humans

Jesus took all of them by stealth, because he didn't appear as he was, but he appeared as [they'd] be able to see him. He appeared to them (in) [all these] (ways): he [appeared] to [the] great as great. He [appeared] to the small as small. He [appeared] [to the] angels as an angel, and to humans as a human. So his Word hid itself from everyone. Some did see him, thinking they were seeing themselves. But when he appeared to his disciples in glory on the mountain, he wasn't small. He became great, but he made the disciples great (too) so that they would be able to see him as great.

There are animals that submit to humans, like the calf, the donkey, and others of this kind. Others are not submissive, and live alone in the wilderness. Humanity ploughs the field with the submissive animals, and consequently nourishes itself and the animals, whether submissive or not. That's what it's like with the perfect human: they plough with the submissive powers, preparing for everyone that will exist. So because of this the whole place stands, whether the good or the evil, and the right and the left. The Holy Spirit shepherds everyone and rules all the powers – those that are submissive, those that [aren't], and those that are alone – because truly it […] confines them [so that …] want to, they won't be able to [leave].

There are two trees growing in Paradise. One begets [animals], the other begets humans. Adam [ate] from the tree that begot animals, [and he] became an animal, and he begot [animals]. So Adam's children worship the [animals]. The tree […] is fruit […] this they […] ate the […] fruit of the […] beget humans […] of the human of […] God makes the human, [… humans] make [God]. That's what it's like in the world: humans make gods and worship their creation. It would be better for the gods to worship humans!

There are two trees growing in Paradise. One begets [animals], the other begets humans. Adam [ate] from the tree that begot animals, [and he] became an animal, and he begot [animals]. So Adam's children worship the [animals]. The tree […] is fruit […] this they […] ate the […] fruit of the […] beget humans […] of the human of […] God makes the human, [… humans] make [God]. That's what it's like in the world: humans make gods and worship their creation. It would be better for the gods to worship humans!

There are two trees growing in Paradise. One begets [animals], the other begets humans. Adam [ate] from the tree that begot animals, [and he] became an animal, and he begot [animals]. So Adam's children worship the [animals]. The tree […] is fruit […] this they […] ate the […] fruit of the […] beget humans […] of the human of […] God makes the human, [… humans] make [God]. That's what it's like in the world: humans make gods and worship their creation. It would be better for the gods to worship humans!

There are two trees growing in Paradise. One begets [animals], the other begets humans. Adam [ate] from the tree that begot animals, [and he] became an animal, and he begot [animals]. So Adam's children worship the [animals]. The tree […] is fruit […] this they […] ate the […] fruit of the […] beget humans […] of the human of […] God makes the human, [… humans] make [God]. That's what it's like in the world: humans make gods and worship their creation. It would be better for the gods to worship humans!

There are two trees growing in Paradise. One begets [animals], the other begets humans. Adam [ate] from the tree that begot animals, [and he] became an animal, and he begot [animals]. So Adam's children worship the [animals]. The tree […] is fruit […] this they […] ate the […] fruit of the […] beget humans […] of the human of […] God makes the human, [… humans] make [God]. That's what it's like in the world: humans make gods and worship their creation. It would be better for the gods to worship humans!

[Most (things)] of [the] world can stand up and live as long as their [insides are hidden. If they're revealed], they die, as [illustrated] by the visible human. [As long as] the human's guts are hidden, the human is alive. If their guts are exposed and come out of them, the human will die. It's the same way with the tree. While its root is hidden, it blossoms and grows. If its root is exposed, the tree dries up. That's what it's like with everything that's born in the world, not only the revealed, but also the hidden; because as long as the root of evil is hidden, it's strong. But if it's recognized, it dissolves, and if it's revealed, it dies. So the Word says, "Already the axe is laid at the root of the trees." It won't (just) cut, (because) that which will be cut blossoms again. Rather, the axe digs down into the ground until it brings up the root. Jesus plucked out the root completely, but others did so partially. As for us, let every one of us dig down to the root of the evil within and pluck it out from its root in us. It'll be uprooted if we recognize it. But if we don't recognize it, it takes root within us and bears its fruit in us. It masters us, and we're forced to serve it. It captures us so that we do what we do [not] want to; and we do [not] do what we want to. [It's] powerful because we haven't recognized it. It's active as long as [it exists]. [Ignorance] is the mother of [all evil]. Ignorance will cause [death, because] what exists from [ignorance] neither did exist nor [does exist], nor will they come into being […] they'll be perfected when the whole truth is revealed, because the truth is like ignorance. When it's hidden, it rests within itself, but if it's revealed and recognized, it's glorified inasmuch as it's stronger than ignorance and error. It gives freedom. The Word says, "If you'll know the truth, the truth will make you free." Ignorance is slavery; knowledge is freedom. If we know the truth, we'll find the fruits of truth within us. If we unite with it, it'll receive our fullness.

Then Mary arose and greeted them all. She said to her brothers (and sisters), "Don't weep and grieve or let your hearts be divided, because his grace will be with you all and will protect you. Rather we should praise his greatness because he's prepared us and made us Humans."

But when Jesus noticed their ignorance, [he said] to them, "Why are you letting your anger trouble you? Has your God within you and [his stars] become angry with your souls? If any of you is [strong enough] among humans to bring out the perfect Humanity, stand up and face me."

Jesus said, "It's not possible to sow on [rock] and harvest its fruit. In the same way, it's [not possible to sow on] the [defiled] race along with the perishable wisdom [and] the hand which created mortal humans so that their souls may go up to the realms above. [Truly] I say to you, [no ruler], angel, [or] power will be able to see the [places] that [this great], holy generation [will see]." When Jesus said this, he left.

They said an important general principle with regard to the sabbatical year: Anything that is usually designated as food for humans, one may not make a poultice of it for a person. And there is no need to say [that he may not make a poultice of it] for a beast. Anything that is not usually designated as for food for humans may be used as a poultice for a person, but not for cattle. And anything not usually designated either for humans or for animals, but now he thought to use it as food for either a person or an animal, we impose upon it the stringent laws applying both to people and beasts. If he thought to use it as wood [for a fire], behold it is treated as wood [and the laws of sheviit do not apply]; for example, savory, hyssop, or thyme.

They said an important general principle with regard to the sabbatical year: Anything that is usually designated as food for humans, one may not make a poultice of it for a person. And there is no need to say [that he may not make a poultice of it] for a beast. Anything that is not usually designated as for food for humans may be used as a poultice for a person, but not for cattle. And anything not usually designated either for humans or for animals, but now he thought to use it as food for either a person or an animal, we impose upon it the stringent laws applying both to people and beasts. If he thought to use it as wood [for a fire], behold it is treated as wood [and the laws of sheviit do not apply]; for example, savory, hyssop, or thyme.

They said an important general principle with regard to the sabbatical year: Anything that is usually designated as food for humans, one may not make a poultice of it for a person. And there is no need to say [that he may not make a poultice of it] for a beast. Anything that is not usually designated as for food for humans may be used as a poultice for a person, but not for cattle. And anything not usually designated either for humans or for animals, but now he thought to use it as food for either a person or an animal, we impose upon it the stringent laws applying both to people and beasts. If he thought to use it as wood [for a fire], behold it is treated as wood [and the laws of sheviit do not apply]; for example, savory, hyssop, or thyme.

A merchant may buy from five threshing floors and put the produce into a storage chamber, or from five wine-presses and put into one jug, as long as he doesn’t intend to mix them [for purposes of fraud]. Rabbi Judah says: “A storekeeper should not distribute parched corn or nuts to children, for that accustoms them to come [only] to him.” But the Sages permit. And he may not lower the price. But the Sages says: “Let him be remembered for good [if he lowers the price].” He may not sift crushed beans, according to Abba Shaul. But the Sages permit. But they agree that he should not sift them [only] at the entry of the storage chamber, since he would be a deceiver of the eye. He should not beautify what he sells, whether humans, cattle or utensils.

How did they admonish witnesses in capital cases? They brought them in and admonished them, [saying], “Perhaps you will say something that is only a supposition or hearsay or secondhand, or even from a trustworthy man. Or perhaps you do not know that we shall check you with examination and inquiry? Know, moreover, that capital cases are not like non-capital cases: in non-capital cases a man may pay money and so make atonement, but in capital cases the witness is answerable for the blood of him [that is wrongfully condemned] and the blood of his descendants [that should have been born to him] to the end of the world.” For so have we found it with Cain that murdered his brother, for it says, “The bloods of your brother cry out” (Gen. 4:10). It doesn’t say, “The blood of your brother”, but rather “The bloods of your brother” meaning his blood and the blood of his descendants. Another saying is, “The bloods of your brother” that his blood was cast over trees and stones. Therefore but a single person was created in the world, to teach that if any man has caused a single life to perish from Israel, he is deemed by Scripture as if he had caused a whole world to perish; and anyone who saves a single soul from Israel, he is deemed by Scripture as if he had saved a whole world. Again [but a single person was created] for the sake of peace among humankind, that one should not say to another, “My father was greater than your father”. Again, [but a single person was created] against the heretics so they should not say, “There are many ruling powers in heaven”. Again [but a single person was created] to proclaim the greatness of the Holy Blessed One; for humans stamp many coins with one seal and they are all like one another; but the King of kings, the Holy Blessed One, has stamped every human with the seal of the first man, yet not one of them are like another. Therefore everyone must say, “For my sake was the world created.” And if perhaps you [witnesses] would say, “Why should we be involved with this trouble”, was it not said, “He, being a witness, whether he has seen or known, [if he does not speak it, then he shall bear his iniquity] (Lev. 5:1). And if perhaps you [witnesses] would say, “Why should we be guilty of the blood of this man?,” was it not said, “When the wicked perish there is rejoicing” (Proverbs 11:10).]

Rebbi Jacob from Kefar Ḥanan in the name of Resh Laqish: When Abraham their forefather did My will, I swore to him that dew will never move away from his descendants forever; what is the reason? (Ps. 110:3) “You have the dew of your youth.” And it is written after that (Ps. 110:4) “The Eternal swore and He will not change His intention.” Rebbi Judah ben Pazi said, by a will I gave it to Abraham, as a gift I gave it to him. (Gen. 27:28) “God may give you from the dew of heaven.” Rebbi Samuel ben Naḥmani said, when Israel sin and do evil the rains are arrested. They bring an old man like Rebbi Yose the Galilean, he prays for them and the rains come. But dew does not descend by the merit of any creature, what is the reason? (Micah 5:6) “Like dew from the Eternal, like light showers on grass, that do not listen to anybody nor wait for humans.”

Property abandoned to animals but not to humans, to Gentiles but not to Jews, to rich but not to poor, everybody agrees that it does not have the status of abandoned property. For humans but not for animals, for Jews but not for Gentiles, for the poor of one town but not for the poor of any other town is a disagreement between Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan, this abandoning is legal abandoning. In the opinion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, this abandoning is not legal abandoning. Rebbi Lia said, they disagree explicitly: Rebbi Joḥanan said, this abandoning is legal abandoning. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, this abandoning is not legal abandoning.

Property abandoned to animals but not to humans, to Gentiles but not to Jews, to rich but not to poor, everybody agrees that it does not have the status of abandoned property. For humans but not for animals, for Jews but not for Gentiles, for the poor of one town but not for the poor of any other town is a disagreement between Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan, this abandoning is legal abandoning. In the opinion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, this abandoning is not legal abandoning. Rebbi Lia said, they disagree explicitly: Rebbi Joḥanan said, this abandoning is legal abandoning. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, this abandoning is not legal abandoning.

It was stated: “He who enters a town and does not know anybody there, or stands by a threshing floor and does not know anybody there, may ask either a ḥaver or an am haäreẓ, the words of Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. Rebbi says, about heave one only may ask a ḥaver.” It turns out that Rebbi follows Rebbi Meïr and Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel follows his own reasoning. As we have stated there: “About any bodily defects that may be caused by humans, laymen shepherds are trustworthy, Cohen shepherds are not. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, he is trustworthy about another’s flock but not his own. Rebbi Meïr said, whoever is suspect in a matter may neither judge nor testify about it.” Rebbi Jonah said, they disagree only if it is a matter of taking, but in distributing even Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel agrees. What is the difference between taking and distributing? A distribution is public knowledge.

Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: There are six unresolved doubts. The caper-bush among trees following the House of Shammai, clay vessels like potash vessels following the House of Shammai, the squirrel mole among the crawling things following the House of Shammai; the Egyptian bean among seed-vegetables, the hermaphrodite among humans, the koi among wild animals according to everybody. Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba said, also the ṭrīqsīn cubit. What is the ṭrīqsīn cubit? Rebbi Jonah from Bostra said, confusion, “what is inside-outside?” Rebbi Yose said, since it is written (1K. 6:17) “forty cubits was the House, that is the inner Temple,” it means it is counted inside. Rebbi Mana said to him, but it is written (2Chr. 3:8) “He made the holiest of holies twenty cubits long and ten wide,” that means it is counted outside.

“Only wool and linen can become impure by mold disease,” for it is written (Lev. 13:47) “on woolen cloth or on linen cloth.” I could think they can become impure whether dyed or natural; the verse says “woolen cloth or linen cloth.” Just as linen is in its natural state so wool must also be in its natural state. I might exclude what was dyed by humans but not what was dyed by nature; the verse says (Lev. 13:48): “For the linen and for the wool”, just as linen is white so wool has to be white.

MISHNAH: They established a comprehensive principle for the Sabbatical: Everything that is food for humans or animals or material for dye and cannot be preserved in the ground is subject to the Sabbatical and its proceeds are subject to the Sabbatical; it is subject to removal and its proceeds are subject to removal. What are these? This is the leaf of wild arum, mint, endives, leeks, purslain and milk bud. Animal feed, thistles and thorns. Dyestuffs, the wild growth of isatis and safflower. These are subject to the Sabbatical and their proceeds are subject to the Sabbatical; both they and their proceeds are subject to removal. They established another principle for the Sabbatical: Everything that is food for humans or animals or dyestuff and is preserved in the ground is subject to the Sabbatical; its proceeds are subject to the Sabbatical; it is not subject to removal nor are its proceeds subject to removal. What are these? These are the root of wild arum, the root of mint, ceterach, ḥalbiẓin, and wild nard. Kinds of dyestuffs: madder and campeachy-wood. These and their proceeds are subject to the Sabbatical; these and their proceeds are not subject to removal. Rebbi Meïr says, their proceeds have to be removed before New Year’s Day. They said to him, they do not have to be removed, a fortiori their proceeds. Pomegranate skins and its peduncles, nut shells, and pits are subject to the Sabbatical and so are their proceeds. The dyer dyes for himself; he should not dye for payment because one does not treat the produce of the Sabbatical as merchandise, nor firstlings or heaves, carcasses, torn animals, abominations, and crawling things. One may not buy vegetables to sell them on the market but he may collect and his son sells for him. If he bought for himself and has leftovers, it is permitted to sell them. If somebody bought a first-born animal for his son’s wedding or for a holiday and now does not need it, he may sell it. Catchers of wild animals, birds, or fish who accidentally caught impure species may sell them. Rebbi Jehudah says, even one who incidentally has such an opportunity may take and sell them on condition that this not be his profession, but the Sages prohibit it.

MISHNAH: They established a comprehensive principle for the Sabbatical: Everything that is food for humans or animals or material for dye and cannot be preserved in the ground is subject to the Sabbatical and its proceeds are subject to the Sabbatical; it is subject to removal and its proceeds are subject to removal. What are these? This is the leaf of wild arum, mint, endives, leeks, purslain and milk bud. Animal feed, thistles and thorns. Dyestuffs, the wild growth of isatis and safflower. These are subject to the Sabbatical and their proceeds are subject to the Sabbatical; both they and their proceeds are subject to removal. They established another principle for the Sabbatical: Everything that is food for humans or animals or dyestuff and is preserved in the ground is subject to the Sabbatical; its proceeds are subject to the Sabbatical; it is not subject to removal nor are its proceeds subject to removal. What are these? These are the root of wild arum, the root of mint, ceterach, ḥalbiẓin, and wild nard. Kinds of dyestuffs: madder and campeachy-wood. These and their proceeds are subject to the Sabbatical; these and their proceeds are not subject to removal. Rebbi Meïr says, their proceeds have to be removed before New Year’s Day. They said to him, they do not have to be removed, a fortiori their proceeds. Pomegranate skins and its peduncles, nut shells, and pits are subject to the Sabbatical and so are their proceeds. The dyer dyes for himself; he should not dye for payment because one does not treat the produce of the Sabbatical as merchandise, nor firstlings or heaves, carcasses, torn animals, abominations, and crawling things. One may not buy vegetables to sell them on the market but he may collect and his son sells for him. If he bought for himself and has leftovers, it is permitted to sell them. If somebody bought a first-born animal for his son’s wedding or for a holiday and now does not need it, he may sell it. Catchers of wild animals, birds, or fish who accidentally caught impure species may sell them. Rebbi Jehudah says, even one who incidentally has such an opportunity may take and sell them on condition that this not be his profession, but the Sages prohibit it.

HALAKHAH: Does the sanctity of the Sabbatical fall on dyes for humans? Let us hear from the following (Lev. 25:6): “For you”, all that is needed by you. We have stated on that: For example eating, drinking, anointing, and coloring. This excludes wound dressing which is only for the sick. This excludes olentia which are only for the malodorous. Rebbi Jonah asked: Why does one exclude wound dressing because the sanctity of the Sabbatical cannot fall on it? But did we not state: “Sanctity of the Sabbatical falls on din, sad, and indigo seed that one sows after the end of the Sabbatical.” What is that? “For you”, for all of you equally. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Hila understood it from the following (Lev. 25:7): “Shall be”, even to kindle the light and to dye. Does this not destroy animal feed? Rebbi Mana said, explain it if animal feed is used for human needs and you cannot infer anything from it.

It was stated: “Green grass and any other vegetables he took to moisturize may be used to moisturize. When he thought about them as human food it is forbidden to use them to moisturize.” Bar Qappara stated: One may use them to moisturize but he may not squeeze out from them because the holiness of the Sabbatical is on them. But there is no Sabbatical holiness on animal feed since you say one may use them to make wound dressing for humans. Rebbi Yose said, we understand that one may use them to make wound dressing for humans, and we understand that one may press them to prepare medication for humans.

It was stated: “Green grass and any other vegetables he took to moisturize may be used to moisturize. When he thought about them as human food it is forbidden to use them to moisturize.” Bar Qappara stated: One may use them to moisturize but he may not squeeze out from them because the holiness of the Sabbatical is on them. But there is no Sabbatical holiness on animal feed since you say one may use them to make wound dressing for humans. Rebbi Yose said, we understand that one may use them to make wound dressing for humans, and we understand that one may press them to prepare medication for humans.

It was stated: “Green grass and any other vegetables he took to moisturize may be used to moisturize. When he thought about them as human food it is forbidden to use them to moisturize.” Bar Qappara stated: One may use them to moisturize but he may not squeeze out from them because the holiness of the Sabbatical is on them. But there is no Sabbatical holiness on animal feed since you say one may use them to make wound dressing for humans. Rebbi Yose said, we understand that one may use them to make wound dressing for humans, and we understand that one may press them to prepare medication for humans.

MISHNAH: They established a comprehensive principle for the Sabbatical: Nothing that is exclusively food for humans may be used for a wound dressing for humans or, it goes without saying, for animals. Anything that is not exclusively food for humans may be used for a wound dressing for humans but not for animals. Anything that is not exclusively food, for humans or for animals, if intended as food for humans or animals one puts on it all restrictions regarding humans or animals; if intended as wood then it is wood. Examples are calamint, hyssop, and thyme.

MISHNAH: They established a comprehensive principle for the Sabbatical: Nothing that is exclusively food for humans may be used for a wound dressing for humans or, it goes without saying, for animals. Anything that is not exclusively food for humans may be used for a wound dressing for humans but not for animals. Anything that is not exclusively food, for humans or for animals, if intended as food for humans or animals one puts on it all restrictions regarding humans or animals; if intended as wood then it is wood. Examples are calamint, hyssop, and thyme.

MISHNAH: They established a comprehensive principle for the Sabbatical: Nothing that is exclusively food for humans may be used for a wound dressing for humans or, it goes without saying, for animals. Anything that is not exclusively food for humans may be used for a wound dressing for humans but not for animals. Anything that is not exclusively food, for humans or for animals, if intended as food for humans or animals one puts on it all restrictions regarding humans or animals; if intended as wood then it is wood. Examples are calamint, hyssop, and thyme.

MISHNAH: They established a comprehensive principle for the Sabbatical: Nothing that is exclusively food for humans may be used for a wound dressing for humans or, it goes without saying, for animals. Anything that is not exclusively food for humans may be used for a wound dressing for humans but not for animals. Anything that is not exclusively food, for humans or for animals, if intended as food for humans or animals one puts on it all restrictions regarding humans or animals; if intended as wood then it is wood. Examples are calamint, hyssop, and thyme.

MISHNAH: They established a comprehensive principle for the Sabbatical: Nothing that is exclusively food for humans may be used for a wound dressing for humans or, it goes without saying, for animals. Anything that is not exclusively food for humans may be used for a wound dressing for humans but not for animals. Anything that is not exclusively food, for humans or for animals, if intended as food for humans or animals one puts on it all restrictions regarding humans or animals; if intended as wood then it is wood. Examples are calamint, hyssop, and thyme.

MISHNAH: They established a comprehensive principle for the Sabbatical: Nothing that is exclusively food for humans may be used for a wound dressing for humans or, it goes without saying, for animals. Anything that is not exclusively food for humans may be used for a wound dressing for humans but not for animals. Anything that is not exclusively food, for humans or for animals, if intended as food for humans or animals one puts on it all restrictions regarding humans or animals; if intended as wood then it is wood. Examples are calamint, hyssop, and thyme.

MISHNAH: They established a comprehensive principle for the Sabbatical: Nothing that is exclusively food for humans may be used for a wound dressing for humans or, it goes without saying, for animals. Anything that is not exclusively food for humans may be used for a wound dressing for humans but not for animals. Anything that is not exclusively food, for humans or for animals, if intended as food for humans or animals one puts on it all restrictions regarding humans or animals; if intended as wood then it is wood. Examples are calamint, hyssop, and thyme.

May one make dyes for humans from animal feed? Since one may make dyes for humans from human food even though one may not use human food for a wound dressing, one certainly may make dyes for humans from animal feed since one may use animal feed for a wound dressing. May one make dyes for humans from materials for wound dressings? Since one may make dyes for humans from human food even though one may not use human food for a wound dressing, one certainly may make dyes for humans from wound dressing materials since one may use wound dressing materials for a wound dressing. The only question is: May one make animal dyes from human food? Just as you say for human food that one may use it to make human dyes even though one may not use it for wound dressing, similarly animal feed, though one may not use it for animal wound dressing, should be usable for animal dyes. Rebbi Yose said, why may one make dyes from human food? Because human dyes have holiness. Should one be able to make animal dyes from animal feed when animal dyes have no holiness?

May one make dyes for humans from animal feed? Since one may make dyes for humans from human food even though one may not use human food for a wound dressing, one certainly may make dyes for humans from animal feed since one may use animal feed for a wound dressing. May one make dyes for humans from materials for wound dressings? Since one may make dyes for humans from human food even though one may not use human food for a wound dressing, one certainly may make dyes for humans from wound dressing materials since one may use wound dressing materials for a wound dressing. The only question is: May one make animal dyes from human food? Just as you say for human food that one may use it to make human dyes even though one may not use it for wound dressing, similarly animal feed, though one may not use it for animal wound dressing, should be usable for animal dyes. Rebbi Yose said, why may one make dyes from human food? Because human dyes have holiness. Should one be able to make animal dyes from animal feed when animal dyes have no holiness?

May one make dyes for humans from animal feed? Since one may make dyes for humans from human food even though one may not use human food for a wound dressing, one certainly may make dyes for humans from animal feed since one may use animal feed for a wound dressing. May one make dyes for humans from materials for wound dressings? Since one may make dyes for humans from human food even though one may not use human food for a wound dressing, one certainly may make dyes for humans from wound dressing materials since one may use wound dressing materials for a wound dressing. The only question is: May one make animal dyes from human food? Just as you say for human food that one may use it to make human dyes even though one may not use it for wound dressing, similarly animal feed, though one may not use it for animal wound dressing, should be usable for animal dyes. Rebbi Yose said, why may one make dyes from human food? Because human dyes have holiness. Should one be able to make animal dyes from animal feed when animal dyes have no holiness?

May one make dyes for humans from animal feed? Since one may make dyes for humans from human food even though one may not use human food for a wound dressing, one certainly may make dyes for humans from animal feed since one may use animal feed for a wound dressing. May one make dyes for humans from materials for wound dressings? Since one may make dyes for humans from human food even though one may not use human food for a wound dressing, one certainly may make dyes for humans from wound dressing materials since one may use wound dressing materials for a wound dressing. The only question is: May one make animal dyes from human food? Just as you say for human food that one may use it to make human dyes even though one may not use it for wound dressing, similarly animal feed, though one may not use it for animal wound dressing, should be usable for animal dyes. Rebbi Yose said, why may one make dyes from human food? Because human dyes have holiness. Should one be able to make animal dyes from animal feed when animal dyes have no holiness?

May one make dyes for humans from animal feed? Since one may make dyes for humans from human food even though one may not use human food for a wound dressing, one certainly may make dyes for humans from animal feed since one may use animal feed for a wound dressing. May one make dyes for humans from materials for wound dressings? Since one may make dyes for humans from human food even though one may not use human food for a wound dressing, one certainly may make dyes for humans from wound dressing materials since one may use wound dressing materials for a wound dressing. The only question is: May one make animal dyes from human food? Just as you say for human food that one may use it to make human dyes even though one may not use it for wound dressing, similarly animal feed, though one may not use it for animal wound dressing, should be usable for animal dyes. Rebbi Yose said, why may one make dyes from human food? Because human dyes have holiness. Should one be able to make animal dyes from animal feed when animal dyes have no holiness?

May one make dyes for humans from animal feed? Since one may make dyes for humans from human food even though one may not use human food for a wound dressing, one certainly may make dyes for humans from animal feed since one may use animal feed for a wound dressing. May one make dyes for humans from materials for wound dressings? Since one may make dyes for humans from human food even though one may not use human food for a wound dressing, one certainly may make dyes for humans from wound dressing materials since one may use wound dressing materials for a wound dressing. The only question is: May one make animal dyes from human food? Just as you say for human food that one may use it to make human dyes even though one may not use it for wound dressing, similarly animal feed, though one may not use it for animal wound dressing, should be usable for animal dyes. Rebbi Yose said, why may one make dyes from human food? Because human dyes have holiness. Should one be able to make animal dyes from animal feed when animal dyes have no holiness?

We understand “one puts on it all restrictions regarding humans and animals” that it is forbidden to boil them to a pulp. We have stated: If the seller sells as food and the buyer buys as wood, the latter is not determining. If the seller sells as food and the buyer buys as food and then thinks of them as wood, the latter is not determining. If the seller sells as wood and the buyer buys as food and then thinks of them as wood? Where do we hold? If he gave him the money and afterwards took it up, he paid for wood. If he took it up and afterwards gave him the money, he paid for food. We must hold that he gave him the money and afterwards took it up; this is the disagreement between Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. According to Rebbi Joḥanan, who said that [transfer of] money does not mean acquisition by Torah law, he paid for food. According to Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish who said that [transfer of] money does mean acquisition by Torah law, he paid for wood.

Rebbi Yose said, they disagree for general usage, but for drinking even Rebbi Yose would agree. Who is the Tanna of “but one may give to drink to the water drawer”? Rebbi Yose! Rebbi Yose said, it is the opinion of everybody; one statement refers to humans, the other to animals.

Does one not destry animal feed? Explain it that animal feed is used for humans. Rebbi Mana said, explain it about the sanctity by removal of the Sabbatical, and it does not imply anything.

The reason of Rebbi Eliezer (Lev. 11:34): “Any drink.” What is the reason of the rabbis? “That can be drunk.” Does Rebbi Eliezer hold with Rebbi Ismael, that for a particular statement after a general one, everything is included? He assumes more than Rebbi Ismael, in that even if there is a second general statement, all is included. Rebbi Paregoros from Caesarea: Rebbi Eliezer ben Rebbi Ismael said: So did Rebbi Eliezer answer the Sages: Since you interpret (Lev. 11:34): “That can be eaten,” to exclude stinking food, so I hold “that can be drunk,” to exclude stinking drinks. They said to him, solid food and drinks are not comparable. If you argue about food, which is pure if stinking from the start, what can you infer for drinks since drinks stinking from the start can become impure? Another approach: If you argue about food, when human food does not need thinking about, what can you infer for drinks since human drink needs thinking about? Because they need thinking about them, should drinks stinking from the start become impure? Because they need thinking about them, drinks stinking from the start should be pure! Another approach. They said to him: If you argue about food, animal feed for humans is not created by thought, what can you infer for drinks since animal drinks for humans need thought? We have stated thus: (Lev. 11:34) “Any drink,” why does the verse have to add “that can be drunk”? This excludes stinking drinks, the words of Rebbi Eliezer. They said to him, no drink is rejected by birds or a cow.

The reason of Rebbi Eliezer (Lev. 11:34): “Any drink.” What is the reason of the rabbis? “That can be drunk.” Does Rebbi Eliezer hold with Rebbi Ismael, that for a particular statement after a general one, everything is included? He assumes more than Rebbi Ismael, in that even if there is a second general statement, all is included. Rebbi Paregoros from Caesarea: Rebbi Eliezer ben Rebbi Ismael said: So did Rebbi Eliezer answer the Sages: Since you interpret (Lev. 11:34): “That can be eaten,” to exclude stinking food, so I hold “that can be drunk,” to exclude stinking drinks. They said to him, solid food and drinks are not comparable. If you argue about food, which is pure if stinking from the start, what can you infer for drinks since drinks stinking from the start can become impure? Another approach: If you argue about food, when human food does not need thinking about, what can you infer for drinks since human drink needs thinking about? Because they need thinking about them, should drinks stinking from the start become impure? Because they need thinking about them, drinks stinking from the start should be pure! Another approach. They said to him: If you argue about food, animal feed for humans is not created by thought, what can you infer for drinks since animal drinks for humans need thought? We have stated thus: (Lev. 11:34) “Any drink,” why does the verse have to add “that can be drunk”? This excludes stinking drinks, the words of Rebbi Eliezer. They said to him, no drink is rejected by birds or a cow.

Rebbi Abbahu said, anything which sits in the hair is called “wig.” The younger Rebbi Yannai had cotton wool in his ear which fell out. He wanted to return it on the Sabbath. His companions rebuked him; was it because of jewelry? Was Rebbi Yannai of the opinion that oil is the healing agent, whereas the Sages were of the opinion that the cotton wool was the healing agent? But did not (Rav) [Rebbi] Jehudah say in the name of Rav Zeˋira, a person with earache puts oil on his head and whispers on condition that he use neither hand nor vessel? Was Rebbi Yannai of the opinion that practice follows Rebbi Yose whereas his companions were of the opinion that practice does not follow Rebbi Yose? Buy did not Rebbi Abba bar Cahana, Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi say in the name of Rav, practice follows Rebbi Yose? Was Rebbi Yannai of the opinion that they did not consider humans like soil whereas his companions were of the opinion that they made humans like soil? But did not Rebbi Zeˋira say that Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi made himself a handle for the cotton wool in his ear? Could they hold that a human is treated like soil? Is this so? But it must be the following: Rebbi Yannai was of the opinion that he would not forget and carry it four cubits in the public domain and his companions were of the opinion that one would forget and carry it four cubits in the public domain.

Rebbi Abbahu said, anything which sits in the hair is called “wig.” The younger Rebbi Yannai had cotton wool in his ear which fell out. He wanted to return it on the Sabbath. His companions rebuked him; was it because of jewelry? Was Rebbi Yannai of the opinion that oil is the healing agent, whereas the Sages were of the opinion that the cotton wool was the healing agent? But did not (Rav) [Rebbi] Jehudah say in the name of Rav Zeˋira, a person with earache puts oil on his head and whispers on condition that he use neither hand nor vessel? Was Rebbi Yannai of the opinion that practice follows Rebbi Yose whereas his companions were of the opinion that practice does not follow Rebbi Yose? Buy did not Rebbi Abba bar Cahana, Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi say in the name of Rav, practice follows Rebbi Yose? Was Rebbi Yannai of the opinion that they did not consider humans like soil whereas his companions were of the opinion that they made humans like soil? But did not Rebbi Zeˋira say that Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi made himself a handle for the cotton wool in his ear? Could they hold that a human is treated like soil? Is this so? But it must be the following: Rebbi Yannai was of the opinion that he would not forget and carry it four cubits in the public domain and his companions were of the opinion that one would forget and carry it four cubits in the public domain.

MISHNAH: One saves food for three meals; human food for humans and animal feed for animals. How is this? If the fire started Friday Night, one saves food for three meals, in the morning one saves food for two meals, in the afternoon one saves food for one meal. Rebbi Yose says, one always saves food for three meals.

HALAKHAH: “One surrounds with sticks, on condition,” etc. One surrounds with sticks for a caravan, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. This implies that an individual needs woof and warp. So Rebbi Jehudah differentiates between an individual and a caravan; do the rabbis not differentiate between an individual and a caravan? Let us hear from the following: “If a caravan rested on a hill ten [hand-breadths] high, or in a depression ten [hand-breadths] deep, or in a garden fenced in by a stone wall, one carries in it even if it is a kor or two kor, (one carries in it up to two bet se’ah), on condition that they do not leave an area of two bet se’ah unoccupied.” Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ḥinena: even with camel saddles, even with tubs. The word of Rav Huna implies, only by humans. For Rebbi Abba said in the name of Rav Ḥuna, to one or two one gives two bet se’ah, to three one gives six bet se’ah, from there on by proportion.

HALAKHAH: “One installs hens on brooding stalls on the Fourteenth,” therefore not during the holiday. One does not breed an animal on the holiday but may lead it to the corral. Rebbi Jehudah says, one breeds a female donkey in heat on the holiday, lest it cool down; all other animals one leads to the corral. One bleeds humans and animals on the holiday, and does not refrain from any medical procedure for humans or animals on the holiday.

HALAKHAH: “One installs hens on brooding stalls on the Fourteenth,” therefore not during the holiday. One does not breed an animal on the holiday but may lead it to the corral. Rebbi Jehudah says, one breeds a female donkey in heat on the holiday, lest it cool down; all other animals one leads to the corral. One bleeds humans and animals on the holiday, and does not refrain from any medical procedure for humans or animals on the holiday.

Rebbi Eleazar said, bulls and he-goats to be burned which he slaughtered with the intent to pour the blood the next day, he made piggul. To burn the parts on the next day he made piggul. To burn the meat the next day he did not make piggul since he neither intended it as food for humans nor as food for the altar.

Rebbi Shammai asked, if the parts were lost, may one pour the blood for the meat? He had not heard what Rebbi Eleazar had said, since he neither intended as food for humans nor as food for the altar. Rebbi Zakkai stated:A non-Cohen who burned makes garments impure. One only has to ask, is it qualified during nighttime? It is an argument de minore ad majus. Since burning of the parts which is not qualified for a non-Cohen may be done in the night, for these which are qualified for a non-Cohen it is logical that it should be qualified during nighttime.

MISHNAH: If it falls after the Sabbath, the House of Shammai say that one immerses everything before the start of the Sabbath, but the House of Hillel say implements before the Sabbath and humans on the Sabbath.

“And humans on the Sabbath.” Since a man after an emission of semen immerses himself on the Sabbath.

Rebbi Jacob from Kefar Ḥanan in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: When Abraham their forefather did My will, I swore to him that I never shall remove dew from his descendants forever; what is the reason? The Eternal swore and He will not change His intention, you are appointed forever. And it is written there, you have the dew of your youth. Rebbi Judah ben Pazi said, by a will I gave it to Abraham: God may give you from the dew of Heaven. Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman said, when Israel comes to sin by their evil deeds the rains are arrested. They bring an old man like Rebbi Yose the Galilean, he prays for them and immediately the rains come. But dew does not descend by the merit of any creature, what is the reason? Which do not listen to anybody nor wait for humans.

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, the people of Nineveh repented in trickery. What did they do? Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Ḥalfuta: They put calves inside and their mothers outside, foals inside and their mothers outside; these were mooing from one side and those mooing from the other side. They said, if He does not have mercy on us we shall not have mercy on them. That is what is written, how the animals groan, are cattle herds confused, etc. Rebbi Aḥa said, that is what they do in Arabia. They should be covered by sack-cloth, humans and animals, and call on God in force. What means “in force”? Rebbi Simeon ben Ḥalfuta said, the brash one wins over the proper one, so much more if it is for the good of the world. Each man shall repent his evil ways and robbery in their hands. Rebbi Joḥanan said, what they had in their hands they returned, what was in a chest, a trunk and a cupboard they did not return.

Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Yasa: The world only continues to exist by the sacrifices. There, we stated: “Simeon the Just was of the remainders of the Great Assembly. He used to say, the world continues to exist by three things, by the Torah, by worship, and by labors of love” All three are in one verse: I shall put My word in your mouth, that is Torah. By the shadow of My hands I shall cover you, these are labors of love; to teach you that he who is occupied with Torah and labors of love merits to dwell in the shadow of the Holy One, praise to Him. That is what is written, how precious is Your grace, o God, and humans take shelter in Your wings’ shadow. To plant the Heavens and give foundation to the earth, these are the sacrifices, and to say to Zion, you are My people, these are Israel. Rebbi Ḥinena bar Pappa said, we went over all of Scripture and only found this one that Israel was called Zion, and to say to Zion, you are My people. There, we stated: “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, the world is existing on three things, on justice, on truth, and on peace. All three are one: If justice is done, truth is accomplished. If truth is accomplished, peace is established. Rebbi Mana said, and all are in one verse, judge truth and law of peace in your gates.

There, we stated: “Simeon the Just was of the remainders of the Great Assembly. He used to say, the world continues to exist by three things, by the Torah, by worship, and by labors of love” All three are in one verse: I shall put My word in your mouth, that is Torah. By the shadow of My hands I shall cover you, these are labors of love; to teach you that he who is occupied with Torah and labors of love merits to dwell in the shadow of the Holy One, praise to Him. That is what is written, how precious is Your grace, o God, and humans take shelter in Your wings’ shadow. To plant the Heavens and give foundation to the earth, these are the sacrifices, and to say to Zion, you are My people. Rebbi Ḥinena bar Pappa said, we went over all of Scripture and only found this one that Israel was called Zion, and to say to Zion, you are My people. There, we stated: “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, the world is existing on three things, on justice, on truth, and on peace. All three are one: If justice is done, truth is accomplished. If truth is accomplished, peace is established. Rebbi Mana said, and all are in one verse, judge truth and law of peace in your gates.

MISHNAH: One does not split the Shema`, nor stand in front of the Ark, nor lift his hands nor read in the Torah, nor close with Prophets, nor proceed standing and sitting, nor recite benedictions for mourners or bridegrooms, nor say Grace invoking the Name, with less than ten attendants; in matters of real estate nine and a Cohen, and similarly about humans.

It was stated: One does not make public tender for slaves, and girl slaves, and movables. What is public tender? Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi said, announcement. Ulla bar Ismael said, slaves lest they flee, securities and movables lest they be stolen. Rebbi Abba bar Cohen asked before Rebbi Yose: Does this not imply that a slave be redeemed in front of three people? He answered him, yes. But did we not state: “Real estate nine and a Cohen. The same holds for humans”? He answered him, but the human here is a free person. Ḥanania bar Šelemiah in the name of Rav: A case came before Rebbi who wanted to act following the rabbis. Rebbi Eleazar ben Proteus, the grandson of Rebbi Eleazar ben Proteus, said to him: Rebbi, did you not teach us in your grandfather’s name, “except if he offered public tender”? He answered, yes, changed his mind, and acted following Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel.

We have stated there: “Rebbi Simeon says, a fistful is taken from the sinner’s flour offering of a Cohen. The fistful is sacrificed separately and the rest is sacrificed separately.” Both of them explained the same verse: “It shall be the Cohen’s as a flour offering.” The rabbis say, it is like his voluntary flour offering. Since his voluntary flour offering is brought entire, that one also is brought entire. Rebbi Simeon says, the tenth of an epha of a Cohen is like the tenth of an epha of an Israel. Since a fistful is taken from the tenth of an epha of an Israel, so a fistful is taken from the tenth of an epha of a Cohen. Maybe, since this one is eaten, the other is also eaten? The verse says, “Any flour offering of a Cohen shall be totally burned; it shall not be eaten.” The rest, under which category is it brought, under the rules of a fistful or under the rules of remainders? If you want to say, under the rules of a fistful, one cannot bring them during the night, one cannot bring them after death, and he is forbidden to think about them. If you want to say, under the rules of a remainder, one can bring them during the night, one can bring them after death. Is he forbidden to think about them? Let us hear from the following: Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon says, the fistful is sacrificed separately and the rest dispersed over the ashes. Rebbi Joḥanan asked, where are we holding? If the upper ashes, Rebbi Simeon already said it. If it cannot refer to the upper ashes, let it refer to the lower ashes. That means, one can bring them during the night, one can bring them after death, and he can think about them. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, he is forbidden to think about them since they are not qualified as food either for humans or for the altar. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal asked: Does Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon follow the rules of his father or the rules of the rabbis? According to the rules of his father, it should be brought on top [of the altar]. According to the rules of the rabbis, why should he take a fistful? He follows his father’s rules. Rebbi Simeon says, the tenth of an epha of a Cohen is like the tenth of an epha of an Israel. Since a fistful is taken from the tenth of an epha of an Israel, so a fistful is taken from the tenth of an epha of a Cohen. Maybe, since this one is eaten, the other is also eaten? The verse says, “Any flour offering of a Cohen shall be totally burned; it shall not be eaten.” Then it should be burned totally! You bound it to “it shall not be eaten”; you did not bind it to “it has to be sacrificed in its entirety.”

Rebbi Jacob bar Idi, Rebbi Ḥiyya, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It turns out that the minority opinion here is the majority opinion there and vice-versa. As it was stated: “One who makes a vow to abstain from meat is forbidden all kinds of meat, is forbidden head, feet, neck, heart, and liver. But he is permitted fish meat and grasshoppers. In this vein, Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, intestines are not meat and those who eat them are not humans.”

HALAKHAH: “Two potters were walking one behind the other,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan asked: Does one give time to the first to get up? Rebbi Yose said, it is obvious for Rebbi Joḥanan to give time to the first to stand up. But it is reasonable otherwise from the second one onwards, does one give time to the second to stand up? Let us hear from the following: “Potters were walking one behind the other. The first stumbled and fell, the next one stumbled and fell, the next one stumbled and fell. The first one pays to the second, and the second to the third. But if all fell because of the first, he pays for all of them. They are liable for damage to humans but not liable for damage to vessels. But if they (damaged) [warned] one another, none are liable. Donkey drivers were walking one behind the other. The first stumbled and fell, the next one stumbled and fell, the next one stumbled and fell. The first one pays to the second, and the second to the third. But if all fell because of the first, he pays for all of them. Donkeys were walking one behind the other. The first stumbled and fell, the next one stumbled and fell: even 100, all are liable.” Some Tannaïm state, none are liable. Rebbi La said, he who says ‘liable’, if their owner let them lie down. He who says ‘not liable’, if they fell, since animals are not responsible for accidents. “If the feet of a donkey were bad, one is not allowed to step over him. [ ]” What does it mean, ‘to step over him?’ They step on his body and pass by. “If one was free, the other loaded, the loaded one has the right of way before the free one. One unloaded, the other one loaded, the loaded one has the right of way before the unloaded one. If both were loaded or both unloaded, let them agree between themselves. Two carriages or two ships, one empty, the other loaded, the loaded one has the right of way before the unloaded one. If both were unloaded or loaded, let them agree between themselves.” “The person entering the bath house gives precedence to the person leaving; the person leaving the toilet gives precedence to the person entering.”

MISHNAH: A bull which is notorious for its kind but not notorious for other species, notorious for humans but not notorious for animals, notorious for small ones but not notorious for large ones, pays full damages for what it is notorious for, but half damages for what it is not notorious for. They asked before Rebbi Jehudah: If it was notorious on the Sabbath but not on weekdays? He answered, it pays full damages on Sabbaths but half damages on weekdays. When does it revert to be tame? If it changed its ways for three Sabbath days.

MISHNAH: Just as there is cheating in trade so there is cheating by words. One should not say to another: how much for this object, if he is not interested in buying. If somebody was a repentant sinner, one should not say to him: remember your earlier deeds. If somebody was the son of a proselyte, one may not say to him: remember the deeds of your forefathers, for it is written: “A sojourner you may neither cheat nor oppress, for you were sojourners in the Land of Egypt.” One does not mix produce, not even new with new; no need to say new with old. In truth they permitted to mix strong wine with weak since it improves it. One does not mix wine lees with wine but one delivers the lees with the wine. If water became mixed with somebody’s wine, he should not sell it in the store unless he declares it, and not to a trader for that one would only use it to trick people; at a place where they usually put water into the wine they may do so. The trader may buy from five threshing floors and put into one chest, wine from five wine presses and put into one barrel, on condition that he not intend to mix. Rebbi Jehudah says, a store owner should not distribute roasted kernels and nuts to children because he induces them to come to him, but the Sages permit. He should not reduce the price, but the Sages say, may he be remembered as a benefactor. He should not clean the groats following Abba Shaul, but the Sages permit it. However, they agree that he may not clean the upper layer of the chest since that gives a dishonest impression. One may not put makeup on humans, animals, or vessels.

MISHNAH: Whipping by three [judges]; in the name of Rebbi Ismael they said, by 23. The lengthening of a month by three [judges], the intercalation of a year by three [judges], the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, one starts with three, one discusses with five, and one votes with seven. But if they voted with three, it is intercalated. The leaning of Elders and the breaking of the calf’s neck by three [judges], the words of Rebbi Simeon, but Rebbi Jehudah says, by five. Ḥalîṣah and repudiations by three [judges], [redemption of] the growth of the fourth year and Second Tithe whose value is not known by three [appraisers], also of Temple dedications by three. Estimations of movables by three [appraisers], Rebbi Jehudah says that one of them must be a Cohen; of real estate nine and a Cohen. The same holds for humans. Capital crimes [are judged] by 23. The participants in active or passive bestiality [is judged] by 23, as it is said, you shall slay the woman and the animal, and it says, and you shall slay the animal. The bull to be stoned [is judged] by 23, as it is said, the bull shall be stoned, also its owner shall die; like the owner’s death sentence so is the ox’s death sentence. The wolf and the lion, the bear, and the tiger, and the panther, and the snake are sentenced to death by 23. Rebbi Eliezer says, anyone quick to kill them is meritorious; Rebbi Aqiba says, they are sentenced by 23.

It was stated: One does not make public tender for slaves, securities, and movables. [What is public tender?] Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi said, announcement. Ulla bar Ismael said, slaves lest they flee, securities and movables lest they be stolen. Rebbi Abba bar Cohen asked before Rebbi Yose: Does this not imply that a slave be redeemed in front of three people? He answered him, yes. But did we not state: “Real estate nine and a Cohen. The same holds for humans”? He answered him, but the human here is a free person. Ḥanania bar Šelemiah in the name of Rav: A case came before Rebbi who wanted to act following the rabbis. Rebbi Eleazar ben Proteus, the grandson of Rebbi Eleazar ben Proteus, said to him: Rebbi, did you not teach us in your grandfather’s name, “except if he offered public tender”? He answered, yes, changed his mind, and acted following Rabban Gamliel.

“And to proclaim the greatness of the King over kings of kings, the Holy One, praise to Him,” etc. To proclaim the greatness of the King over kings of kings Who from one die coins all seals and no one is like the other, as it is said: The seal turns around like clay. Why did He change their looks? That no man should jump and go to another’s wife or another’s field. It was stated in the name of Rebbi Meïr: Three things did the Holy One, praise to Him, diversify in humans: looks of the face, understanding, and voice. Looks and understanding because of the robbers, voice because of forbidden women. Rebbi Isaac said, even a fig tree or a wheat plant is not identical to any other. Man was created Sabbath Eve so from the start he should enter with a commandment. Another explanation: Why was he created last? A parable of a king who made a banquet. After he had ordered the meal, he invited the guests. So wisdom built her house, that is the Holy One, praise to Him, Who created the world in wisdom, as it is said, the Eternal in wisdom based the earth, etc. She quarried its seven pillars, these are the seven days of creation. She slaughtered her slaughtering, mixed her wine, these are seas and rivers and all the needs of the world. Any silly one shall come here, that is Adam and Eve.

HALAKHAH: “The Elder who rebels,” etc. Halakhah 4: “If he returned to his town, repeated and taught as was his custom,” etc. It is written: If something is being distinguished for you in law, this shows that the verse speaks about the distinguished member of the court. For you, this is counsel. Something is sermonizing. Whether blood and blood, whether menstrual blood or blood of virginity; whether menstrual blood, blood of flux, or blood of skin disease. Whether case or case, between those who are stoned, or burned, or decapitated, or strangled. Whether defect or defect, between a quarantined sufferer from skin disease or an absolute one; whether defect or defect, between defects of humans or of garments or of houses. Words, that is the drinking of the suspected adulteress, breaking the neck of the calf, and the purification of the sufferer from skin disease. Quarrels, these are estimations, bans, and dedications. You shall get up, from the court, and rise, this is the ascent.

Rebbi Ḥanina the son of Rebbi Abbahu said, Rebbi Meïr’s reason is that “shaping” is written for them as for humans. “The Eternal God shaped man as dust from the earth.” Rebbi Immi asked, because “shaping” is written for them as for animals, “the Eternal God shaped from the earth all animals of the field and the birds of the sky”? But is it not written “for behold the Shaper of mountains and Creator of wind”? Then, if she has a miscarriage in the shape of a mountain, she should be impure because of birth! There is a difference, for shaping is not written for them in the Creation story. Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Because they look forward as humans do. Abba bar bar Ḥana said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Because they walk forward as humans do. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya objected: Did we not state, “if his eyeball is round like that of a human,” is that not a defect? Rebbi Yose said, did we not state, look forward; did we not state, walk? What about it? Human eyeballs are round, animal eyeballs are elongated. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, human eyes have more white than black, animal eyes have more black than white.

Rebbi Ḥanina the son of Rebbi Abbahu said, Rebbi Meïr’s reason is that “shaping” is written for them as for humans. “The Eternal God shaped man as dust from the earth.” Rebbi Immi asked, because “shaping” is written for them as for animals, “the Eternal God shaped from the earth all animals of the field and the birds of the sky”? But is it not written “for behold the Shaper of mountains and Creator of wind”? Then, if she has a miscarriage in the shape of a mountain, she should be impure because of birth! There is a difference, for shaping is not written for them in the Creation story. Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Because they look forward as humans do. Abba bar bar Ḥana said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Because they walk forward as humans do. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya objected: Did we not state, “if his eyeball is round like that of a human,” is that not a defect? Rebbi Yose said, did we not state, look forward; did we not state, walk? What about it? Human eyeballs are round, animal eyeballs are elongated. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, human eyes have more white than black, animal eyes have more black than white.

Rebbi Ḥanina the son of Rebbi Abbahu said, Rebbi Meïr’s reason is that “shaping” is written for them as for humans. “The Eternal God shaped man as dust from the earth.” Rebbi Immi asked, because “shaping” is written for them as for animals, “the Eternal God shaped from the earth all animals of the field and the birds of the sky”? But is it not written “for behold the Shaper of mountains and Creator of wind”? Then, if she has a miscarriage in the shape of a mountain, she should be impure because of birth! There is a difference, for shaping is not written for them in the Creation story. Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Because they look forward as humans do. Abba bar bar Ḥana said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Because they walk forward as humans do. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya objected: Did we not state, “if his eyeball is round like that of a human,” is that not a defect? Rebbi Yose said, did we not state, look forward; did we not state, walk? What about it? Human eyeballs are round, animal eyeballs are elongated. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, human eyes have more white than black, animal eyes have more black than white.

And Rebbi Yasa said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Not all the criteria together but only one criterion. The following are the criteria: The forehead, the eyebrows, the eye, the ear, the mandible, the nose, the beard, and the dimple. And Rebbi Yasa said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Not all the criteria together but only one criterion. Rebbi Abba, Rav Jeremiah in the name of Rav: The words of Rebbi: Only if the entire face has human traits; but the words of the rabbis: Even one of the criteria; and the words of Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai: Even its fingernails. Rebbi Phineas asked: Are not the statements of Rebbi Simeon bar Ioḥai inverted? There, he says, “only if its head and most of its body are like its mother,” and here, he says so? Here about humans, there about animals. Rebbi Abba said, the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya went South. Rebbi Ḥama the father of Rebbi Hoshaia and bar Qappara asked him: What is the rule if its entire body is human and only its face is animal? He returned and asked Rebbi, who told him, go and write to them, it is no birth. Rebbi Jeremiah said, Zeugos went out, Rebbi Ḥama the father of Rebbi Hoshaia and bar Qappara asked him: What is the rule if its eyes are shapeless? He returned and asked Rebbi, who told him, go and write to them, there is no child. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rebbi follows his own opinion since Rebbi says, only if the entire face has human traits. What if its face was crushed? Rebbi Yasa said, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish differ. Rebbi Joḥanan says, it is no child; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish says, it is a child. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, not that Rebbi Joḥanan said it is no child in every respect but it is no child to provide the mother with days of purity; it is a child to require the mother to observe the days of birth. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: If its hip is unformed, it is not a child. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Joshua: If the navel is unformed, it is no child. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Zakkai: If its holes are unformed, it is no child. Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of Gidul: If its skull is unformed there is no child.

HALAKHAH: “If a woman miscarried an amnion full of water,” etc. It was stated: Full of water, she is impure for a birth; full of blood, she is impure as menstruating; full of flesh, she is impure as menstruating. But did we not state: “If a woman miscarried an amnion full of water, or blood, or flakes, she does not have to consider this as a child”? Rebbi Bevai in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: The Mishnah if [the contents are] clear; the baraita if [the contents are] turbid. Rebbi Simon in the name of R. Joshua ben Levi: Even if all was clear, since only humans have an amnion! That is what is written: “When I gave clouds as his garment and fog as his diapers.” “His garment” is the amnion, “and fog his diapers” that is the placenta.