huna

HALAKHAH: “Watchmen of produce eat because of local practice,” etc. Rav Huna said, the Mishnah refers to watchmen of produce. But watchmen of vegetable gardens and orchards eat by Torah law. Samuel said, the Mishnah refers to watchmen of vegetable gardens and orchards. But watchmen of produce eat neither by Torah law nor by local practice. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated in support of Rav Huna: “The Cohen shall be impure until evening,” to include watchmen, that they make their garments impure.

Rav Huna said, if it swept them away in their earth. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, the years of ‘orlah are their dispute.

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

Rav Huna said, a courtyard is divided by the number of doors. Rav Ḥisda said, the baraita refers to manure. It was stated as follows: “For the cooking stove one handbreadth, for manure according to doors, for the covered walkway according to people.” “Five courtyards which were using a water conduit and it broke. All of them repair together with the uppermost. The uppermost repairs at its place; the others with the second one. The second one repairs at its place; the lowest one repairs with all of them and at its place.” “Five apartments are built above a house which broke. All of them repair with the lowest. The lowest repairs at its place; the others with the second one. The second one repairs at its place; the uppermost repairs with all of them and at its place. If it was a storm sewer they can prevent it being used for laundry. For laundry they cannot prevent it being used as storm sewer.”

It was stated: About his neighbor he may change his mind. Once he accepted it he can no longer change his mind. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, even after he accepted it, he can change his mind, for he can tell him, they come and go here, they are looking for you and do not find you, and they increase traffic here. Rebbi Ḥanina and Rebbi Mana, one said, what is “his neighbor”? He let him live in his house. Once he accepted it he can no longer change his mind. Rav Huna said, one said, what is “his neighbor”? He opened a store for him. Once he accepted it he can no longer change his mind. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel parallels Rebbi Meïr, as we have stated there: “For all of these says Rebbi Meїr that, even if he contracted with her, she can say ‘I thought that I could stand it, now I cannot.’ ”

Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina asked Rebbi Joḥanan: Must a protest be filed before a court? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: a protest does not have to be filed before a court. But some say, Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina asked Rebbi Joḥanan’s student: Must a protest be filed before a court? Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: a protest must be filed before a court. Samuel said, even if he protested against him in front of workers, it is a protest, but he has to protest in each one of the three years. Giddul ben Minyamin had a case; his judges were Ḥilqiah bar Tobi, Rav Huna, and Ḥiyya bar Rav. Ḥiyya bar Rav told them, so said my father: Once he protested the first three years, he is not required to protest further. It was stated thus: “If he ate it as his own for six years, he protested against him the first three years; then he said, you sold it to me, you gave it to me as a gift, there is no claim of undisturbed possession. Because of an initial claim it would have been a claim of undisturbed possession since any claim of undisturbed possession not accompanied by a claim of legal ownership is not a claim of undisturbed possession.” Samuel said, if it is so, nothing would be left for the great people of the Land of Israel.

“Sharecroppers.” Rav Huna said, a permanent sharecropper, but a temporary sharecropper has a claim of undisturbed possession. Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both teach that even a temporary sharecropper has no claim of undisturbed possession, for we may say that he is satisfied with him and let him have it. There, they say that a sharecropper has no claim of undisturbed possession but a sharecropper’s son has a claim of undisturbed possession; Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish say, neither a sharecropper nor a sharecropper’s son have a claim of undisturbed possession, for we may say that he was satisfied with his father and let the son have it. As Rebbi Joḥanan said, a sharecropper who engaged another sharecropper has no claim of undisturbed possession since it is common for sharecroppers to engage sub-sharecroppers.

HALAKHAH: “Neither the cistern,” etc. Then why did he write “its bottom and height”? That if he wants to dig down, he may dig down and if he wants to increase its height, he may increase its height. Rav Abba bar Rav Huna in the name of Rav: Practice follows Rebbi Aqiba in our version which is following the rabbis in Rebbi Ḥiyya’s version. Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rav Jeremiah in the name of Rav: Practice follows Rebbi Aqiba in Rebbi Ḥiyya’s version which is following the rabbis in the Babylonians’ version.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody says to another: I am selling you a bet kor of dust,” etc. Rebbi Yasa said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Only if it is the smaller part of his field and enclosed in it. And a rock with a total surface area of a bet rova‘ is not measured with it. If it is in the middle, it is measured, at the side it is not measured. What is a side and what is in the middle? In the House of Rebbi Yannai they said, any place surrounded by a ploughed area is in the middle; any place not surrounded by a ploughed area is to the side. Rebbi Yose came in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If it was a majority on one side, but if you spread it, it becomes a smaller part, and it is measured with it. How wide? Rebbi Ḥaggai said, up to four cubits. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, up to ten handbreadths. If there was a depression ten handbreadths deep but less than four wide, what is the rule? Let us hear from the following, what Rebbi Yasa said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: “Only if it is the smaller part of his field and enclosed in it. And a rock with a total surface area of a bet rova‘ is not measured with it. If it was split, it is measured with it.” This means that if the greater part of it was on one side, but if you spread it, it becomes the smaller part and is not measured with it. If there was a long depression which added up to a bet rova‘? Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba asked: If it was shaped like sticks, is it measured with it or not? Rebbi Yudan bar Ismael asked: If it was like marble plates, is it measured with it or not? Rebbi Isaac bar Tebelai asked: If it was formed like chairs, does he measure from the place of its wall or does he measure from its declivity? Rav Huna in the name of Rav, [Rebbi] Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Only if the total agricultural area was four bet kor.

“If somebody say to another: I am selling you half a field,” etc. Rebbi Huna said, the sixth itself he shall deduct.

HALAKHAH: It was stated: If somebody says to another: I am selling you half a field, and X and Y and half of Z surround you. Rav Huna, and Rav Jehudah, and Rebbi Jeremiah. One said, he gives him [an area shaped] like a pandur. And one said, he gives him something like a strip of cloth. And one said, he gives him something like patches.

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

Samuel asked Rav Huna: if one wrote a gift in the language of a sale? He answered, he made it ride on two racing horses; Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, they only said that one brings two white horses and makes it ride on both. One goes in one direction and the other in another; it turns out that he caught nothing.

Rebbi Idi in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah. The practice for a knotted one is the following. One writes the lender’s name, and the borrower’s name, the witnesses’ names, and the time. Then one knots it and repeats the text below. But should one not be afraid that maybe he falsifies? Rav Huna said, witnesses never sign below unless they first read in the text above: “I X son of Y accept everything written above.”

Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jeremiah: The signatures of the witnesses must be two blank lines away from the text. Rebbi Idi in the name of Rav Jeremiah: On a knotted document the witnesses sign lengthwise; on a simple document the witnesses sign across. The first one on the outside, the latter one on the inside. Rebbi Mana said, [ ]. How do the witnesses sign on a knotted document? Rav Huna said, between two knots. Rebbi Idi said, but between witnesses’ signatures and the document there may not be space for two lines.

Rebbi Huna handed a document to Rebbi Shammai. Ὸγδοή- was on an erasure, -κοντα was not on an erasure. Rebbi Ḥuna told Rebbi Shammai, find out what is the minimum with which -κοντα is used. He went out and said, τριάκοντα. After they left, he said, this one wanted to gain 30 and lost 20.

“Rebbi answered to confirm the words of Rebbi Ḥananiah ben Gamliel: The main text of the document proves whether it is simple or not simple.” What is the main text of a document? Rebbi Abba said, as Rav Huna said: witnesses never sign below unless they first read before them: “I X son of Y accept everything written above.” And did we not state: this is the formula for documents of indebtedness? Rebbi Mani said, this is the formula for knotted documents of indebtedness. Rebbi Abbin said, even if you say, it is the same for simple and knotted, for a simple document it is indispensable, for a knotted one it is not indispensable. Rebbi Jehudah says, if one adds to the practice. A simple document has two [winesses], a knotted one three, but they do it with three. A simple document inside, a knotted one on its back, but they do it inside and on its back.

HALAKHAH: “Somebody who lent to another by a document,” etc. Rav Huna said, predating is invalid but the document is valid. But did we not state: “A predated prozbol is valid, postdated it is invalid”? That means, Rav Huna, Rebbi Eleazar, and Rebbi Simeon ben Yaqim. Rav Huna, quoted here. “Rebbi Eleazar said, it is valid even if there are no signatures of witnesses on it if only he delivered it in the presence of witnesses; and she can use it to collect from encumbered property. For the witnesses sign on the bill of divorce only for the public good.” How? If about those who denied their testimony, the denied testimony is as if nonexistent, and the document should be valid? If about those who did not deny their testimony, did not Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish say, that they considered witnesses who signed a document as if their testimony had been cross-examined in court? What about it: As one formulates, “I, X ben Y, am taking a loan from you, Z, and U is guarantor.”

HALAKHAH: “Somebody who lent to another by a document,” etc. Rav Huna said, predating is invalid but the document is valid. But did we not state: “A predated prozbol is valid, postdated it is invalid”? That means, Rav Huna, Rebbi Eleazar, and Rebbi Simeon ben Yaqim. Rav Huna, quoted here. “Rebbi Eleazar said, it is valid even if there are no signatures of witnesses on it if only he delivered it in the presence of witnesses; and she can use it to collect from encumbered property. For the witnesses sign on the bill of divorce only for the public good.” How? If about those who denied their testimony, the denied testimony is as if nonexistent, and the document should be valid? If about those who did not deny their testimony, did not Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish say, that they considered witnesses who signed a document as if their testimony had been cross-examined in court? What about it: As one formulates, “I, X ben Y, am taking a loan from you, Z, and U is guarantor.”

HALAKHAH: “Somebody who lent to another by a document,” etc. Rav Huna said, predating is invalid but the document is valid. But did we not state: “A predated prozbol is valid, postdated it is invalid”? That means, Rav Huna, Rebbi Eleazar, and Rebbi Simeon ben Yaqim. Rav Huna, quoted here. “Rebbi Eleazar said, it is valid even if there are no signatures of witnesses on it if only he delivered it in the presence of witnesses; and she can use it to collect from encumbered property. For the witnesses sign on the bill of divorce only for the public good.” How? If about those who denied their testimony, the denied testimony is as if nonexistent, and the document should be valid? If about those who did not deny their testimony, did not Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish say, that they considered witnesses who signed a document as if their testimony had been cross-examined in court? What about it: As one formulates, “I, X ben Y, am taking a loan from you, Z, and U is guarantor.”

A person brought a suit before Rav Huna, He told him, bring me a person who climbs the date palm instead of me.

Rav Huna was a cowherd when he knew testimony for a person, who told him, come and testify for me. He answered him, give me my wages. It was stated thus: “One pays the judge for his time and the witness for his testimony.

Why cannot always one stand up and one sit down? There is a difference because a witness cannot be a judge. Rav Huna knew testimony for somebody. He came and wanted to have the suit judged before Rav Huna, and denied all. Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac told him, because you know that (Rebbi) [Rav] Huna is an important person you deny everything. What if Rav Huna went and testified against you in another court? Rav Huna asked him, does one do that? He answered, yes. Rav Huna recused himself from that suit, went, and testified before another court.

Why cannot always one stand up and one sit down? There is a difference because a witness cannot be a judge. Rav Huna knew testimony for somebody. He came and wanted to have the suit judged before Rav Huna, and denied all. Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac told him, because you know that (Rebbi) [Rav] Huna is an important person you deny everything. What if Rav Huna went and testified against you in another court? Rav Huna asked him, does one do that? He answered, yes. Rav Huna recused himself from that suit, went, and testified before another court.

Why cannot always one stand up and one sit down? There is a difference because a witness cannot be a judge. Rav Huna knew testimony for somebody. He came and wanted to have the suit judged before Rav Huna, and denied all. Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac told him, because you know that (Rebbi) [Rav] Huna is an important person you deny everything. What if Rav Huna went and testified against you in another court? Rav Huna asked him, does one do that? He answered, yes. Rav Huna recused himself from that suit, went, and testified before another court.

Why cannot always one stand up and one sit down? There is a difference because a witness cannot be a judge. Rav Huna knew testimony for somebody. He came and wanted to have the suit judged before Rav Huna, and denied all. Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac told him, because you know that (Rebbi) [Rav] Huna is an important person you deny everything. What if Rav Huna went and testified against you in another court? Rav Huna asked him, does one do that? He answered, yes. Rav Huna recused himself from that suit, went, and testified before another court.

Why cannot always one stand up and one sit down? There is a difference because a witness cannot be a judge. Rav Huna knew testimony for somebody. He came and wanted to have the suit judged before Rav Huna, and denied all. Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac told him, because you know that (Rebbi) [Rav] Huna is an important person you deny everything. What if Rav Huna went and testified against you in another court? Rav Huna asked him, does one do that? He answered, yes. Rav Huna recused himself from that suit, went, and testified before another court.

Why cannot always one stand up and one sit down? There is a difference because a witness cannot be a judge. Rav Huna knew testimony for somebody. He came and wanted to have the suit judged before Rav Huna, and denied all. Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac told him, because you know that (Rebbi) [Rav] Huna is an important person you deny everything. What if Rav Huna went and testified against you in another court? Rav Huna asked him, does one do that? He answered, yes. Rav Huna recused himself from that suit, went, and testified before another court.

Rav Huna bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rav quotes it from the words of the Torah. As all that I am showing you, the shape of the building and the shape … of all its vessels, so you shall execute. So you shall execute in all generations. Moses is king and prophet. Aaron represents Urim and Tummim. Assemble for me seventy men from the Elders of Israel, that is the Synhedrion; ask your father and he will tell you, etc. Song, after them went Hoshaia and half the officers of Judea. Thanksgiving sacrifices, I put up two large thanksgiving sacrifices being in procession going to their right on the wall going to the dung gate. Rebbi Samuel bar Yudan said, what is written, walking? No, being in procession, only being taken by others.

“The High Priest sacrifices while in deep sorrow but does not eat, the words of Rebbi Meïr; Rebbi Jehudah says, the entire day. Rebbi Simeon says, he completely finishes the service he is engaged in and then leaves.” Between Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon there is one [difference], between Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Simeon there is one [difference]. Between Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Jehudah is entering. Rebbi Jacob ben Dositheos: interruption is between them. Rebbi Meïr says, if he was inside, he leaves; if he was outside, he did [not] enter. Rebbi Jehudah says, if he was inside, he enters; if he was outside, he did not enter. Rebbi Simeon says, he completely finishes the service he is engaged in and then leaves. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav Huna: a baraita is from Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: The Sanctuary he shall not leave, he may not leave with them, but he may leave after them. If they are unseen he can be seen; he leaves with them up to the city gate, the words of Rebbi Meïr; Rebbi Jehudah said, he does not leave the Temple since it is said: The Sanctuary he shall not leave. If he left, he may not return.”

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: “Deep sorrow” is only for the dead, for it is written: Its gates are in deep sorrow and mourning. Ḥiyya bar Ada objected: Is it not written: the fishermen are in deep sorrow? Rebbi Ḥanina said, so is the baraita: there is no deep sorrow in impurity except for the dead. It was stated: “What is deep sorrow? From the moment of death until the moment of burial, the word of Rebbi. But the Sages say, the entire day.” It turns out that one describes leniencies and stringencies following Rebbi, leniencies and stringencies following the rabbis. What is the difference between them? If he died and was buried within the hour. Following the rabbis, he is forbidden the entire day; following Rebbi he is forbidden only that hour. If he died and was buried after three days. Following the rabbis, he is forbidden the entire day; following Rebbi he is forbidden up to three days. There came Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, and Rav Ḥisda, both of whom said that Rebbi agrees with the Sages that he is forbidden only during the first day, as it was stated: Rebbi said, you know that deep mourning in the night is not biblical, since they said, “the deep mourner immerses himself and eats his Passover sacrifice in the evening.” But they said, deep mourning [during daytime] is biblical. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Huna: Explain it that he was buried close to sundown [and one cannot infer anything.]

One verse says, he made a libation for the Eternal, but another verse says, he covered. He who says ויסך, supports Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba. He who says, he made a libation, supports Bar Qappara. Rebbi Huna in the name of Rebbi Yose: He had a problem with the rules of captives. Rebbi Simeon ben Rebbi said, he desired to build the Temple

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

Rav Huna said: Who is the Tanna of “participants in pigeon contests”? Rebbi Eliezer, as we have stated there: “Participants in pigeon contests are disqualified from testimony.” Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose: Is that statement in Sanhedrin Rebbi Eliezer’s? He told him, it is everybody’s opinion. So said Rebbi Yose: We knew that he was disqualified for testimony in money matters. What does he come to testify about? For as he is disqualified in money matters, so he is disqualified to testify in criminal trials. The witnesses for the New Moon are held to the standards of criminal trials, as we have stated: “This is the principle: Any testimony for which a woman is not qualified, they are not qualified for.” Who stated this? The rabbis! Do the rabbis follow Rebbi Eliezer? They agree with him and disagree with him. Rebbi Huna in the name of Rav Huna said: It follows Rebbi Eliezer in everything. It turns out that this disagreement parallels another disagreement, as it was stated: A perjured witness is disqualified for any and all testimony required by the Torah, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Yose said, when has this been said? When he was found perjured in criminal matters. But if he was found perjured in money matters, he is disqualified only from that particular testimony. It turns out that Rebbi Yose parallels the rabbis and Rebbi Meïr Rebbi Eliezer.

Rav Huna said: Who is the Tanna of “participants in pigeon contests”? Rebbi Eliezer, as we have stated there: “Participants in pigeon contests are disqualified from testimony.” Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose: Is that statement in Sanhedrin Rebbi Eliezer’s? He told him, it is everybody’s opinion. So said Rebbi Yose: We knew that he was disqualified for testimony in money matters. What does he come to testify about? For as he is disqualified in money matters, so he is disqualified to testify in criminal trials. The witnesses for the New Moon are held to the standards of criminal trials, as we have stated: “This is the principle: Any testimony for which a woman is not qualified, they are not qualified for.” Who stated this? The rabbis! Do the rabbis follow Rebbi Eliezer? They agree with him and disagree with him. Rebbi Huna in the name of Rav Huna said: It follows Rebbi Eliezer in everything. It turns out that this disagreement parallels another disagreement, as it was stated: A perjured witness is disqualified for any and all testimony required by the Torah, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Yose said, when has this been said? When he was found perjured in criminal matters. But if he was found perjured in money matters, he is disqualified only from that particular testimony. It turns out that Rebbi Yose parallels the rabbis and Rebbi Meïr Rebbi Eliezer.

Rav Huna said: Who is the Tanna of “participants in pigeon contests”? Rebbi Eliezer, as we have stated there: “Participants in pigeon contests are disqualified from testimony.” Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose: Is that statement in Sanhedrin Rebbi Eliezer’s? He told him, it is everybody’s opinion. So said Rebbi Yose: We knew that he was disqualified for testimony in money matters. What does he come to testify about? For as he is disqualified in money matters, so he is disqualified to testify in criminal trials. The witnesses for the New Moon are held to the standards of criminal trials, as we have stated: “This is the principle: Any testimony for which a woman is not qualified, they are not qualified for.” Who stated this? The rabbis! Do the rabbis follow Rebbi Eliezer? They agree with him and disagree with him. Rebbi Huna in the name of Rav Huna said: It follows Rebbi Eliezer in everything. It turns out that this disagreement parallels another disagreement, as it was stated: A perjured witness is disqualified for any and all testimony required by the Torah, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Yose said, when has this been said? When he was found perjured in criminal matters. But if he was found perjured in money matters, he is disqualified only from that particular testimony. It turns out that Rebbi Yose parallels the rabbis and Rebbi Meïr Rebbi Eliezer.

As the following: A brother-in-law of Rav Huna’s had a case with some person. He said, I am accepting anything which Rav Huna will decide. Rav Huna heard it and said, this is it. I know that just as they said for the preceding generations, so it is for the following. Rav Jehudah in the name of Rav: Practice follows Rebbi Jehudah.

As the following: A brother-in-law of Rav Huna’s had a case with some person. He said, I am accepting anything which Rav Huna will decide. Rav Huna heard it and said, this is it. I know that just as they said for the preceding generations, so it is for the following. Rav Jehudah in the name of Rav: Practice follows Rebbi Jehudah.

As the following: A brother-in-law of Rav Huna’s had a case with some person. He said, I am accepting anything which Rav Huna will decide. Rav Huna heard it and said, this is it. I know that just as they said for the preceding generations, so it is for the following. Rav Jehudah in the name of Rav: Practice follows Rebbi Jehudah.

When Rav Huna saw that witnesses said exactly the same, he was investigating. When he saw them essentially identical, he determined the common element. Rav Huna made light of a judge who said, “accept a single witness,” but they should say it themselves. When Rav Huna realized an argument in favor of a person who himself did not know it, he guided him, following open your mouth for the dumb.

When Rav Huna saw that witnesses said exactly the same, he was investigating. When he saw them essentially identical, he determined the common element. Rav Huna made light of a judge who said, “accept a single witness,” but they should say it themselves. When Rav Huna realized an argument in favor of a person who himself did not know it, he guided him, following open your mouth for the dumb.

When Rav Huna saw that witnesses said exactly the same, he was investigating. When he saw them essentially identical, he determined the common element. Rav Huna made light of a judge who said, “accept a single witness,” but they should say it themselves. When Rav Huna realized an argument in favor of a person who himself did not know it, he guided him, following open your mouth for the dumb.

Rebbi Abba said in the name of Rav Huna: The witnesses have to stand while testifying, for it is said: the two men shall stand. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: Also the parties have to stand at the moment the verdict is given, as it is said: who have the quarrel before the Eternal.

Rebbi Jeremiah had a suit against a certain person. They accepted testimony not in the presence of Rebbi Jeremiah, and decided against Rebbi Jeremiah. He was sitting despondent; is it possible that one accepts witnesses not in the presence of the parties? Rebbi Hina, Rebbi Phineas, and Rebbi Ḥizqiah from Ḥuqoq did not go to the lecture on that day, but Rebbi Huna pushed, went in, and found Rebbi Jeremiah despondent; is it possible that one accepts witnesses not in the presence of the parties even if they are present with them in the same city? He told him, this is seen to be the rabbis’ opinion.

When Rav Huna saw that witnesses said exactly the same, he was investigating. When he saw them essentially identical, he determined the common element.

Rebbi Huna said, a verse supports him who said, the necromancer is the one who raises by his masculinity. What is the reason? Please apply necromancer’s magic and raise for me whom I shall tell you. What do you understand from here? Rebbi Mana said, it implies that she was competent in many ways. What about it? Your voice will be from the earth like that of a necromancer.

It is written: If the thief was found in a tunnel, was smitten, and died, there is no blood-guilt. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: In the tunnel there is no blood-guilt, outside the tunnel there is blood guilt. Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai stated: Even outside the tunnel there is no blood-guilt, for a person’s property is beloved by him like his own soul. He sees him, that he comes to take his money away from him, stands up against him and kills him. Rav Huna said, if he took a wallet, turned to leave and went, if then one stood up against him and killed him the killer will not be killed. What is Rav Huna’s reason? For his temper is hot. Rav said, I would kill anybody who would come against me, except Ḥanania ben Shila, of whom I know that he would come only to take his meal from me. Rebbi Isaac said, if he has the temerity to do something like that, he cannot be Ḥanania ben Shila.

It is written: If the thief was found in a tunnel, was smitten, and died, there is no blood-guilt. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: In the tunnel there is no blood-guilt, outside the tunnel there is blood guilt. Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai stated: Even outside the tunnel there is no blood-guilt, for a person’s property is beloved by him like his own soul. He sees him, that he comes to take his money away from him, stands up against him and kills him. Rav Huna said, if he took a wallet, turned to leave and went, if then one stood up against him and killed him the killer will not be killed. What is Rav Huna’s reason? For his temper is hot. Rav said, I would kill anybody who would come against me, except Ḥanania ben Shila, of whom I know that he would come only to take his meal from me. Rebbi Isaac said, if he has the temerity to do something like that, he cannot be Ḥanania ben Shila.

(Rav Huna said:) so far his daughter’s daughter from marriage. His daughter’s daughter from a rape? It is written, the genitals of your son’s daughter or your daughter’s daughter you shall not uncover. Where do we hold? If from marriage, it already had been said. So it cannot refer to marriage but must refer to rape. So far about his daughter’s daughter; from where his daughter? Rav said, if he is forewarned about his daughter’s daughter, so much more for his daughter! If for his daughter’s daughter he is subject to punishment (by extirpation), so much more for his daughter!

Rav Huna understood all of these [rules] from this verse: The genitals of a woman and her daughter you should nor uncover. And it is written, if a man take a woman and her daughter, it is taboo. Taboo-taboo for an equal cut. Since there are three generations downwards, so there are three generations upwards. Since there is a prohibition downwards, there is a prohibition upwards. Since downwards one requires marriage, so upwards one requires marriage. Since downwards they are burned, so upwards they are burned. Since downwards He gave the male’s daughter the same status as the female’s daughter, so upwards we give the male’s daughter the same status as the female’s daughter.

Rebbi Huna said in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: There is no forgetting before the Holy One, but for Israel He becomes forgetful. What is the reason? He forgives sin; “He forgets” is written. And so David said, You forgot Your people, You covered up all their misdeeds, Selah”.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, these are the words of Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah, Rebbi Ismael, and Rebbi Aqiba. But the words of the Sages are that the sent-away ram pardons. How does it pardon? Rebbi Zeˋira said, by and by. Rebbi Ḥanina said, at the end. What is the difference between them? If somebody died in-between. In the opinion of Rebbi Zeˋira, he already was pardoned. In the opinion of Rebbi Ḥanina, he was not pardoned. Rebbi Ḥanina said, a baraita supports Rebbi Zeˋira: There is strength in the ram which is not in the Day of Atonement, and in the Day of Atonement which is not in the ram, for the Day of Atonement pardons without a ram, but the ram does not atone except on the Day of Atonement. There is strength in the ram, for it pardons immediately but the Day of Atonement only at nightfall. Rebbi Huna said, the question was raised before Rebbi Jeremiah and he said, explain it if they intended to bring another ram but they did not bring it. Rebbi Yose ben Yose said, but does the Holy One, praise to Him, not see into the future? Then He should pardon immediately.

The words of the Sages are like goads; Rebbi Huna said, like a pearl. There, they call a pearl dirah. Another explanation, like goads, like a girl’s ball. Just as this ball is caught from hand to hand but in the end will come to rest in one hand, so “Moses received the Torah from Sinai and transmitted it to Joshua, Joshua to the Elders, the Elders to the Prophets, and the Prophets transmitted it to the Men of the Great Assembly.” Another explanation, like goads. It has three names, mardea`, da̅rva̅n, malmad. Mardea`, because it teaches knowledge to the cow. Da̅reva̅n, because it plants understanding in the cow. Malmad, because it teaches the cow to plough, to keep its owners alive. Rebbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina said, if a person makes a goad for his cow, certainly [he has to make one] for his bad inclinations which will remove him from this world and the World to Come.

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

Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi said. not only to the bridal chamber but also to a house containing the bridal chamber. The following is problematic: Dining room and bedroom, bridal chamber and bedroom; if she entered the dining room, for which consequence? Rebbi Joḥanan said, to inherit from her. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, to dissolve her vows. Rebbi Zeˋira said, even though Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, to dissolve her vows, he agrees that he cannot actually dissolve them before she enters the bridal chamber. Rebbi Huna said, a verse supports Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: to whore in her father’s house. This excludes the case where the father’s agents handed her over to the husband’s agents, that she could not be stoned, but is strangled.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, these are the words of Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah, Rebbi Ismael, and Rebbi Aqiba. But the Sages say that the scapegoat pardons. How does it pardon? Rebbi Ze`ira said, by and by. Rebbi Ḥanania said, at the end. What is between them? If somebody died in-between. In the opinion of Rebbi Ze`ira, he already was pardoned. In the opinion of Rebbi Ḥanina, he was not pardoned. Rebbi Ze`ira said, a baraita supports Rebbi Ḥanina: There is strength in the he-goat which is not in the Day of Atonement, and in the Day of Atonement which is not in the he-goat: The Day of Atonement pardons without a he-goat, but the he-goat does not atone without the Day of Atonement. The he-goat pardons immediately but the Day of Atonement only at nightfall. Rebbi Huna said, the question was raised before Rebbi Jeremiah and he said, explain it if they intended to bring another he-goat but they did not bring it. Rebbi Yose said, but does the Holy One, praise to Him, not see into the future? Then He should pardon immediately.

Rebbi Huna said in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: There is no forgetting before the Holy One, but for Israel He becomes forgetful. What is the reason? As it is said, Who is a Power like You, forgives sin. “He forgets” is written. And so David said, You forgot Your people’s sin.

The measure of prostrating is ten cubits. How is this? If the lengthy path was twenty but the short one ten. He went five. If he went in this direction, five, if in the other, fifteen. Rebbi Yose said, he never becomes liable unless the lengthy path exceed the short one by (ten). How is that? If the lengthy path was thirty but the short one ten. He went five. If he went in this direction, five, if in the other, twenty-five. What is the duration of prostrating? Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: up to a greeting from one person to another. Abba bar Huna in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: up to a greeting from a student to his teacher, “peace be with you, my teacher.”

Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun, Rebbi Huna in the name of Rebbi Yose. It is said here two and it is said there by the mouth of two witnesses. Since there it must be by the testimony of two witnesses, also here by the testimony of two witnesses. Then why does the verse say two? Lest one of them be standing while the other be sitting; one says everything he has to say, but to the other one says, make your statement short. With one he puts up, to the other he is unfriendly.

Rebbi Abba said in the name of Rav Huna: The witnesses have to stand while testifying. What is the reason? The two men shall stand. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: Also the parties have to stand at the moment the verdict is given. What is the reason?: Who have the quarrel before the Eternal.

“Rebbi Simeon says, both most holy and simple sancta; about any sancta for which he is responsible if alienated, I am reading against his neighbor and he lied; but about any sancta for which he is not responsible if alienated, I am reading against the Eternal and he lied.” Rav Huna said, both qualified and disqualified sancta, if he is responsible if alienated, even if they are for the Eternal, I am reading against his neighbor and he lied; but if he is not responsible if alienated, I am reading against the Eternal and he lied but not against his neighbor and he lied.

Samuel says, the oath does not move away from between them. If the lender swears, he swears and takes. But if the borrower swears, the other will present the pledge. “Who has to swear? The one who holds the pledge.” Rav and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish say, about the first part: “ ‘You loaned me a tetradrachma on it but it was worth two,’ and the other says ‘no, but I loaned you a tetradrachma and it was worth a tetradrachma;’ he is not liable. ‘You loaned me a tetradrachma on it,’ ” etc. “And the other says, ‘I do not know’.” Rebbi Abba, Rav Huna in the name of Rav: You do not know, the other knows. Rebbi Joshua [the Southerner] asked before Rebbi Jonah: There you say, you do not know, the other knows; but here you say so? There is desecration of an oath, here there is no desecration of an oath.

Rav Huna said, if after he swore he brought witnesses that it was standing at the feeding trough, the oath already had robbed it. A Mishnah disagrees with Rav Huna: “ ‘Where is my ox?’ He told him, it was lost. ‘I am putting an oath on you,’ and he said Amen. But witnesses testify that he ate it. He has to pay the value. If he confessed on his own, he pays the value, an additional fifth, and a reparation offering”. The Mishnah if he ate it and only later swore to him. What Rav Huna said, it he swore to him and only later ate it.

Rav Huna said, if after he swore he brought witnesses that it was standing at the feeding trough, the oath already had robbed it. A Mishnah disagrees with Rav Huna: “ ‘Where is my ox?’ He told him, it was lost. ‘I am putting an oath on you,’ and he said Amen. But witnesses testify that he ate it. He has to pay the value. If he confessed on his own, he pays the value, an additional fifth, and a reparation offering”. The Mishnah if he ate it and only later swore to him. What Rav Huna said, it he swore to him and only later ate it.

Rav Huna said, if after he swore he brought witnesses that it was standing at the feeding trough, the oath already had robbed it. A Mishnah disagrees with Rav Huna: “ ‘Where is my ox?’ He told him, it was lost. ‘I am putting an oath on you,’ and he said Amen. But witnesses testify that he ate it. He has to pay the value. If he confessed on his own, he pays the value, an additional fifth, and a reparation offering”. The Mishnah if he ate it and only later swore to him. What Rav Huna said, it he swore to him and only later ate it.

Rav Huna said: Who is the Tanna of “participants in pigeon contests”? Rebbi Eliezer, as we have stated there: “Participants in pigeon contests are disqualified from testimony.” Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose: Is that statement in Sanhedrin Rebbi Eliezer’s? He told him, it is everybody’s opinion. So said Rebbi Yose: We knew that he was disqualified for testimony in money matters. What does he come to testify about? For as he is disqualified in money matters, so he is disqualified to testify in criminal trials. The witnesses for the New Moon are held to the standards of criminal trials, as we have stated: “Any testimony for which a woman is not qualified, they are not qualified for.” Who stated this? The rabbis! Do the rabbis follow Rebbi Eliezer? They agree with him and disagree with him. Rebbi Huna in the name of Rebbi Jonah said: It follows Rebbi Eliezer in everything. It turns out that this disagreement parallels another disagreement, as it was stated: A perjured witness is disqualified for any and all testimony required by the Torah, the words of Rebbi Meїr. Rebbi Yose said, when has this been said? When he was found perjured in criminal matters. But if he was found perjured in money matters, he is disqualified only from that particular testimony. It turns out that Rebbi Yose parallels the rabbis and Rebbi Meїr Rebbi Eliezer.

Rav Huna said: Who is the Tanna of “participants in pigeon contests”? Rebbi Eliezer, as we have stated there: “Participants in pigeon contests are disqualified from testimony.” Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose: Is that statement in Sanhedrin Rebbi Eliezer’s? He told him, it is everybody’s opinion. So said Rebbi Yose: We knew that he was disqualified for testimony in money matters. What does he come to testify about? For as he is disqualified in money matters, so he is disqualified to testify in criminal trials. The witnesses for the New Moon are held to the standards of criminal trials, as we have stated: “Any testimony for which a woman is not qualified, they are not qualified for.” Who stated this? The rabbis! Do the rabbis follow Rebbi Eliezer? They agree with him and disagree with him. Rebbi Huna in the name of Rebbi Jonah said: It follows Rebbi Eliezer in everything. It turns out that this disagreement parallels another disagreement, as it was stated: A perjured witness is disqualified for any and all testimony required by the Torah, the words of Rebbi Meїr. Rebbi Yose said, when has this been said? When he was found perjured in criminal matters. But if he was found perjured in money matters, he is disqualified only from that particular testimony. It turns out that Rebbi Yose parallels the rabbis and Rebbi Meїr Rebbi Eliezer.

Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav: There are three times in Babylonia, three times in Media. Three times in Babylonia, מהורי וכנוני וכוונתה. Three in Media, נוסרדי ותירייסקי ומהירקנה. Rebbi Huna in the name of Rab Naḥman bar Jacob: New Year’s Day is on the second of March in Persia, on the 20th of March in Media.

“Ben Bathyra permits horses.” Ben Bathyra said this only about a male horse because it kills its owner in war. Some say, because it runs after females, and some say, because it stands still to urinate. What is between them? A gelding. He who says because it runs after females, it does not run. He who says because it stands still to urinate, this one also stands still to urinate. [Rebbi Aḥa in the name of] Rebbi Tanḥum bar Ḥiyya: If it gets old he binds it to the grindstone. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Huna: Ben Bathyra and Rebbi Nathan both said the same, as it was stated: “If he carried out domestic animals, wild animals, or birds, whether alive or dead, he is liable. Rebbi Nathan says, dead he is liable, alive he is not liable.” The rabbis hold that he is liable for a purification sacrifice and they answer him so? They answer following his own argument. Following your argument, since you are saying because of rabbinic Sabbath prohibition, also we hold that if it gets old he binds it to the grindstone. Rebbi says, I am saying that it is forbidden for two reasons, as a weapon and as a large animal. It was stated so: A large wild animal is like a (small) [large] domestic animal. Who stated this? Rebbi. The words of the Sages: Rebbi Bisna, Rebbi Ḥanan bar Abba in the name of Rav: A wild animal is like a (large) [small] domestic animal.

Rebbi Hoshaia said, why do we not explain it according to everybody, as Rav Huna said in the name of Rav: They weighed for me my (sheqels) [wages], thirty pieces of silver. These are the thirty commandments which the descendants of Noah will take upon themselves in the future. But the rabbis say, there are the 30 just persons which the world never will be lacking, as Rebbi Naḥman said in the name of Rebbi Mana, the world cannot be with less than 30 just men like our father Abraham. What is the reason? Abraham will certainly be, the numerical value of יהיה is 30. Sometimes the majority are in Babylonia and the minority in the Land of Israel; sometimes the majority are in the Land of Israel and the minority in Babylonia. It is a good sign for the world if most of them are in the Land. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Julianus in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: In the future the descendants of Noah will take all commandments upon themselves. What is the reason? Then I shall transform Gentiles’ purified lips. But at the end they will renege on it. What is the reason? Let us break their chains, and throw from us their ropes! That is the commandment of phylacteries; that is the commandment of ṣiṣit.

It was stated: “If a Gentile is paired with a Jew, he puts him on his right hand side. Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose says, with a sword, at his right; with a staff, at his left. If he climbs with him to an upper floor or descends to the exit, the Jew should be higher and the Gentile below. He should not lie down before him lest he smite his skull. And he should extend the way to him, that if he asks him where he goes he should indicate a farther distance, as our father Jacob did with Esau, until I shall come to my Lord at Seir. But he went to Sukkot. Rebbi Huna said, we do not find that our father Jacob went to Seir. Rebbi Yudan, son of Rebbi [Aivo], he spoke to him of the future world, when saviors will climb on Mount Sion to judge Mount Esau.”

Rebbi Huna said, (this means) [a baraita implies] that one does not heal through uncovering nakedness, as it was stated: The Sabbath was permitted in exceptional cases; the betrothed maiden was never permitted in exceptional cases. Was not the Sabbath permitted in exceptional cases for healing? Therefore the betrothed maiden was never permitted, not even for healing. Not only if one said to another, bring me a married woman, but even to hear her voice, as the following: In the days of Rebbi Eleazar a man loved a woman and fell dangerously ill. They came and asked Rebbi Eleazar, should she parade before him that he may live? He said to them, he should die but not this. May he hear her voice and live? He said to them, he should die but not this. How was it? Rebbi Jacob bar Idi and Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman, one said, she was a married woman, but one said, she was single. One who said that she was a married woman we understand. But the one who said that she was single? Did not Bar Koḥa the carpenter love a woman in the days of Rebbi Eleazar and (became dangerously sick) [and he permitted him]? One case about a married woman and the other about a single one. Even you may say, here and here about a single one, here and here about a married woman. Explain it that he became infatuated with her when she still was married. Some want to say, she was a woman of substance (and did not listen to him) [and did not want to marry.] Everything which he did was forbidden; therefore he did permit nothing to him.

If somebody worshipped an egg Ḥizqiah said, he did not make it forbidden; Rebbi Joḥanan said, he made it forbidden. Rebbi Zeˋira said, they disagree about an egg. The colleagues say, they disagree about pebbles in a river bed. Rebbi Huna said, a verse supports what the colleagues say:Your part is with river pebbles; these are your destiny. The strength of Ḥizqiah is from the following: “Then why is an Ashera forbidden? Because it was held by human hand, and anything held by human hand is forbidden.” Everybody agrees that wheat is forbidden; as Rebbi Ḥanina bar Yasa said in the name of Rav Jehudah: The roots of wheat split the earth to a depth of 50 cubits; the soft roots of a fig tree split rock. Then what do the roots of the carob and the roots of the sycamore? Rebbi Ḥanina said, once every thirty days the abyss wells up and drenches them. What is the reason? I, the Eternal, am watching over it and water it in moments. It was stated: Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says, this teaches that the earth drinks only according to its hardness.

What is Rebbi Aqiba’s reason? You should treat it as an abomination, like a menstruating woman. What is the rabbis’ reason? You should detest it, like vermin. How do the rabbis uphold Rebbi Aqiba’s reason, you should treat it as abomination? Treat it as excrement, make it vile. What means “make it vile” for the rabbis? Rebbi Samuel, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: you shall call it excrement. What is called God’s. Face is called Dog’s Face. Spring of the Cup is called Spring of the Thorn. The Place of Fortune is called the Place of Undress. Rebbi Tanḥuma (asked) [in the name of] Rebbi Huna: It is written, The Ai which is near Bet-Awen East of Bethel. Earlier it was called Bethel but now one calls it Bet-Awen. It was stated in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: If one does not want to call it ‘Omda one calls it ‘Amida since the flow of urine is called ‘amida. How (do the rabbis) [does Rebbi Aqiba] interpret you shall call it excrement? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abin, Rebbi Huna in the name of Rav Josef: from (where) [here] that one does not tell anybody to leave unless he entered with his head and most of his body.

What is Rebbi Aqiba’s reason? You should treat it as an abomination, like a menstruating woman. What is the rabbis’ reason? You should detest it, like vermin. How do the rabbis uphold Rebbi Aqiba’s reason, you should treat it as abomination? Treat it as excrement, make it vile. What means “make it vile” for the rabbis? Rebbi Samuel, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: you shall call it excrement. What is called God’s. Face is called Dog’s Face. Spring of the Cup is called Spring of the Thorn. The Place of Fortune is called the Place of Undress. Rebbi Tanḥuma (asked) [in the name of] Rebbi Huna: It is written, The Ai which is near Bet-Awen East of Bethel. Earlier it was called Bethel but now one calls it Bet-Awen. It was stated in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: If one does not want to call it ‘Omda one calls it ‘Amida since the flow of urine is called ‘amida. How (do the rabbis) [does Rebbi Aqiba] interpret you shall call it excrement? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abin, Rebbi Huna in the name of Rav Josef: from (where) [here] that one does not tell anybody to leave unless he entered with his head and most of his body.

There exists a baraita which says, idols are like a menstruating woman and its appurtenances are like a menstruating woman. Also there exists a baraita which says, idols are like a menstruating woman and its appurtenances are like crawling animals. The one who says, idols are like a menstruating woman and its appurtenances are like a menstruating woman, is understandable. But the one who says, idols are like a menstruating woman and its appurtenances are like crawling animals, is it not called “unwell” only for its appurtenances? Explain it if they were engraved on its body. As Rebbi Jacob of Kefar Ḥanan said, explain it if one worships the ephod itself, similar to what is written, Gideon made an ephod. Our Mishnah follows him who said, idols are like a menstruating woman and its appurtenances are like a menstruating woman, and we have stated: “its stones, its wood, and its dust make impure like a crawling animal.” Explain it if he worshipped the house itself, as Rebbi Abba, Rab Huna said in the name of Rav: One who worships a house makes it forbidden. Rebbi Zeˋira, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If somebody dedicates a house one does not commit larceny with it. And he who says, one does not commit larceny with it, can he make it forbidden? Rebbi Ḥaggai objected before Rebbi Yose, does not a Mishnah disagree with Rav? “A trough in a rock: one does not fill from it, and one does not sanctify with it, and one does not sprinkle with it, it does not have to be fastened with a tightened cover, and it does not invalidate a miqweh. If it was a vessel and he fixed it with lime, etc., up to it invalidates a miqweh.” Because he excavated it and after that combined it. Then if he fixed it and after that excavated it, what do you do with it? Explain it following Rebbi Joḥanan that the hewing of stones is the completion of work on them. Does this not disagree with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish who said, an idol which was broken is permitted? And so we are thinking to say if in the future he can restore it to its vessel it is forbidden according to everybody. Explain it if he worships every single stone and then builds with them. Does this not disagree with Rebbi Joḥanan, as Rebbi Joḥanan said, an idol which was broken is forbidden? And so we are thinking to say if in the future he cannot restore it to its vessel it is permitted according to everybody. Explain it if he worshipped a vine and afterwards planted it.

Rav Huna in the name of Rav: The jet is like the cistern. Rebbi Ze`ira asked: Everywhere you do not say that flow is connection, but here you are treating flow as connection? Rav Huna is of the opinion that if the cistern became libation wine, the flow became libation wine; if the flow became libation wine the cistern did not become libation wine. Rebbi Abba did not say so, but if the cistern became libation wine, the flow did not become libation wine; if the flow became libation wine the cistern became libation wine. What Rav Huna said in the name of Rav, the jet is like the cistern, for Rav Huna is of the opinion, just as the cistern becomes libation wine so the jet becomes libation wine. There, they say in the name of Rav, the touch of a Gentile makes libation wine. Rav Naḥman bar Jacob said, only when it is flowing.

Rav Huna in the name of Rav: The jet is like the cistern. Rebbi Ze`ira asked: Everywhere you do not say that flow is connection, but here you are treating flow as connection? Rav Huna is of the opinion that if the cistern became libation wine, the flow became libation wine; if the flow became libation wine the cistern did not become libation wine. Rebbi Abba did not say so, but if the cistern became libation wine, the flow did not become libation wine; if the flow became libation wine the cistern became libation wine. What Rav Huna said in the name of Rav, the jet is like the cistern, for Rav Huna is of the opinion, just as the cistern becomes libation wine so the jet becomes libation wine. There, they say in the name of Rav, the touch of a Gentile makes libation wine. Rav Naḥman bar Jacob said, only when it is flowing.

Rav Huna in the name of Rav: The jet is like the cistern. Rebbi Ze`ira asked: Everywhere you do not say that flow is connection, but here you are treating flow as connection? Rav Huna is of the opinion that if the cistern became libation wine, the flow became libation wine; if the flow became libation wine the cistern did not become libation wine. Rebbi Abba did not say so, but if the cistern became libation wine, the flow did not become libation wine; if the flow became libation wine the cistern became libation wine. What Rav Huna said in the name of Rav, the jet is like the cistern, for Rav Huna is of the opinion, just as the cistern becomes libation wine so the jet becomes libation wine. There, they say in the name of Rav, the touch of a Gentile makes libation wine. Rav Naḥman bar Jacob said, only when it is flowing.

Rav Huna in the name of Rav: The jet is like the cistern. Rebbi Ze`ira asked: Everywhere you do not say that flow is connection, but here you are treating flow as connection? Rav Huna is of the opinion that if the cistern became libation wine, the flow became libation wine; if the flow became libation wine the cistern did not become libation wine. Rebbi Abba did not say so, but if the cistern became libation wine, the flow did not become libation wine; if the flow became libation wine the cistern became libation wine. What Rav Huna said in the name of Rav, the jet is like the cistern, for Rav Huna is of the opinion, just as the cistern becomes libation wine so the jet becomes libation wine. There, they say in the name of Rav, the touch of a Gentile makes libation wine. Rav Naḥman bar Jacob said, only when it is flowing.

An Aramean fell into a cavity. The case came before Rebbi Huna who said, immobilize him until you have emptied the cavity. Rebbi Ḥanina said, he is moving his hand. He said, bring willow baskets and approach from under his hand.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody sold his wine to a Non-Jew,” etc. Rebbi Abba, Rav Huna in the name of Rav: One who handles a wine-skin and it splits in his hand is not responsible for it. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, it is necessary even if he takes it in the store when he has no other intention than that no other person should take it. Can he take possession at a minimal rate? Rebbi Ḥaggai said before Rebbi Yose, a Mishnah says that it cannot become his possession at a minimal rate, as we have stated there: “If somebody sells his wine to a Non-Jew, in case he fixed the price before that one measured, the proceeds are permitted; if that one measured before he fixed the price, the proceeds are forbidden.” If you say that it can come into his possession at a minimal price, even if he measured before he fixed the price should be as if he fixed the price before he measured and the proceeds would be permitted.

Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav: If somebody gives a loan to a person on condition that the Sabbatical not remit it, the Sabbatical does not remit it, as we have stated: “to return them after ten years instead of returning them after thirty days”. Are there ten years without a Sabbatical? Rebbi Huna said, Rav Naḥman and Rav Sheshet disagreed. One of them said, if the loan was given on a pledge; but the other said, if he writes him a prozbul.

HALAKHAH: If he threw the stone into his (comrade),” etc. Rebbi Yannai said, a butcher who was cutting up [a carcass] and hit somebody whether raising or descending has to go into exile. This follows what Rebbi Huna said: A butcher who was cutting up [a carcass] and hit somebody in front of him in a descending motion goes into exile, in an ascending motion does not go into exile. In his back, in an ascending motion he goes into exile, in a descending motion he does not go into exile. Rebbi Isaac said, each case goes by its circumstances. If somebody sat on a bed during the day, and it is not usual to find a baby in a bed during the day, he goes into exile. During the night, when it is usual to find a baby in a bed during the night, he does not go into exile. If somebody sat on a crib during the day, and it is usual to find a baby in a crib during the day, he does not go into exile. During the night, when it is not usual to find a baby in a crib during the night, he goes into exile.

[If a tree stands inside the domain but its crown is outside the domain.] [Rebbi] Abbai said, a scholar has to make his qualifications known. If he knows one collection and he comes to a place where they honor him as if he knew two, he has to tell them, I know one collection. (Rav Huna said, he says it in a soft voice and his right hand is stretched out to receive.)

Rebbi Jeremiah asked before Rebbi Zeˋira: Maybe following Rebbi? If the Anointed, error in action it is. But if the rabbis, oblivion of a topic it is. Rebbi Huna said, it was needed for the rabbis. That you should not say, the Anointed and idolatry: Rebbi said, in acting in error; the rabbis said, in forgetting a topic. He said [ ], because we did not state about the Anointed. But in the former, we did not state about the Anointed but the Anointed is included, and here, even though we did not state about the Anointed, the Anointed is included.

HALAKHAH: “They are only liable for something which when intentional is punishable by extirpation,” etc. The commandments of the Eternal. I could think that this also includes those who eat abominations and crawling things. It says here from the eyes and it says there from the eyes. Just as from the eyes mentioned there means something which is punished by extirpation in case of intentional sin and needs a purification sacrifice for an inadvertent sin, so from the eyes mentioned here means something which is punished by extirpation in case of intentional sin and needs a purification sacrifice for an inadvertent sin. Or since from the eyes mentioned there means something that can lead to the death penalty, so from the eyes mentioned here should mean something that can lead to the death penalty? Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, from a place where all incest prohibitions were taken as one set [of sins] causing extirpation, the (married woman) [father’s wife] came out to tell you about the bastard. Rebbi said over which, over her. Since over her mentioned there refers to something which is punished by extirpation in case of intentional sin and needs a purification sacrifice for an inadvertent sin, so over which mentioned here means something for which one is punished by extirpation in case of intentional sin and needs a purification sacrifice for an inadvertent sin. Why does Rebbi not infer from from the eyes, from the eyes? [Rebbi Zeˋira said: If Rebbi would infer from from the eyes, from the eyes, then from the eyes mentioned there for the Anointed refers to action in error; also from the eyes mentioned here would have to refer to action in error. Therefore, Rebbi will not infer from from the eyes, from the eyes.] Rebbi Yose said: If Rebbi would infer from from the eyes, from the eyes, then since from the eyes mentioned there means something that can lead to the death penalty, so from the eyes mentioned here means something that can lead to the death penalty. Therefore, Rebbi does not infer from from the eyes, from the eyes. (Does Rebbi not have a book) [Will Rebbi not in the end have] to infer from the eyes, from the eyes? For if it is not so, from where would we have the rules for the individual, the chief, and the Anointed? Not from from the eyes, from the eyes? For if it is not so, from where would we have “unless they ruled to eliminate part and to confirm part”? Not from from the eyes, from the eyes? For if it is not so, from where would we have [the difference between] a ruling of the High Court and a ruling of a lower court? Rebbi Ḥanania said before Rebbi Mana: Would not Rebbi in the end have to infer from from the eyes, from the eyes? He told him, what do you want from Rebbi? Rebbi follows his own opinion, since Rebbi said, the Anointed refers to action in error. Intentional error is only written for the Court. It. It specifies about his sacrifice that for the singular commandment its blood should not be brought into the Sanctuary. Does this follow Rebbi, as Rebbi said, the Anointed refers to action in error; if it would follow the rabbis, there must be an instance of forgetting. (Rav) [Rebbi] Huna said, it was needed for the rabbis. Lest you say, because there is extirpation its blood should be brought into the Sanctuary. Therefore, it was necessary to say it, it specifies his sacrifice that for the singular commandment its blood should not be brought into the Sanctuary.

“And who is the Anointed? This is one anointed with the anointing oil,” etc. Rav Huna said, the entire six months during which David was in flight before his son Absalom, his sins would have been atoned for by a female goat for a commoner.

“The High Priest sacrifices while in deep sorrow but does not eat, the words of Rebbi Meïr; Rebbi Jehudah says, the entire day. Rebbi Simeon says, he completely finishes the service he is engaged in and then leaves.” Between Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon there is one [difference], between Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Simeon there is one [difference]. Between Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Jehudah is entering. Rebbi Jacob ben Dositheos: interruption is between them. Rebbi Meïr says, if he was inside, he leaves; if he was outside, he does not enter. Rebbi Jehudah says, if he was inside, he (leaves); if he was outside, he does not enter. Rebbi Simeon says, he completely finishes the service he is engaged in and then leaves. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav Huna: a baraita is from Rebbi Simeon: “The Sanctuary he shall not leave, he may not leave with them, but he may leave after them. (But they enter and he leaves). If they are unseen he can be seen; he leaves with them up to the city gate, the words of Rebbi Meïr; Rebbi Jehudah said, he does not leave the Temple since it is said: The Sanctuary he shall not leave. If he left, he may not return.”

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: “Deep sorrow” is only for the dead, for it is written: Its gates are in deep sorrow and mourning. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada objected: Is it not written: the fishermen are in deep sorrow,mourning are all who throw a fish-hook into the Nile? Rebbi Ḥanina said, so is the baraita: there is no deep sorrow in impurity except for the dead. It was stated: “What is deep sorrow? From the moment of death until the moment of burial, the word of Rebbi. But the Sages say, the entire day.” It turns out that one describes leniencies and stringencies following Rebbi, leniencies and stringencies following the rabbis. What is the difference between them? If someone died and was buried within the hour. Following the rabbis, he is forbidden the entire day; following Rebbi he is forbidden only that hour. If the person died and was buried after three days. Following the rabbis, he is forbidden the entire day; following Rebbi he is forbidden up to three days. There came Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, and Rav Ḥisda, both of whom said that Rebbi agrees with the Sages that he is forbidden only during the first day, as it was stated: Rebbi said, you know that deep mourning in the night is not biblical, since they said, “the deep mourner immerses himself and eats his Passover sacrifice in the evening.” But they said, deep mourning during daytime is biblical. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Huna: Explain it that the person was buried close to sundown and one cannot infer anything.

Huna bar Ḥiyya said, the 24 hours which were quoted refer to sacrifices but not to pure food. Rav Ḥisda objected, was it not stated: “It happened with a girl in Aitlo that she missed for three periods and then had a period. When the case came before the Sages, they said that her timing is exact.” Are there sacrifices in Aitlo? But it must be food prepared in the purity of sacrifices! Is that not really profane food? Explain it if it was prepared in the purity of purifying water, since purifying water has more restrictive rules than sacrifices.

“Immediately, they are impure.” They said immediately for wiping, not for examination. Rav Huna said, that she should wipe the face of the house from the outside, but not what is in the rooms nor in the crevices. They asked before Rav Naḥman bar Jacob: Should she not examine it immediately? Rebbi Abba said, if you say that she should examine it immediately, you abolish immediacy. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, if you say that she should examine it immediately, is that not checking, to be reduced from 24 hours, as we have stated: Checking reduces from 24 hours? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, as an example, if the beadle and a witness were standing at the lintel. When the beadle comes out and the witness enters, that is “immediately”.

HALAKHAH: “The Sages gave a simile about a woman’s anatomy,” etc. So is the Mishnah: The blood from the room is impure but the blood from the upper floor is pure. Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: The room is inwards from the anteroom; the upper floor is over the room up to the middle of the anteroom, the door of the upper floor opens to the anteroom. Rav Naḥman bar Rav Isaac asked Rav Huna: Does the Mishnah [deal with the case that blood was found] inwards of the door of the upper floor? He said to him, if it was found inwards of the door of the upper floor it is certainly [impure]. But we deal with the case that it was found outwards from the door of the upper floor. The words of the rabbis disagree, since Rebbi Joḥanan said, three are like a doubt but they treated them as certain, viz., the following: A woman who has a miscarriage in the form of a cut-off hand or cut-off foot, or a placenta, and blood found in the anteroom. What are we speaking of? If it was found inwards of the door of the upper floor it is certainly [impure]. But we must deal with the case that it was found outwards from the door of the upper floor. Rebbi Abba the son of Rebbi Pappaios asked before Rebbi Yose: We have stated many doubts and you say so? He said to him, Rebbi Joḥanan spoke only of a woman.

“And black, like ink-stone.” How do you check that? Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah: One takes the ink-stone and puts in on white leather. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, on colored leather. Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of the rabbis: Black like a raven, black like a grape berry, black like asphalt are pure. The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Black like liquid ink is pure. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Like a felt hat imported from overseas is impure. Rebbi Ze‘ira asked before Rebbi Immi: Are all these facts to be acted upon? He answered him, yes. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, all of them, if they are lighter than the standard they are pure, darker than the standard impure. Rebbi Joḥanan said, all of them, if they are lighter than the standard they are pure, darker than the standard pure except for black. The Mishnah supports Rebbi Joḥanan, as we have stated: “And black like ink-stone is impure, lighter than that is pure.” Therefore, darker than that is impure, but only black was mentioned in that connection. Therefore, all others, even if they are darker than the standards, are pure. The town of Rav Jehudah followed Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish but Rav Jehudah himself followed Rebbi Joḥanan. Bar Qappara stated a support for Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish but one does not follow him in practice, since Rebbi Ḥanina mixed wine for Bar Qappara and asked him, if it is like that, what is its status? He answered, impure. He lightened it, then he answered, pure. He said to him, peace shall be on him who erred with his mouth but not with his eyes. They wanted to say that he who says pure, refers to when it was polished. But he who says impure , if it is not polished. Let us hear from the following: It happened that a woman from the Patriarchate had a discharge of black blood. The case came before Rebbi Jacob bar Zabdi and Rebbi Isaac bar Ṭabelai; they wanted to declare her impure. Rebbi Ḥelbo told them: So says Rav Huna in the name of Rav: Black which penetrates is pure, that which polishes is impure. He said that only about black. Therefore, all others are pure even if they polish.

Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman learned from Rebbi Eleazar the kinds of pure blood. Does this mean, not the impure kinds? But did not Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman say to Rebbi Eudaimon from Haifa: That one is close to produce blood of a menstruating woman? But one who learns one kind, learns at the same time the other kind. Isaac bar Jonathan and Rav Huna were sitting together when a woman came and asked them. Isaac bar Jonathan said to her, did you see it more smoky than that? Rav Huna said to him, so says Rav: Instruct according to what comes before you! Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said in the name of Rebbi Simeon bar Abba: A number of chests full of problems came before Rebbi Ḥanina and about what came before him, he did pronounce.

Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman learned from Rebbi Eleazar the kinds of pure blood. Does this mean, not the impure kinds? But did not Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman say to Rebbi Eudaimon from Haifa: That one is close to produce blood of a menstruating woman? But one who learns one kind, learns at the same time the other kind. Isaac bar Jonathan and Rav Huna were sitting together when a woman came and asked them. Isaac bar Jonathan said to her, did you see it more smoky than that? Rav Huna said to him, so says Rav: Instruct according to what comes before you! Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said in the name of Rebbi Simeon bar Abba: A number of chests full of problems came before Rebbi Ḥanina and about what came before him, he did pronounce.

HALAKHAH: “If a woman miscarried a sole or a placenta,” etc. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah: There only is a sole because it was weighed down by a living [fetus]; it comes out not with a living but with a dead [child]. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya objected: did we not state, “if a woman miscarried a sole or a placenta, she should observe for male and female birth”? That means, it is a child! Rebbi Huna said, I explained it before Rebbi Jeremiah. Explain it if the child was born through the wall of the womb and the sole from the womb. The child within fulfilling, the sole after fulfilling. The child before she converted, the sole after she converted. But even you may say, both were born from the womb, both were born after she converted. Explain that the child was born first and she designated a sacrifice for it. Before she could bring the sacrifice, the sole came out and the first sacrifice was pushed away. It turns out that she brings the sacrifice for the sole.

Raba stated that Rab Sahorah said in the name of Rab Huna : Him in whom the Holy One, blessed be He, delighteth He crusheth with sufferings ; as it is said, "Yet it pleased the Lord to crush him by disease" (Is. liii. 10).

It happened to Rab Huna that four hundred flasks of wine turned sour. There visited him Rab Judah the brother of Rab Sala Hasida and other Rabbis. (Another version : Rab Adda b. Ahaba and other Rabbis.) They said to him, "The master should look into his actions." He answered them, "Have I aroused suspicion in your eyes?" They retorted, "Is the Holy One, blessed be He, to be suspected of passing an unjust judgment?"

Rab Huna said : Every one of us has a thousand on his left hand and myriads on his right.