. If there were black threads among the white, he may take them all and they are his. If the tailor left over thread sufficient to sew with or a piece of cloth three fingerbreadths by three fingerbreadths, these belong to the householder. What a carpenter takes off with a plane belongs to him; but what [he takes off] with a hatchet belongs to the householder. And if he was working in the householder’s domain, even the sawdust belongs to the householder.

Shreds of wool which the laundryman pulls out belong to him, but those which the woolcomber pull out belong to the householder. If the laundryman pulled out three threads, they belong to him, but if more than this they belong to the householder. If there were black threads among the white, he may take them all and they are his. If the tailor left over thread sufficient to sew with or a piece of cloth three fingerbreadths by three fingerbreadths, these belong to the householder. What a carpenter takes off with a plane belongs to him; but what [he takes off] with a hatchet belongs to the householder. And if he was working in the householder’s domain, even the sawdust belongs to the householder.

If a man found pigeons tied together behind a fence or a hedge or on footpaths in the fields, he may not touch them. If he found an object in the dungheap and it was covered up he may not touch it, but if it was exposed he should take it and proclaim. If he found it in a pile of stones or in an old wall it belongs to him. If he found it in a new wall and it was on the outside [of the wall] it belongs to him. If it was on the inner side it belongs to the householder. But if the house had been hired to others, even if a man found something within the house, it belongs to him.

If a man left coins with a money-changer: If they were tied up [in a bag], he may not use them. Therefore, if they were lost, he is not responsible. If they were loose, he may use they were. Therefore, they were was lost, he is responsible. [If a man left coins] with a householder, Whether they were loose or tied up, he may not use them. Therefore, if they were lost he his not responsible. A shopkeeper is like a householder, according to Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah says a shopkeeper is like a money-changer.

If a man left coins with a money-changer: If they were tied up [in a bag], he may not use them. Therefore, if they were lost, he is not responsible. If they were loose, he may use they were. Therefore, they were was lost, he is responsible. [If a man left coins] with a householder, Whether they were loose or tied up, he may not use them. Therefore, if they were lost he his not responsible. A shopkeeper is like a householder, according to Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah says a shopkeeper is like a money-changer.

If one hired craftsmen and they retracted, they are at a disadvantage. If the householder (the employer) retracted he is at a disadvantage. Whosoever changes [the conditions of a contract] is at a disadvantage. And anyone who retracts is at a disadvantage.

The wholesaler must clean out his measures once every thirty days and the householder once every twelve months. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: “The rule is just the opposite.” The shopkeeper must clean out his measures twice in the week and polish his weights once a week and clean out his scales after every weighing.

If a man threw a stone into the public domain and killed a person, he goes into banishment. Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob says: “If after the stone had left his hand another person put out his head and caught it, the thrower is exempt [from banishment].” If a man threw a stone into his [own] court and killed a person, then, if the victim had a right of entry there, the thrower goes into banishment, and if not, he does not go into banishment, as it says, “As when a man goes into the forest with his neighbor” (Deut. 19:5): the forest is a domain accessible to the victim and to the slayer and it therefore excludes the court of the householder where the victim has no right of entry. Abba Shaul says: “Hewing of wood is an optional act and it therefore excludes a father beating his son, or a master disciplining his pupil, or an agent of the court [administering lashes].”

The fire-basket of a householder which was lessened by less than three handbreadths is susceptible to impurity because when it is heated from below a pot above would still boil. If [it was lessened] to a lower depth it is not susceptible to impurity. If subsequently a stone or gravel was put into it, it is still not susceptible to impurity. If it was plastered over with clay, it may contract impurity from that point and onwards. This was Rabbi Judah's reply in connection with the oven that was placed over the mouth of a cistern or over that of a cellar.

The beam of a wool-combers’ balance is susceptible to impurity on account of the hooks. And that of a householder, if it has hooks is also susceptible to impurity. The hooks of porters are clean but those of peddlers are susceptible to impurity. Rabbi Judah says: in the case of the peddlers' [hooks], [the hook] that is in front is susceptible to impurity but that which is behind is clean. The hook of a couch is susceptible to impurity but that of bed poles is clean. [The hook of] a chest is susceptible to impurity but that of a fish trap is clean. That of a table is susceptible to impurity but that of a wooden candlestick is clean. This is the general rule: any hook that is attached to a susceptible vessel is susceptible to impurity, but one that is attached to a vessel that is not susceptible to impurity is clean. All these, however, are by themselves clean.

Vessels of wood, leather, bone or glass: those that are flat are clean and those that form a receptacle are susceptible to impurity. If they are broken they become clean again. If one remade them into vessels they are susceptible to impurity henceforth. A chest, a box, a cupboard, a straw basket, a reed basket, or the tank of an Alexandrian ship, that have flat bottoms and can hold a minimum of forty se'ah in liquid measure which represent two kor in dry measure, are clean. All other vessels whether they can contain the minimum or cannot contain it, are susceptible to impurity, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah says: the tub of a wagon, the food chests of kings, the tanners trough, the tank of a small ship, and an ark, even though they are able to contain the minimum, are susceptible to impurity, since they are intended to be moved about with their contents. As to all other vessels, those that can contain the minimum are clean and those that cannot contain it are susceptible to impurity. There is no difference between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Judah except a baking trough which belongs to a householder.

The container of the flour-dealers’ sifter is susceptible to impurity, but the one of a householder is clean. Rabbi Judah says: also one that is used by a hairdresser is susceptible to impurity as a seat, since girls sit in it when their hair is dressed.

All [wooden] vessels that belong to householder [become clean if the holes in them are] the size of pomegranates. Rabbi Eliezer says: [the size of the hole depends] on what it is used for. Gardeners’ vegetable baskets [become clean if the holes in them are] the size of bundles of vegetables. Baskets of householders [become clean if the holes in them are] the size of [bundles] of straws. Those of bath-keepers, if bundles of chaff [will drop through]. Rabbi Joshua says: in all these the size is that of pomegranates.

The hides of a householder become susceptible to uncleanness by intention, but those that belong to a tanner do not become susceptible by mere intention. Those taken by a thief become susceptible by intention, but those taken by a robber do not become susceptible by mere intention. Rabbi Shimon says: the rule is to be reversed; those taken by a robber become susceptible by mere intention, but those taken by a thief do not become susceptible by intention, since in the latter case the owner does not abandon hope for recovery.

Rebbi Zeïra went up to Rebbi Abbahu in Caesarea. When he met him he said: Come to eat. He [R. Abbahu] gave him a loaf to break and told him: Take it and recite the benediction. He [R. Zeïra] said to him: The householder knows best the qualities of his loaf. After they had eaten, he [R. Abbahu] said to him: Start and recite Grace. He [R. Zeïra] said to him: The rabbi knows Rav Huna who is a great man and he used to say that he who starts is the one who finishes. A baraita disagrees with Rav Huna, as it was stated: “The order of washing of the hands. Up to five persons, one starts with the most important personality. More than that, one starts with the least important one. In the middle of the meal one starts with the most important one. After the meal one starts with him who will recite Grace.” Does that not mean that he may prepare himself for reciting Grace? If you say that the one who starts is the one who finishes, he already is prepared! Rebbi Isaac said, explain it for those who come separately and do not know who will recite Grace.

He who sees multitudes says: Praise to Him Who is wise in secrets! Just as their faces are not similar one to the other, so the opinions of one are not similar to another’s. When ben Zoma saw multitudes in Jerusalem, he said: Praise to Him Who created all these to serve me. How much did Adam toil until he could eat one piece of bread! He plowed, sowed, harrowed, weeded, harvested, bound sheaves, threshed, winnowed, selected, milled, sifted, made dough, split it, baked, and only after that could he eat a piece of bread. But I get up in the morning and find everything before me. See, how much toil Adam had to expend until he obtained a garment to wear! He sheared, bleached, separated the fibers, dyed, spun, weaved, washed, sewed, and after that he obtained a garment to wear. But I get up in the morning and find all before me. How many professionals work mornings and evenings! But I get up in the morning and find all before me. Similarly, ben Zoma said: What does a bad guest say? What did I eat from the householder, what did I drink from the householder? One piece I ate from him, one cup of wine I drank from him. All the effort he put in he did only for his wife and children! But a good guest says, praised be the householder, may the householder be remembered in a good way! How much wine did he bring before me, how many cuts did he bring before me! How much work did he do for me! All that effort he did only for me! And so it says (Job. 36:24): “Remember to magnify his work that people saw!”

He who sees multitudes says: Praise to Him Who is wise in secrets! Just as their faces are not similar one to the other, so the opinions of one are not similar to another’s. When ben Zoma saw multitudes in Jerusalem, he said: Praise to Him Who created all these to serve me. How much did Adam toil until he could eat one piece of bread! He plowed, sowed, harrowed, weeded, harvested, bound sheaves, threshed, winnowed, selected, milled, sifted, made dough, split it, baked, and only after that could he eat a piece of bread. But I get up in the morning and find everything before me. See, how much toil Adam had to expend until he obtained a garment to wear! He sheared, bleached, separated the fibers, dyed, spun, weaved, washed, sewed, and after that he obtained a garment to wear. But I get up in the morning and find all before me. How many professionals work mornings and evenings! But I get up in the morning and find all before me. Similarly, ben Zoma said: What does a bad guest say? What did I eat from the householder, what did I drink from the householder? One piece I ate from him, one cup of wine I drank from him. All the effort he put in he did only for his wife and children! But a good guest says, praised be the householder, may the householder be remembered in a good way! How much wine did he bring before me, how many cuts did he bring before me! How much work did he do for me! All that effort he did only for me! And so it says (Job. 36:24): “Remember to magnify his work that people saw!”

He who sees multitudes says: Praise to Him Who is wise in secrets! Just as their faces are not similar one to the other, so the opinions of one are not similar to another’s. When ben Zoma saw multitudes in Jerusalem, he said: Praise to Him Who created all these to serve me. How much did Adam toil until he could eat one piece of bread! He plowed, sowed, harrowed, weeded, harvested, bound sheaves, threshed, winnowed, selected, milled, sifted, made dough, split it, baked, and only after that could he eat a piece of bread. But I get up in the morning and find everything before me. See, how much toil Adam had to expend until he obtained a garment to wear! He sheared, bleached, separated the fibers, dyed, spun, weaved, washed, sewed, and after that he obtained a garment to wear. But I get up in the morning and find all before me. How many professionals work mornings and evenings! But I get up in the morning and find all before me. Similarly, ben Zoma said: What does a bad guest say? What did I eat from the householder, what did I drink from the householder? One piece I ate from him, one cup of wine I drank from him. All the effort he put in he did only for his wife and children! But a good guest says, praised be the householder, may the householder be remembered in a good way! How much wine did he bring before me, how many cuts did he bring before me! How much work did he do for me! All that effort he did only for me! And so it says (Job. 36:24): “Remember to magnify his work that people saw!”

He who sees multitudes says: Praise to Him Who is wise in secrets! Just as their faces are not similar one to the other, so the opinions of one are not similar to another’s. When ben Zoma saw multitudes in Jerusalem, he said: Praise to Him Who created all these to serve me. How much did Adam toil until he could eat one piece of bread! He plowed, sowed, harrowed, weeded, harvested, bound sheaves, threshed, winnowed, selected, milled, sifted, made dough, split it, baked, and only after that could he eat a piece of bread. But I get up in the morning and find everything before me. See, how much toil Adam had to expend until he obtained a garment to wear! He sheared, bleached, separated the fibers, dyed, spun, weaved, washed, sewed, and after that he obtained a garment to wear. But I get up in the morning and find all before me. How many professionals work mornings and evenings! But I get up in the morning and find all before me. Similarly, ben Zoma said: What does a bad guest say? What did I eat from the householder, what did I drink from the householder? One piece I ate from him, one cup of wine I drank from him. All the effort he put in he did only for his wife and children! But a good guest says, praised be the householder, may the householder be remembered in a good way! How much wine did he bring before me, how many cuts did he bring before me! How much work did he do for me! All that effort he did only for me! And so it says (Job. 36:24): “Remember to magnify his work that people saw!”

MISHNAH: One does not use a waterwheel with buckets, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages do permit it, because it is impossible. A householder wandering from one place to another who was in need of taking gleanings, forgotten sheaves, peah, and tithes of the poor should repay them once he comes home, the words of Rebbi Eliezer. But the Sages say, he was poor at that moment.

There we have stated: “A woman who inherited property before she was betrothed, the Houses of Shammai and Hillel both are of the opinion that she may sell or give away and her actions are valid. If she inherited after she was betrothed, the House of Shammai say, she may sell, but the House of Hillel say, she may not sell.” Rebbi Phineas asked before Rebbi Yose, why did we not state it with the leniencies of the House of Shammai and the stringencies of the House of Hillel? He said to him, the Mishnaiot come only for circumstances that are either stringent on both sides or lenient on both sides. But here it is a stringency on one side and a leniency on the other side. But did we not state: “The House of Shammai say, property abandoned to the poor is abandoned?” Is this not lenient for the poor and stringent for the householder, and it was stated! It is lenient for the poor and not stringent for the householder, since it was abandoned by his intent. He said to him, did we not state: “The sheaf that was near a closure, a stack, cattle, or vessels, if it was forgotten,” is this not lenient for the householder and stringent for the poor, and it was stated! He said to him, it is lenient for the householder but not stringent for the poor, because they did not acquire it yet. You may also say here, it is lenient for the woman and not stringent for the husband since he did not yet acquire property rights to it. He said to him, since he became betrothed to her, the inheritance fell to both of them.

There we have stated: “A woman who inherited property before she was betrothed, the Houses of Shammai and Hillel both are of the opinion that she may sell or give away and her actions are valid. If she inherited after she was betrothed, the House of Shammai say, she may sell, but the House of Hillel say, she may not sell.” Rebbi Phineas asked before Rebbi Yose, why did we not state it with the leniencies of the House of Shammai and the stringencies of the House of Hillel? He said to him, the Mishnaiot come only for circumstances that are either stringent on both sides or lenient on both sides. But here it is a stringency on one side and a leniency on the other side. But did we not state: “The House of Shammai say, property abandoned to the poor is abandoned?” Is this not lenient for the poor and stringent for the householder, and it was stated! It is lenient for the poor and not stringent for the householder, since it was abandoned by his intent. He said to him, did we not state: “The sheaf that was near a closure, a stack, cattle, or vessels, if it was forgotten,” is this not lenient for the householder and stringent for the poor, and it was stated! He said to him, it is lenient for the householder but not stringent for the poor, because they did not acquire it yet. You may also say here, it is lenient for the woman and not stringent for the husband since he did not yet acquire property rights to it. He said to him, since he became betrothed to her, the inheritance fell to both of them.

There we have stated: “A woman who inherited property before she was betrothed, the Houses of Shammai and Hillel both are of the opinion that she may sell or give away and her actions are valid. If she inherited after she was betrothed, the House of Shammai say, she may sell, but the House of Hillel say, she may not sell.” Rebbi Phineas asked before Rebbi Yose, why did we not state it with the leniencies of the House of Shammai and the stringencies of the House of Hillel? He said to him, the Mishnaiot come only for circumstances that are either stringent on both sides or lenient on both sides. But here it is a stringency on one side and a leniency on the other side. But did we not state: “The House of Shammai say, property abandoned to the poor is abandoned?” Is this not lenient for the poor and stringent for the householder, and it was stated! It is lenient for the poor and not stringent for the householder, since it was abandoned by his intent. He said to him, did we not state: “The sheaf that was near a closure, a stack, cattle, or vessels, if it was forgotten,” is this not lenient for the householder and stringent for the poor, and it was stated! He said to him, it is lenient for the householder but not stringent for the poor, because they did not acquire it yet. You may also say here, it is lenient for the woman and not stringent for the husband since he did not yet acquire property rights to it. He said to him, since he became betrothed to her, the inheritance fell to both of them.

There we have stated: “A woman who inherited property before she was betrothed, the Houses of Shammai and Hillel both are of the opinion that she may sell or give away and her actions are valid. If she inherited after she was betrothed, the House of Shammai say, she may sell, but the House of Hillel say, she may not sell.” Rebbi Phineas asked before Rebbi Yose, why did we not state it with the leniencies of the House of Shammai and the stringencies of the House of Hillel? He said to him, the Mishnaiot come only for circumstances that are either stringent on both sides or lenient on both sides. But here it is a stringency on one side and a leniency on the other side. But did we not state: “The House of Shammai say, property abandoned to the poor is abandoned?” Is this not lenient for the poor and stringent for the householder, and it was stated! It is lenient for the poor and not stringent for the householder, since it was abandoned by his intent. He said to him, did we not state: “The sheaf that was near a closure, a stack, cattle, or vessels, if it was forgotten,” is this not lenient for the householder and stringent for the poor, and it was stated! He said to him, it is lenient for the householder but not stringent for the poor, because they did not acquire it yet. You may also say here, it is lenient for the woman and not stringent for the husband since he did not yet acquire property rights to it. He said to him, since he became betrothed to her, the inheritance fell to both of them.

MISHNAH: There are two [kinds] of transport on the Sabbath which are four [kinds] inside, and two [kinds] which are four [kinds] outside. How is this? The poor man stands outside and the householder inside. If the poor man stretched out his hand inside and delivered into the householder’s hand or took something from it and brought it outside, the poor man is liable but the householder is not liable. If the householder stretched out his hand outside and delivered into the poor man’s hand or took something from it and brought it inside, the householder is liable but the poor man is not liable. If the poor man stretched out his hand inside and the householder took from it or gave into it and he then took it out, neither is liable. If the householder stretched out his hand outside and the poor man took from it or gave into it and he then took it in, neither is liable.

MISHNAH: There are two [kinds] of transport on the Sabbath which are four [kinds] inside, and two [kinds] which are four [kinds] outside. How is this? The poor man stands outside and the householder inside. If the poor man stretched out his hand inside and delivered into the householder’s hand or took something from it and brought it outside, the poor man is liable but the householder is not liable. If the householder stretched out his hand outside and delivered into the poor man’s hand or took something from it and brought it inside, the householder is liable but the poor man is not liable. If the poor man stretched out his hand inside and the householder took from it or gave into it and he then took it out, neither is liable. If the householder stretched out his hand outside and the poor man took from it or gave into it and he then took it in, neither is liable.

MISHNAH: There are two [kinds] of transport on the Sabbath which are four [kinds] inside, and two [kinds] which are four [kinds] outside. How is this? The poor man stands outside and the householder inside. If the poor man stretched out his hand inside and delivered into the householder’s hand or took something from it and brought it outside, the poor man is liable but the householder is not liable. If the householder stretched out his hand outside and delivered into the poor man’s hand or took something from it and brought it inside, the householder is liable but the poor man is not liable. If the poor man stretched out his hand inside and the householder took from it or gave into it and he then took it out, neither is liable. If the householder stretched out his hand outside and the poor man took from it or gave into it and he then took it in, neither is liable.

MISHNAH: There are two [kinds] of transport on the Sabbath which are four [kinds] inside, and two [kinds] which are four [kinds] outside. How is this? The poor man stands outside and the householder inside. If the poor man stretched out his hand inside and delivered into the householder’s hand or took something from it and brought it outside, the poor man is liable but the householder is not liable. If the householder stretched out his hand outside and delivered into the poor man’s hand or took something from it and brought it inside, the householder is liable but the poor man is not liable. If the poor man stretched out his hand inside and the householder took from it or gave into it and he then took it out, neither is liable. If the householder stretched out his hand outside and the poor man took from it or gave into it and he then took it in, neither is liable.

MISHNAH: There are two [kinds] of transport on the Sabbath which are four [kinds] inside, and two [kinds] which are four [kinds] outside. How is this? The poor man stands outside and the householder inside. If the poor man stretched out his hand inside and delivered into the householder’s hand or took something from it and brought it outside, the poor man is liable but the householder is not liable. If the householder stretched out his hand outside and delivered into the poor man’s hand or took something from it and brought it inside, the householder is liable but the poor man is not liable. If the poor man stretched out his hand inside and the householder took from it or gave into it and he then took it out, neither is liable. If the householder stretched out his hand outside and the poor man took from it or gave into it and he then took it in, neither is liable.

MISHNAH: There are two [kinds] of transport on the Sabbath which are four [kinds] inside, and two [kinds] which are four [kinds] outside. How is this? The poor man stands outside and the householder inside. If the poor man stretched out his hand inside and delivered into the householder’s hand or took something from it and brought it outside, the poor man is liable but the householder is not liable. If the householder stretched out his hand outside and delivered into the poor man’s hand or took something from it and brought it inside, the householder is liable but the poor man is not liable. If the poor man stretched out his hand inside and the householder took from it or gave into it and he then took it out, neither is liable. If the householder stretched out his hand outside and the poor man took from it or gave into it and he then took it in, neither is liable.

MISHNAH: There are two [kinds] of transport on the Sabbath which are four [kinds] inside, and two [kinds] which are four [kinds] outside. How is this? The poor man stands outside and the householder inside. If the poor man stretched out his hand inside and delivered into the householder’s hand or took something from it and brought it outside, the poor man is liable but the householder is not liable. If the householder stretched out his hand outside and delivered into the poor man’s hand or took something from it and brought it inside, the householder is liable but the poor man is not liable. If the poor man stretched out his hand inside and the householder took from it or gave into it and he then took it out, neither is liable. If the householder stretched out his hand outside and the poor man took from it or gave into it and he then took it in, neither is liable.

Mishnah: “The poor man is liable but the householder is not liable.” Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: Only if the poor man’s hand is within ten hand-breadths from the ground. Rebbi Zeˋira said, if he is distant four [hand-breadths] from the wall. But if he is not distant four [hand-breadths] from the wall, it is karmelit. Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Simeon Karsanah: If his face was turned towards the public road. But if his face was turned towards the wall it is karmelit.

MISHNAH: If one deposits his eruv in a porter’s lodge, a porch, or a balcony, it is no eruv and any person who might dwell there does not forbid him. In a storage room for straw, in a cowshed, in a storage room for wood, or a general storage area, it is an eruv and any person who might dwell there does forbid him. Rebbi Jehusah says, if the householder retains rights of use he does not forbid him.

Rebbi Phineas asked before Rebbi Yose, why did we not state it with the leniencies of the House of Shammai and the stringencies of the House of Hillel? He said to him, the Mishnaiot apply only to circumstances that are either stringent on both sides or lenient on both sides. But here it is a stringency on one side and a leniency on the other side. But did we not state: “The House of Shammai say, property abandoned to the poor [is abandoned]?” Is this not lenient for the poor and stringent for the householder, and it was stated! He said to him, it is lenient for the poor and not stringent for the householder, since he intentionally abandoned it. He said to him, did we not state: “If the sheaf that was near a closure, a stack, cattle, or vessels was forgotten,” is this not lenient for the householder and stringent for the poor, and it was stated! He said to him, it is lenient for the householder but not stringent for the poor, because they did not acquire it yet. You may also say here, it is lenient for the woman and not stringent for the husband since he did not yet acquire property rights to it. He said to him, since he became betrothed to her, the inheritance fell to both of them.

Rebbi Phineas asked before Rebbi Yose, why did we not state it with the leniencies of the House of Shammai and the stringencies of the House of Hillel? He said to him, the Mishnaiot apply only to circumstances that are either stringent on both sides or lenient on both sides. But here it is a stringency on one side and a leniency on the other side. But did we not state: “The House of Shammai say, property abandoned to the poor [is abandoned]?” Is this not lenient for the poor and stringent for the householder, and it was stated! He said to him, it is lenient for the poor and not stringent for the householder, since he intentionally abandoned it. He said to him, did we not state: “If the sheaf that was near a closure, a stack, cattle, or vessels was forgotten,” is this not lenient for the householder and stringent for the poor, and it was stated! He said to him, it is lenient for the householder but not stringent for the poor, because they did not acquire it yet. You may also say here, it is lenient for the woman and not stringent for the husband since he did not yet acquire property rights to it. He said to him, since he became betrothed to her, the inheritance fell to both of them.

Rebbi Phineas asked before Rebbi Yose, why did we not state it with the leniencies of the House of Shammai and the stringencies of the House of Hillel? He said to him, the Mishnaiot apply only to circumstances that are either stringent on both sides or lenient on both sides. But here it is a stringency on one side and a leniency on the other side. But did we not state: “The House of Shammai say, property abandoned to the poor [is abandoned]?” Is this not lenient for the poor and stringent for the householder, and it was stated! He said to him, it is lenient for the poor and not stringent for the householder, since he intentionally abandoned it. He said to him, did we not state: “If the sheaf that was near a closure, a stack, cattle, or vessels was forgotten,” is this not lenient for the householder and stringent for the poor, and it was stated! He said to him, it is lenient for the householder but not stringent for the poor, because they did not acquire it yet. You may also say here, it is lenient for the woman and not stringent for the husband since he did not yet acquire property rights to it. He said to him, since he became betrothed to her, the inheritance fell to both of them.

Rebbi Phineas asked before Rebbi Yose, why did we not state it with the leniencies of the House of Shammai and the stringencies of the House of Hillel? He said to him, the Mishnaiot apply only to circumstances that are either stringent on both sides or lenient on both sides. But here it is a stringency on one side and a leniency on the other side. But did we not state: “The House of Shammai say, property abandoned to the poor [is abandoned]?” Is this not lenient for the poor and stringent for the householder, and it was stated! He said to him, it is lenient for the poor and not stringent for the householder, since he intentionally abandoned it. He said to him, did we not state: “If the sheaf that was near a closure, a stack, cattle, or vessels was forgotten,” is this not lenient for the householder and stringent for the poor, and it was stated! He said to him, it is lenient for the householder but not stringent for the poor, because they did not acquire it yet. You may also say here, it is lenient for the woman and not stringent for the husband since he did not yet acquire property rights to it. He said to him, since he became betrothed to her, the inheritance fell to both of them.

MISHNAH: “If somebody deposits coins with a money changer, if they are tied together, he may not use them, if loose, he may use them. With a householder, whether tied together or loose he may not use them. The storekeeper is like a householder, the words of Rebbi Meïr; Rebbi Jehudah says, like a money changer.

MISHNAH: “If somebody deposits coins with a money changer, if they are tied together, he may not use them, if loose, he may use them. With a householder, whether tied together or loose he may not use them. The storekeeper is like a householder, the words of Rebbi Meïr; Rebbi Jehudah says, like a money changer.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody hired tradesmen,” etc. What means, they tricked one another? Come, work for me for five large [coins]. It turned out it was work for ten large [coins]. You work for me a job which needs ten days. It turned out it was work for five days. What means, [they] tricked the householder? Come, work for me with your colleagues {for ten large [coins]. It turned out it was work for five large [coins]. You work for me a job which needs five days.} It turned out it was work for ten days. “When was this said; if the donkey drivers did not start yet. But if they went and did not find grain, or workers to weed and found the field flooded, he has to pay them for going and coming. But one cannot compare coming loaded with coming empty, or working with being idle, sitting in the shadow with sitting in the sun.” Rebbi Ḥiyya the Elder hired donkey drivers to bring his flax. They went and found it wet. (Rav) said to him, go and pay them their full fee. He said to them, not that I would be obligated to pay you your fee but I, Ḥiyya, am handing it over to you.

MISHNAH: If somebody hired tradesmen and they backed out they are disadvantaged; if the householder backs out, he is disadvantaged. Anyone changing the terms of a contract is disadvantaged; anyone backing out of a contract is disadvantaged.

MISHNAH: Somebody sent his son to a grocer who measured him oil for an assarius and he gave him the assarius; if he broke the flask and lost the assarius, the grocer is liable. Rebbi Jehudah holds him not liable since for that he sent him. The Sages agree with Rebbi Jehudah that if the flask was in the child’s hand and the grocer measured into the flask, the grocer is not liable. The wolesaler cleans his measuring vessels once every thirty days, the householder every twelve months. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, it is the other way around. The retail grocer cleans his measuring vessels twice a week, wipes his weights clean once a week, and cleans his scales after each weighing. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, when has this been said? For fluids, but for dry matter it is not necessary; he has to let [the scales] bend down a handbreadth. If he weighed strictly by eyesight he has to give him surplus, one tenth for fluids and one twentieth for dry products. At a place where one is used to small measures he should not use large ones, to large measures he should not use small ones, to level one must not heap, to heap one must not level.

Rebbi Abin said, since the householder has many occupations they instituted that the journeyman should swear and collect. [Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, there they instituted that the journeyman should swear and collect;] similarly they instituted for the householder that if its deadline had elapsed, he cannot swear and collect. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, if there are witnesses that he claimed it in time, he swears and collects even after a year. Rebbi Yose said, he has only that single day. Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagreed. One said, if he claimed from him during daytime, he has only that day; if in the night he has only that night. But the other said, if he claimed from him and he said, I gave. But if he said, I shall give, the presumption is that he gave. We do not know who said what. Since Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: if he claimed from him during daytime, he has only that day; if in the night he has only that night, therefore Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina is the one who said, if he claimed from him and he said, I gave. But if he said, I shall give, the presumption is that he gave. Rebbi Mana said, sometimes he claims after its time and it is considered as in time. How is this? He claimed from him and he said to him, did I not say to you that I gave at that date? That date becomes as if it were yesterday; one gives him one measure.

Rebbi Abin said, since the householder has many occupations they instituted that the journeyman should swear and collect. [Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, there they instituted that the journeyman should swear and collect;] similarly they instituted for the householder that if its deadline had elapsed, he cannot swear and collect. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, if there are witnesses that he claimed it in time, he swears and collects even after a year. Rebbi Yose said, he has only that single day. Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagreed. One said, if he claimed from him during daytime, he has only that day; if in the night he has only that night. But the other said, if he claimed from him and he said, I gave. But if he said, I shall give, the presumption is that he gave. We do not know who said what. Since Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: if he claimed from him during daytime, he has only that day; if in the night he has only that night, therefore Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina is the one who said, if he claimed from him and he said, I gave. But if he said, I shall give, the presumption is that he gave. Rebbi Mana said, sometimes he claims after its time and it is considered as in time. How is this? He claimed from him and he said to him, did I not say to you that I gave at that date? That date becomes as if it were yesterday; one gives him one measure.

It is obvious: If the householder dies, the journeyman swears to his heirs. Even if the journeyman dies, do his heirs swear to the householder’s heirs? They made this ordinance only for the journeyman. Maybe for his heirs? Rebbi Eleazar said, if he claimed before witnesses. [But if he claimed without witnesses, he can tell him,] I paid your wages. Rebbi Joḥanan said, does one not in money matters argue “because?” Because he can say to him, I did not hire you, he can tell him, I hired you and paid your wages. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Eleazar: “When was this said? If he said, I gave, but the other said, I did not take; I gave you your wages, but he says, I did not take. You hired me, but he says, I did not hire you. The burden of proof is on the claimant.” It is difficult for Rebbi Eleazar, if he hired him before witnesses, how can this one say, I did not hire you?

It is obvious: If the householder dies, the journeyman swears to his heirs. Even if the journeyman dies, do his heirs swear to the householder’s heirs? They made this ordinance only for the journeyman. Maybe for his heirs? Rebbi Eleazar said, if he claimed before witnesses. [But if he claimed without witnesses, he can tell him,] I paid your wages. Rebbi Joḥanan said, does one not in money matters argue “because?” Because he can say to him, I did not hire you, he can tell him, I hired you and paid your wages. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Eleazar: “When was this said? If he said, I gave, but the other said, I did not take; I gave you your wages, but he says, I did not take. You hired me, but he says, I did not hire you. The burden of proof is on the claimant.” It is difficult for Rebbi Eleazar, if he hired him before witnesses, how can this one say, I did not hire you?

That is to say, only if he did not introduce them. But if he introduced them, the householder has no liability, following what Rebbi Jehudah bar Shalom said: One did introduce the porters to the food merchants. They came, but they sent them away without giving them anything. The case came before Rebbi Shammai. Since if the food merchants had said that they took, would at the end not these and those collect? Therefore, they shall collect immediately.

MISHNAH: He said to the grocer, give me produce for a denar; that one delivered and said, give me the denar. He said to him, I gave it to you and you put it into anpalē: the householder has to swear. If he gave him the denar and said, give me the produce; he said to him I delivered them to you and you brought then to your house: the grocer has to swear. Rebbi Jehudah says, the one in possession of the produce is advantaged. He said to the money changer, give me oboloi for a denar; that one delivered and said, give me the denar. He said to him, I gave it to you and you put it into anpalē: the householder has to swear. If he gave him the denar and said, give me the oboloi; he said to him I delivered them to you and you threw them into you wallet: the money changer has to swear. Rebbi Jehudah says, it is not the practice of money changers to give an as before he took the denarii.

MISHNAH: He said to the grocer, give me produce for a denar; that one delivered and said, give me the denar. He said to him, I gave it to you and you put it into anpalē: the householder has to swear. If he gave him the denar and said, give me the produce; he said to him I delivered them to you and you brought then to your house: the grocer has to swear. Rebbi Jehudah says, the one in possession of the produce is advantaged. He said to the money changer, give me oboloi for a denar; that one delivered and said, give me the denar. He said to him, I gave it to you and you put it into anpalē: the householder has to swear. If he gave him the denar and said, give me the oboloi; he said to him I delivered them to you and you threw them into you wallet: the money changer has to swear. Rebbi Jehudah says, it is not the practice of money changers to give an as before he took the denarii.