ila

HALAKHAH: We have stated: “A person may not drag a bed, or a chair, or a footstool, or a fauteuil, because he makes a groove, but Rebbi Simeon permits.” Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Ḥuna, Rebbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira, Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Ila: The Sages admit to Rebbi Simeon that a chair whose legs are stuck in mud one is permitted to move on the Sabbath. Similarly it is permitted to return it. Rebbi Yose said, we also have stated: “and they may be removed on the Sabbath.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, this is Rebbi Simeon’s. Rebbi Yose said, a Mishnah says so, “one may not drag any implement except a carriage because it compresses.”

“Nor dance.” Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Rav Ḥuna: Jumping: one lifts both legs simultaneously. Dancing: one lifts one and keeps the other down. Rebbi Eleazar said, all sound making is forbidden on the Sabbath. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac was of the opinion to knock for a new synagogue. Rebbi Hillel son of Rabbi Vales would knock on a cup. Rabbi Ila stayed late at the great assembly. When he went home, he found them sleeping. He lay down on the stairs so as not to knock on the gate on the Sabbath. Rebbi Jeremiah explained Scripture with Rebbi Immi’s son. He went and wanted to wake him up in the morning of the Sabbath. He started knocking on the door. His father told him, who did permit this to you? Rebbi Abba bar Cahana asked before Rebbi Yasa, may one knock on a belly on the Sabbath? He said to him, who permitted that on a weekday? Rebbi Samuel ben Eudaimon said, the rabbis are accustomed on a weekday from the navel upwards, through his clothing from the navel downwards.

May one light an idle candle? Ḥizqiah said, it is forbidden. A baraita disagreed with Ḥizqiah: “Do not make fire in all of your dwelling places on Sabbath day. On the Sabbath you may not make fire, but you make fire on a holiday.” If you would say, we deal with cases connected with food, is there not written, only what can be eaten by any breathing being, that alone may be made by you. Therefore what we are dealing with an idle candle. Rebbi Avuna said, it was stated there, the House of Shammai forbid but the House of Hillel permit. Rebbi Naḥum the brother of Rebbi Ila asked before Rebbi Joḥanan. He said to him, do neither forbid nor permit.

“One gives burnt ashes on top of the Ark.” Because of with him I am in trouble. Rebbi Ze`ira said, any time that I saw them doing this my body shuddered. In the days of Rebbi Ila they left the Ark standing and went away. Rebbi Ze`ira said to him, was it not stated: they should not take turns during the day but one person should sit there and watch it during the entire day?

HALAKHAH: For what reason were the times of wood by the priests and the people to be counted? Only that at the time when Israel returned from the Diaspora and did not find wood in the chamber, those came forward and volunteered wood from their own and donated it to the public. It was used to offer public sacrifices. The prophets among them stipulated that even if the chamber was full of wood [they would bring of their own]. If those came and offered and volunteered wood from their own, that the sacrifice should only be brought first from theirs. Rebbi Aḥa said, this is Rebbi Yose’s, since Rebbi Yose said, also he may volunteer as unpaid trustee. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Ila, it is the opinion of everybody. Where do they disagree? About the body of the offering. But for enablers of the offering everybody agrees that a private offering can be turned into public offering. It was stated, a woman who made a coat for her son has to surrender it to the public. Rebbi Aḥa said, this is Rebbi Yose’s, since Rebbi Yose said, also he may volunteer as unpaid trustee. Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Ila, it is the opinion of everybody. Where do they disagree? About the body of the offering. But for enablers of the offering everybody agrees that a private offering can be turned into public offering. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Yose: “Those days are observed at the time of sacrifices and not at the time of sacrifices; Rebbi Yose says, they are observed only at the time of sacrifices.” Also from the following: “Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose said, we were of the descendants of Senaah ben Benjamin. When the Ninth of Av fell on a Sabbath, we postponed it to the end of the Sabbath and they were fasting but not completing.”

HALAKHAH: For what reason were the times of wood by the priests and the people to be counted? Only that at the time when Israel returned from the Diaspora and did not find wood in the chamber, those came forward and volunteered wood from their own and donated it to the public. It was used to offer public sacrifices. The prophets among them stipulated that even if the chamber was full of wood [they would bring of their own]. If those came and offered and volunteered wood from their own, that the sacrifice should only be brought first from theirs. Rebbi Aḥa said, this is Rebbi Yose’s, since Rebbi Yose said, also he may volunteer as unpaid trustee. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Ila, it is the opinion of everybody. Where do they disagree? About the body of the offering. But for enablers of the offering everybody agrees that a private offering can be turned into public offering. It was stated, a woman who made a coat for her son has to surrender it to the public. Rebbi Aḥa said, this is Rebbi Yose’s, since Rebbi Yose said, also he may volunteer as unpaid trustee. Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Ila, it is the opinion of everybody. Where do they disagree? About the body of the offering. But for enablers of the offering everybody agrees that a private offering can be turned into public offering. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Yose: “Those days are observed at the time of sacrifices and not at the time of sacrifices; Rebbi Yose says, they are observed only at the time of sacrifices.” Also from the following: “Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose said, we were of the descendants of Senaah ben Benjamin. When the Ninth of Av fell on a Sabbath, we postponed it to the end of the Sabbath and they were fasting but not completing.”

HALAKHAH: “The scroll is read,” etc. Rebbi Ila, Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: To confirm these Purim days in their times. Why does the verse say, in their times? Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose. Rebbi Jonah says, to give them other times. Rebbi Yose says, times which the Sages fixed for them. And those are these: the Eleventh, the Twelfth, the Thirteenth, the Fourteenth, the Fifteenth. Or maybe only the Sixteenth and the Seventeenth? Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: and it shall not pass by, one shall not impregnate. Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman in the name of Samuel: and it shall not pass by, and one shall not let it pass. Maybe it is only the Ninth and the Tenth? Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: It is not written “days” but like the days, pair days with days, the Eleventh and Twelfth corresponding to Fourteenth and Fifteenth. Or the Twelfth and Thirteenth corresponding to Fourteenth and Fifteenth? Rebbi Ḥelbo said, the Thirteenth was a day of war. It proves for itself that it was not a day of comfort. Then one should not read on this day. One reads before and after, on the day one should not read? Or only the Ninth and the Tenth? Like the days, days close to the days. But if days close to the days, {maybe} only Sixteenth and Seventeenth? You cannot, for Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: and it shall not pass by, one shall not impregnate. [Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman in the name of Samuel: and it shall not pass by, and one shall not let it pass.]

“But for the times of offering of wood by the priests.” For what reason were the times of wood by the priests and the people to be counted? Only that at the time when Israel returned from the Diaspora and did not find wood in the chamber, those came forward and volunteered wood from their own and donated it to the public. It was used to offer public sacrifices. The prophets among them stipulated for them that even if the chamber was full of wood, if those came and offered and volunteered wood from their own, that the sacrifice should only be brought first from theirs. Rebbi Aḥa said, this is Rebbi Yose’s, since Rebbi Yose said, also he may volunteer as unpaid trustee. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Ila, it is the opinion of everybody. Where do they disagree? About the body of the offering. But for enablers of the offering everybody agrees that a private offering can be turned into public offering. It was stated, a woman who made a coat for her son has to surrender it to the public. Rebbi Aḥa said, this is Rebbi Yose’s, since Rebbi Yose said, also he may volunteer as unpaid trustee. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Ila, it is the opinion of everybody. Where do they disagree? About the body of the offering. But for enablers of the offering everybody agrees that a private offering can be turned into public offering.. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Yose: “Those days are observed at the time of sacrifices and not at the time of sacrifices; Rebbi Yose says, they are observed only at the time of sacrifices.” Also from the following: “Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Sadoq said, we were of the descendants of Senaah ben Benjamin. When the Ninth of Av fell on a Sabbath, we postponed it to the end of the Sabbath and we were fasting but not completing.”

“But for the times of offering of wood by the priests.” For what reason were the times of wood by the priests and the people to be counted? Only that at the time when Israel returned from the Diaspora and did not find wood in the chamber, those came forward and volunteered wood from their own and donated it to the public. It was used to offer public sacrifices. The prophets among them stipulated for them that even if the chamber was full of wood, if those came and offered and volunteered wood from their own, that the sacrifice should only be brought first from theirs. Rebbi Aḥa said, this is Rebbi Yose’s, since Rebbi Yose said, also he may volunteer as unpaid trustee. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Ila, it is the opinion of everybody. Where do they disagree? About the body of the offering. But for enablers of the offering everybody agrees that a private offering can be turned into public offering. It was stated, a woman who made a coat for her son has to surrender it to the public. Rebbi Aḥa said, this is Rebbi Yose’s, since Rebbi Yose said, also he may volunteer as unpaid trustee. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Ila, it is the opinion of everybody. Where do they disagree? About the body of the offering. But for enablers of the offering everybody agrees that a private offering can be turned into public offering.. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Yose: “Those days are observed at the time of sacrifices and not at the time of sacrifices; Rebbi Yose says, they are observed only at the time of sacrifices.” Also from the following: “Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Sadoq said, we were of the descendants of Senaah ben Benjamin. When the Ninth of Av fell on a Sabbath, we postponed it to the end of the Sabbath and we were fasting but not completing.”

Rebbi Phineas in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ila`y. One verse says, he abandoned the dwelling at Shilo, but an other verse says, she brought him to the Eternal’s House at Shilo. How is this? A stone house below and the gobelins on top, and this was “rest.” Rebbi Ze`ira said, a minimum of ten hand-breadths, as in building a house. But was it not stated, just as the Tent of Meeting was erected so was the Tent at Shilo erected? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, its poles, its planks, its latches, its bases, and its columns. Its poles were visible inside like stars in the sky.

“The same holds for the excess.” From what the administrators of charity collected. As the following: Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba went to Ḥoms where they gave him monies to distribute to orphans and widows. He went and distributed it to the rabbis. Does he have to replace them? Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, he has to replace them. Rebbi Ze`ira said, he has to replace them. Rebbi Ila said, he does not have to replace them. Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan says, he does not have to replace them. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Yasa, Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina, the intended use of any charity monies may be changed before they are given into the hands of the administrators; after they are given into the hands of the administrators they may not be changed.

What does one read if it falls on a Friday? Rebbi Ze`ira says, one reads earlier. Rebbi Ila, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: one reads later. Rebbi Ze`ira was looking at him. He said to him, why are you looking at me? I said to you from tradition, and you are saying an opinion; why are you looking at me? A baraita supports one and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Ze`ira: What is the first week? Any in which the New Month of Adar falls, even on Friday. What Samuel stated supports Rebbi Ila: What is the second week? Any in which Purim falls, even on Friday. Rav Naḥman bar Jacob asked, think of it if the Fifteenth fell on a Sabbath? You may not read in the Esther scroll since one reads in Hagiographs only after afternoon prayers. Could they not read remember? He said to him, so says Rav, these days are remembered and executed, that the remembrance precedes the execution. Rebbi Abba the son of Rebbi Pappai asked, think of it if the Fourteenth fell on a Sabbath? Does not the remembrance precede the execution? He said to him, was this not already contradicted, it cannot happen. And if it could happen it would be belated for towns.

What does one read if it falls on a Friday? Rebbi Ze`ira says, one reads earlier. Rebbi Ila, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: one reads later. Rebbi Ze`ira was looking at him. He said to him, why are you looking at me? I said to you from tradition, and you are saying an opinion; why are you looking at me? A baraita supports one and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Ze`ira: What is the first week? Any in which the New Month of Adar falls, even on Friday. What Samuel stated supports Rebbi Ila: What is the second week? Any in which Purim falls, even on Friday. Rav Naḥman bar Jacob asked, think of it if the Fifteenth fell on a Sabbath? You may not read in the Esther scroll since one reads in Hagiographs only after afternoon prayers. Could they not read remember? He said to him, so says Rav, these days are remembered and executed, that the remembrance precedes the execution. Rebbi Abba the son of Rebbi Pappai asked, think of it if the Fourteenth fell on a Sabbath? Does not the remembrance precede the execution? He said to him, was this not already contradicted, it cannot happen. And if it could happen it would be belated for towns.

The deaf-mute. The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: So they should hear and learn. So far one who speaks but cannot hear; what about one who hears but cannot speak? Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: So they should learn, so they should teach. Rebbi Jonah said, this means that the principles of Rebbi are no principles, since we have stated: “A ḥereš who speaks and does not hear should not give heave” and we thought that one who speaks but does not hear is ḥereš, one who hears but does not speak is [not] ḥereš. But we have stated: “Ḥaliṣah is invalid if performed for a ḥereš man, or by a ḥereš woman, or by a woman for an underage male.” And Rebbi Joḥanan said, because they cannot say he shall say, she shall say. We also have stated: “A ḥereš mentioned anywhere by the Sages is a deaf-mute.” This supports Rebbi Jonah, for Rebbi Jonah said that the principles of Rebbi are no principles.

“The sexless.” Everybody agrees that a sexless who was torn open and turned out to be a male on the first day of a holiday is liable. Where do they disagree? On the remaining days. Ḥizqiah said, he shall be seen, he shall be seen, he who is liable on the first {day} is liable on the second; he who is not liable on the first {day} is not liable on the second. Rebbi Joḥanan said, all seven {days} are make-up for the first. Rebbi Ila said, Rebbi Joḥanan inferred this from the Second Pesaḥ. As Rebbi Joḥanan said there, the Second Pesaḥ is make-up for the first, so he says here, all seven {days} are make-up for the first. Rebbi Hoshaia said, all seven {days} are obligatory. What results between them? A proselyte who converted on one of the other days. In Ḥizqiah’s opinion he is not liable; in Rebbi Joḥanan’s and Rebbi Hoshaia’s opinions he is liable. Is it the same for the impure one? In Ḥizqiah’s opinion is he not liable; in Rebbi Joḥanan’s and Rebbi Hoshaia’s opinions is he liable? Rebbi Yose said, there he is suitable; the tearing caused it. But here the impure person himself is not suitable.

If he separated his festival offering and died, do the heirs have to bring it? Rebbi Ila said, shall be seen, has to be seen. He who can come brings, he who cannot come does not bring. Rebbi Ze`ira said, following Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Jonathan who both said, you have to redeem any first born of your sons, even after death, and here, they shall not appear before My Presence empty-handed, even after death. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, there is a disagreement between Samuel and Rebbi Joḥanan, regarding what we have stated there, “A woman who brought her purification sacrifice and died, the heirs have to bring her elevation sacrifice. Her elevation sacrifice and she died, the heirs shall not bring her purification sacrifice.” Samuel said, if it was separated. Rebbi Joḥanan said, even if it was not separated. Where do we hold? If they inherited real estate, does Samuel say if it was separated? If they inherited movables, does Rebbi Joḥanan say, even if it was not separated? What is the difference between them? If they inherited real estate, in Samuel’s opinion one does neither claim it nor taking pledges for it; in Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion one even takes pledges. If they inherited movables, in Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion one claims it (and is) [but is not] taking pledges for it. In Samuel’s opinion one does not claim it.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is from Rebbi Aqiba’s testimony. As we have stated there, “Rebbi Aqiba added that fine flour, and incense, frankincense, and coals, part of which were touched by a Tevul Yom are all disqualified.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, they knew that vessels of Servive do combine. About what comes he to testify? About the leftovers of flour-offerings that they do combine together. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Zamina in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Why did they say, leftovers of flour-offerings do combine together? Because they need their vessel. Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Yasa: they knew that vessels of Service do combine. About what comes he to testify? About fine flour, and incense, and frankincense, and coals. One understands fine flour, and incense, and frankincense. Coals? Rebbi Abun bar Cahana said, explain it about coals on the Day of Atonement which he has to carry inside in the vessel which he used to scoop up. But [not] about every day’s coals. As we have stated there, “If a qab of coals were dispersed, one sweeps them into the water canal, but on the Sabbath one covers it with a wine-cooler. Rebbi Mattania said, do fine flour, and incense, frankincense, and coals, need a minimum volume in this respect? Not because they have to be in their vessel? Here also because they have to be in their vessel.

Rebbi Ila, Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: Because one does not mix one joy with another joy. Rebbi La understood it from the following: For they celebrated the initiation of the altar for seven days and the holiday for seven days. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa understood it from the following: finish the week of this one. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Because of the exertion. It was stated: But one may plan and marry on the eve of a holiday. This does not disagree with Rebbi Eleazar; this does not disagree with Rebbi Joḥanan. And even with Rebbi Ḥanina it does not disagree. Rebbi Abba said, when the bride enters the exertion leaves.

Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ila: He may not dedicate for her the bird elevation offering, only the bird purification offering because the latter enables her to eat family sacrifices. It was stated: He may dedicate for her only something that enables her to eat family sacrifices. Rebbi Yose said, that is all. It was stated: Just as that disables her from eating family sacrifices, so she disables others from eating family sacrifices; since he is hindered from enjoying with her it is as if he disabled her from eating family sacrifices. It was stated: Even by the shearing of her head she hinders him from eating family sacrifices. Since she is ugly and he is hindered from enjoying with her it is as if he disabled her from eating family sacrifices.

The preparation of the anointing oil. “Take for yourself select spices: Flowing myrrh 500, etc., and casia 500 in Temple sheqel, altogether 1500 parts. “And olive oil one hin,” that is twelve log, in which the roots were cooked, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Jehudah says, they cooked in water, then poured the oil on them, and when it had absorbed the fragrance one removed it, just as the perfumers do. That is what is written: “Make it into holy anointing oil.” “That will be for Me for your generations.” It was stated, Rebbi Jehudah bar Ilaï says: The anointing oil made by Moses in the desert was from the start to the end a work of wonders, since there were only twelve log to start with, as it was said, “and olive oil one hin”. It would not have been enough to rub the wooden planks with it; so much more since the fire swallows, wood absorbs, and the kettle absorbs! From it the Tabernacles and all its vessels were anointed, the table and its vessels, the candelabra and all its vessels. From it Aaron and his sons were anointed all of the seven days of induction, from it all high priests and kings were anointed. A king who is first needs anointing, a king who is a king’s son does not need anointing, for it is said: “Do anoint him, for this one is it,” this one needs anointing but his son does not need anointing. But a High Priest who is the son of a High Priest needs anointing, even for ten generations. Nevertheless, it is all there for the future, as it was said, “a holy anointing oil will this be for Me, for all your generations.”

Rebbi Yannai said, the words of Rebbi Meïr: Even if one broke its neck he is guilty. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Immi, in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: The words of Rebbi Meïr: Even if one broke its neck he is guilty. The words of Rebbi Simeon: Even if he cut its throat, he is not punishable. Rebbi Yannai said, I heard about a boundary, from when it is forbidden: “They shall bring it down,” from the time of bringing down. Rebbi Ila said, to free it from “it and its young” following Rebbi Simeon.

They say, these are our signatures, but others say, not their signatures. Rebbi Mana said, that becomes a document which has been put under acloud. Issi said, only if it had been put under a cloud but was confirmed by the court. Rebbi Eleazar said, if it was not confirmed by a court. Rebbi Ila said, the reason of Rebbi Eleazar is, that after the witnesses were confirmed as the signatories of the document, it is as if their testimony had been investigated by the court.

One day, she said, I am married. The next day, she said, I am divorced. We asked her, yesterday you said this, today you say otherwise? She said to them, because of a group of amoral people who wanted to start up with me. Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Ila: Since she provided an explanation for her words, she can be believed. A similar case: Samuel wanted to sleep with his wife, but she said to him, I am impure. The next day, she said, I am pure. He said to her, yesterday, you said impure, today pure? She said to him, I did not feel well enough at that moment. He came and asked Rav, who told him, since she provided an explanation for her words, she can be believed.

Rebbi Abba bar Mamal and Rebbi Ila asked before Rebbi Yasa: They should not start again for thirty, but should start again for seven! No, should they restart neither for seven nor for thirty? If you say, they should not start again for thirty, what is the difference between a pure and an impure nazir? “One has stated a leniency and a restriction for a pure nazir; one has stated a leniency and a restriction for an impure nazir. A leniency for a pure nazir that he restart only for thirty; a restriction that he restart for seven If you say, he should restart for thirty, what is the difference between a pure and an impure nazir? A leniency for an impure nazir that all cases make him restart; a restriction that he restarts for seven.” Should he not restart for thirty? If you say, he should restart for thirty, what is the difference between a pure and an impure nazir? Some want to say, what is the difference between scissors and a shaving knife for a pure nazir following Rebbi Eliezer?

Rebbi Ila said before Rebbi Yose: For whipping one, for hindering two, to start again three. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Yose: “If he cropped any, he is guilty.” Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, Rebbi Yasa explains it by a little bit from each one. A baraita disagrees with Samuel: A person may tear out two hairs and have violated four prohibitions: As a nazir, as a sufferer from sking disease, on a holiday, because of jaw stripping. We have enumerated the prohibitions; but with regard to whippings, one even whips for one.

HALAKHAH: So is the Mishnah: Rebbi Neḥemia declares him not prosecutable but the Sages declare him guilty since it is not unsubstantiated. The Sages say, two estimations have precedence over one estimation; Rebbi Neḥemiah says, the intermediate estimation has precedence over the two. What is Rebbi Neḥemiah’s reason? “ ‘If he gets up and walks outside on his cane, the attacker is exonerated.’ Could you think that this one walks in the market and the other is executed because of him? But even if he died according to the first estimation he cannot be prosecuted.” What is the rabbi’s reason? “If he does not die but is bedridden.” Would we not know that even if he does not die that he will be bedridden? But if they estimated that he would die. If they estimated that he would die, that is what is written: “If he gets up and walks outside on his cane.” Therefore, if he does not get up, [the attacker] is guilty. But if they did not estimate that he would die? If they did not estimate that he would die, that is what is written: “But he has to pay for his disability.” Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: It is an extraordinary decree of Scripture that he has to pay. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: It was an erroneous estimation. What is the difference between them? If his state improved. For him who says, it is an extraordinary decree of Scripture that he has to pay; if he paid, he paid. If he did not pay, the verse makes him pay. A baraita supports one and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: If they estimated that he would die, when does he have to pay him? From the moment he improves. For him who says, it was an erroneous estimation; if he did not pay one does not order him to pay. If he paid, can he take it back? This supports Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: If they estimated that he would live but he died. From when does one have to pay him? From the moment he turns worse. Rebbi Yose said, it does not say here, “from the moment he turns worse” but “from the moment he turns better.”

If [the bill of divorce] contained documentation of a gift and [the messenger] said, it was written and signed before me, is [the husband’s] protest about the gift void since it is void about the divorce? Or, since his protest is void [only] about the divorce, is it valid about the gift? We have stated later: “Bills of divorce for wives and documents of manumission are equal in the rules of carrying and bringing.” If [the document of manumission] contained documentation of a gift and [the messenger] said, it was written and signed before me, is [the master’s] protest about the gift void since it is void about the manumission? Or since his protest is void [only] about the manumission, is it valid about the gift? If somebody signed all his property over to his slave, you say that the gift is the document of manumission. How do you treat this? Is it a document of manumission and his protest is void or is it a gift and his protest is valid? This can be compared to the following: If somebody signed all his property over to two persons in one document and the testimony of the witnesses was valid for one but invalid for the other. Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Immi: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagreed; one said, since it is invalid for one it is invalid for the other, but the other said, it is valid for one and invalid for the other. Rebbi Mana did not specify; Rebbi Abin specified: Rebbi Joḥanan said, since it is invalid for one it is invalid for the other; but Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it is valid for one and invalid for the other. Rebbi Eleazar said, a Mishnah supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “Since testimony of two [witnesses] is invalid if one of them turns out to be related or disqualified, so also of three [witnesses] it is invalid if one of them turns out to be related or disqualified”. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Rebbi Ḥanina the colleague of the rabbis and the rabbis disagree. One says, the argument of Rebbi Eleazar is correct, but the other says, Rebbi Eleazar is not correct. For him who says, the argument of Rebbi Eleazar is correct, it is a testimony about one person; as testimony it is totally invalid if it is partially invalid. For him who says, the argument of Rebbi Eleazar is not correct, it is as if two groups of witnesses came, valid for one and disqualified for the other.

If a bond was signed by four witnesses and it turned out that the first two were relatives or disqualified, it is valid and is confirmed by the remaining testimony. Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Yasa: This follows him who says that witnesses sign only in the presence of each other. But following him who says that witnesses may sign without being in the presence of each other, even if the Jew signed last it is invalid. And would it not be remote testimony? That one cannot say since Rebbi Yasa said in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah that disqualified witnesses do not constitute remote testimony since they came only to support the document’s validity.

Why are Samaritans disqualified? Rebbi Joḥanan said, because they are lions’ proselytes. But if somebody converted not for Heaven’s sake and then converted for Heaven’s sake, does one not accept him? Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Because the child is a bastard if a Gentile or a slave have intercourse with a Jewish woman. But did not Rebbi Aqiba say, they are genuine proselytes? Because they require levirate marriage from the preliminarily married and free the definitively married. But do not the rabbis say, there is no bastard from a sister-in-law? Because they are not conversant with the fine points in writing bills of divorce. But does not Rabban Gamliel accept their bills of divorce? Rebbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Because they intermingled with the priests of the High Places: “He chose priests from the borderline of the people,”. Rebbi Ila said, from the “thorns” of the people, i. e., from the disqualified of the people.

“If somebody says, give this mina to X because I owe it to him, bring this mina to X for the pledge which he has from me, if he wants to change his mind he cannot do so but he himself is responsible until X receives his due.” Rebbi Ila said, a gift is like a debt. “Give this mina to X, bring this mina to X, give this gift document to X, if he wants to change his mind he can(not) do so. If he went and found that X had died, he should return it to the sender, and if that one had died he should give it to the latter’s heirs.” “Acquire this mina for X, accept this mina for X, acquire this gift document for X, accept this gift document for X, if he wants to change his mind he cannot do so. If he went and found that X had died, he should deliver it to his heirs. But if he acquired after [X’s] death he should return it to the sender since nobody can acquire documents after his death.” “If somebody says, this mina is for X, take this mina for X, this mina shall be in your hand for X, if he wants to change his mind he cannot do so” because if somebody acquires for another person it cannot be changed.

“On a leaf of the olive tree.” Is that not like torn? Rebbi Ze‘ira said, Bina bar Shila stated: Even if he only wrote: “I X am divorcing my wife,” it is valid. This follows what Rebbi Ila said, if he detailed it is invalid, if he did not detail it is valid.

For freshly pressed wine one can allow for up to forty days presuming that it is wine; Rebbi Jehudah says, up to a break point. You find that there is a leniency and a restriction following Rebbi Jehudah, and a leniency and a restriction following the rabbis. A leniency following Rebbi Jehudah, if a break point arrived before forty days had passed, and a restriction if forty days passed without break point that he cannot give heave. A leniency following the rabbis, if forty days passed without break point that he cannot give heave, and a restriction, if a break point arrived before forty days had passed that he cannot give heave. Rebbi Simon asked: If the fortieth day arrived and he did not check. He was lazy for two or three days, then he came and found it to be vinegar. Is it retroactively considered to be vinegar or only from there on to the future? What is the difference? If he had transgressed and given heave. If you say that retroactively it is considered to be vinegar, his heave is heave. From there on to the future it is not heave. If he had checked an amphora to continuously give heave from it. When he returned, he found it to be vinegar. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: The first three days it certainly is wine, the last vinegar, and the middle ones are in doubt. Rebbi Abbahu said, I heard that from Rebbi Joshua ben Levi; Rebbi Joḥanan did not say so but the first three days it certainly is wine, after that it is in doubt. Do they differ in the treatment of doubt? What Rebbi Joḥanan said refers to the case that he came and found it to be stale vinegar. What Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said refers to the case that he came and found it to be strong vinegar. Or their difference equals another difference, for what we have stated there: “A rusty or broken needle is pure.” It was stated: He put it down smooth, then he came and found it rusty. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: The first three days it certainly is impure, the last pure, and the middle ones are in doubt. Rebbi Abbahu said, that is what Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said; Rebbi Joḥanan did not say so but the first three days it certainly is impure, after that it is in doubt. Rebbi Ila, Rebbi Abba and Rebbi Eleazar in the name of all rabbis who are frequenting the House of Study: Concerning wine and needle practice follows Rebbi Joshua ben Levi.

There, we have stated: “One writes a bill of divorce for a man even if his wife is not with him, and a receipt for a woman even if her husband is not with her, and the husband pays the fee.” Rebbi Abba said, he has to know both of them. Rebbi La said, he has to know the husband for the bill of divorce and the wife for her receipt. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi [ ]: Think of it, if he brought another woman and divorced by means of her. He said to him, let the witnesses come and testify. But 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? There, if they said, we did not sign at all. But here if they say, we signed this but not that. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Abba: “In earlier times, his name and her name and the names of his and her towns could change.” If he knows them, why would he change their names? There are people who know others by sight but do not know their names. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Ilai: “Rabban Gamliel the Elder instituted that one should write Mr. X and all his names, Mrs. Y and all her names, because of the public good.” The Mishnah about one who is forced to divorce, Rebbi Ila speaks about one who divorces on his initiative; some want to say if he divorces at another place.

HALAKHAH: “If a slave was kidnapped and ransomed,” etc. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Ḥizqiah: It would be logical that even as a slave he should not have to serve. And why did they say, he has to serve? That a slave should not run away to the kidnappers. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, a baraita implies this: “His master pays his ransom and frees him.” They said that only about his master, not anybody else. Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Yasa: It would be logical that even as a free person he should have to serve. Why did they say that he does not have to serve? Not to damage the reputations of free persons. Rebbi Yose said, but it is so: “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, in any case he shall serve; just as Israel are obligated to ransom free persons so they are obligated to ransom slaves.” The first Tanna is of the opinion that they are obligated to ransom free persons but they are not obligated to ransom slaves. Rebbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Practice follows Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel.

If [the master] blinded [the slave’s] two eyes simultaneously, or broke two of his teeth simultaneously, the slave thereby obtains his freedom. One after the other, he obtains his freedom from the first [injury] and [the master] has to pay for the second. Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Following the opinion that [the master] does not have to write a bill of manumission for him. But following the opinion that [the master] has to write a bill of manumission for him, can you say that he has to pay him? Not only does this apply to one who gains his freedom for a tooth or an eye, from where also that he may gain his freedom by a cap, or הרנירק טיאונוס, or the king’s freedom? The verse says, “he shall send him to freedom”, in any way. What is the status of his children? The children of him who leaves for a tooth or an eye are slaves, the children of him who leaves by the loss of hope are free. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, that is unreasonable; it is the other way around. The children of one who leaves for a tooth or an eye are free because the Torah freed him. The children of one who leaves by the loss of hope are slaves because the Torah did not free him.

Who frees? Rav says, either his first or his second master. Rebbi Joḥanan says, only his first master alone is able to free. Rebbi Ḥaggai objected before Rebbi Yose: Does not a baraita disagree with Rav? If a Jew gave a loan to a Gentile on the latter’s leavened matter, it is permitted after Passover. If you say that the Jew has property rights in it, it would be forbidden. What does Rav do with this? Rebbi Yudan said, manumission is made easy, as it was stated: If somebody gives his slave as mortgage, if he sold him, he is not sold; if he freed him, he is freed. The strength of Rebbi Joḥanan is from the following: Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, only the manumittor writes. If somebody mortgaged his field to another, then went and sold it, can the creditor not come and foreclose? Rebbi Abbahu said, in this matter Rebbi Joḥanan opened for us a door to illuminate. We do not find that a slave can again be enslaved after having been freed. If that is so, he should not have to write a bond for his value! Rebbi Ila said, it is better that a person say to him, give me the 200 zuz which you owe me than say to him, you are my slave! The rabbis of Caesarea say in Rebbi Nasa’s name: Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel follows Rebbi Meïr. Just as Rebbi Meїr imposes a fine for words, so Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel imposes a fine for words. As it was stated: With a bond documenting both principal and interest one can collect neither principal nor interest, the words of Rebbi Meїr. But the Sages say, one collects the principal but not the interest.

If somebody bought a field during a Jubilee period. Rebbi Ila said, he acquired ownership of the ground, Abba bar Mamal said, he did not acquire ownership of the ground. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal objected to Rebbi Ila: In your opinion, since you say that he acquired ownership of the ground, why can he not dig cisterns, ditches, and caves? He said to him, the Torah said, “he shall return to his inheritance,” as it was. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa brought this topic before them and did not know that they still disagreed: Rebbi Joḥanan said, he brings and recites; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he does not bring and recite. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose said before Rebbi Yose: Everybody agrees that he brings. Where do they disagree? Rebbi Joḥanan said, he brings and recites; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he brings but does not recite.

If somebody bought a field during a Jubilee period. Rebbi Ila said, he acquired ownership of the ground, Abba bar Mamal said, he did not acquire ownership of the ground. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal objected to Rebbi Ila: In your opinion, since you say that he acquired ownership of the ground, why can he not dig cisterns, ditches, and caves? He said to him, the Torah said, “he shall return to his inheritance,” as it was. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa brought this topic before them and did not know that they still disagreed: Rebbi Joḥanan said, he brings and recites; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he does not bring and recite. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose said before Rebbi Yose: Everybody agrees that he brings. Where do they disagree? Rebbi Joḥanan said, he brings and recites; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he brings but does not recite.

If there is only best quality, one collects from the best quality, [only] average quality one collects from average quality, [only] worst quality one collects from worst quality. Best and average, torts are assessed from best quality, creditors and a woman’s ketubah from average. Average and worst, torts and creditors are assessed from average, a woman’s ketubah from worst. If his best quality was like everybody’s best quality, it is best quality. If his average quality was like everybody’s average quality, it is average quality. If his worst quality was like everybody’s worst quality, it is worst quality. If his best quality was like everybody’s average? Rebbi Ze‘ira and Rebbi Ila asked: Let us hear from the following: Average and worst, torts and creditors are assessed from average, a woman’s ketubah from worst. But just as you need in the case that you have best and average quality, torts push creditors to the average, so in this case, of average and worst quality, should not torts push creditors to the worst quality? Rebbi Yose bar Abun in the name of Rav Ḥisda: Explain it that he had best quality which he sold, and the creditors were already pushed to average quality.

Can one collect dowry from encumbered property? Rebbi Ze‘ira said that Rebbi Joḥanan does not collect. Who collects? Rebbi Ḥanina and Rebbi Ila collect. Rebbi Yasa was appointed custodian of orphans’ property. There were orphan [girls] who asked for dowry. He brought the case before Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Simeon bar Yaqim. Rebbi Simeon bar Yaqim said, is it not better to provide for them from their father’s estate rather than from charity? Rebbi Eleazar said to him: If such a case came before our teachers, our teachers would not touch it; would we act? Rebbi Yose said, I shall give to them, and if some orphans would get up and complained, I would give it to them. They stood up and complained.

So far, if there were two contracts. If there was one contract? Rebbi Ze‘ira and Rebbi Ila both say, certainly the sale is invalid; i. e., if he bought from the wife and then bought from the husband. Rebbi Ḥanina and Rebbi Bevon both said, certainly the sale is valid; i. e., if he bought from the husband and then bought from the wife. But is not all the wife’s property administered by the husband? For the yield.

There, we have stated: “If somebody writes his property over to his sons, he has to write: From today and after death. Rebbi Yose says, this is unnecessary.” What is Rebbi Yose’s reason? The date of the document is its proof. The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: This is no condition. Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It applies neither to bills of divorce nor to gifts. Rebbi Ila said, for a gift; since he said “from today”, the gift is irrevocable. Why did he write “after death”? To reserve the yield to himself. But in bills of divorce, since he wrote “from today” in the bill, it would be a separation. Why did he write “after death”? To reserve her body to himself. Rebbi Bibon bar Cahana said before Rebbi Ilai, not to reserve her earnings for himself? He answered, we do not find a woman married to one man and her earnings belonging to another. Rebbi Ze‘ira praised him for this and called him “son of the Torah.”

“Be preliminarily married to me by this tetradrachma,” and she said, “throw it into the sea or the river,” she is not married. “Give it to a poor person,” she is married. In either case nothing came into her hand; in one case you say, she is married; in the other case you say, she is not married! Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: She wants to be married and be seen as benefiting the poor. Rebbi Phineas said, this can be interpreted either following Rebbi Ze‘ira or Rebbi Ila.

HALAKHAH: “If one says to two people, I robbed,” etc. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Here if they complain, there if they are silent. Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Here, if witnesses know; there, if no witnesses know. Rav Jeremiah in the name of Rav: Here if he swore; there if he did not swear. There, they say in the name of Rav: Here if he swore; there if he did not swear. Rebbi Jeremiah wanted to say, he should have kept silent and not confessed. Rebbi Yasa wanted to say, he should have kept silent and not have sworn. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if he swore, he should have appointed an officer of the court. Rebbi Joḥanan seems to say, an officer of the court determined that one was a robber, not a court which determined that one was robbed. Other Tannaїm stated, a court which determined that one was robbed, [as it was stated, Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar said, a court which determined that one was robbed,] not a court which determined that one was a robber. Rebbi Ila said, we also have stated that the rules are identical for robbery, intercourse, and loan. Everbody agrees about the deposit mentioned in the Mishnah, from the following: “If he said to two people, I robbed a mina from one of you but I do not know which one of you it was.”

“When was this said? If nothing is in danger to be lost. But if it is in danger to be lost, he hires others on his account or tricks him and tells him, I contracted with you for one tetradrachma, I shall give you two. He takes from one and gives to the other.” Rebbi Ila said, only up to his wages. So far, only up to his wages for that day, or only up to his wages for that hour? “When was this said? At a place where no workers are ready to be hired. But if one saw that donkey drivers approached, or that he was unloading his ship in a port, he may tell him, go and hire yourself one of these; he only has a complaint on him.”

HALAKHAH: “If somebody borrowed a cow,” etc. Rebbi Ila said, from the meaning of what is said, “certainly he shall pay”; would we not have known that if its owner was with it he does not pay? Why does the verse say, “if its owner was not with it, certainly he shall pay”? But since he borrowed the cow and did not ask its owner at the same time, even if the latter was ploughing with it when it died, he is liable.

HALAKHAH: “If there is no knowledge at the start,” etc. What can you see to say? Does the one inside suspend and the one outside atone, or the one outside suspend and the one inside atone, or both of them suspend, or both of them atone? What about it? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, I saw something. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish was asking before Rebbi Joḥanan and asked him, what are the differences in atoning? I do not know what he answered him. Rebbi Ze`ira said to him, maybe it is the following: How did you understand to explain it? About an impure person who ate pure [meat], or a pure person who ate impure [meat]? The verse says: his impurity is on him. Impurity of the body, not impurity of the meat. Or both of them atone? What about it? He should over it confess sins, these are intentional sins, their crimes, these are rebellions, their mistakes, these are unintentional sins. Then He said, he will atone. Rebbi Immi said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, the he-goat will carry all their sins, he grabbed intentional sins and left out unintentional sins, to indicate that just as intentional sins do not carry the obligation of a sacrifice, so those unintentional sins which do not carry the obligation of a sacrifice. And why did they come here? Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Yasa, for suspension. Would it be understood to suspend for those who eat abominations and crawling things? Rebbi Samuel in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira: Their mistakes, their mistakes. Since their mistakes mentioned there are those which carry the obligation of a sacrifice, also their mistakes mentioned here are those which carry the obligation of a sacrifice. This excludes intentional sins which do not carry the obligation of a sacrifice. What is left out by the he-goat brought inside the Day of Atonement suspends. What did it leave out? If there is no knowledge at the start but there is knowledge at the end.

HALAKHAH: “The following Gentile properties are forbidden,” etc. Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Bitter, sweet, and hot are not under the rules of being uncovered. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: The hot, the bitter, and the sweet are not under the rules of being uncovered or under those of libation wine. Rebbi Simon explains: The hot, spice wine. The bitter, vermouth wine. And the sweet, cooked wine. Rebbi Joshua ben Zeidal had cooked wine which was left unsupervised in the custudy of a Gentile. He asked Rebbi Yannai ben Rebbi Ismael who said to him, so says Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: The sweet is not under the rules of being uncovered or under those of libation wine. Rebbi Yannai ben Rebbi Ismael fell ill. Rebbi Ze`ira, Rebbi (Joshua) [Hoshaia], Rebbi Abun bar Cahana, and Rebbi Ḥanianiah the colleague of the rabbis, went to visit him. They saw Rebbi Joshua ben Zeidal sitting there. They said, there is the master of the decision and the person of the happening, let us ask him. He said to them, so says Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, the sweet is not under the rules of being uncovered or under those of libation wine. One said to him, maybe that of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is for argument’s sake? He told them, it is for action and you can rely on it. When (they got up) [returned], Rebbi Ila was standing with Rebbi Abun bar Cahana and told him, if you did not prefer decisions, is this not a baraita? As Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, “why is cooked wine of Gentiles forbidden? Because it started out as wine.” Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah says so, “wine and vinegar which originally was wine.”

An object of worship. Some Tannaim state, whether it was his or another person’s, it is forbidden. But some Tannaim state, his is forbidden, another person’s is permitted. He who said, whether it was his or another person’s, it is forbidden, [Rebbi Meïr and] Rebbi Jehudah. But he who said, his is forbidden, another person’s is permitted, Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Simeon. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Ila: It is everybody’s opinion. Just as you say there, anything living while it cannot become forbidden for a private person it becomes forbidden for Heaven, so similarly anything which is not yours even though it cannot become forbidden for a private person it (does not) become forbidden for Heaven.

Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Only if he brought an idol into it. In the opinion of Rebbi [Eleazar] there are two houses. But have we not stated three? Here temporarily, there permanently.

Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Only if he put an idol on it. The opinions of Rav seem inconsistent. There he says, if one casts a cup for idolatry it is immediately forbidden, and here he says so? Explain it following what has been stated: “A Gentile’s idol is immediately forbidden, but a Jew’s when it was worshipped.” There is disagreement about an idol, maybe also for its appurtenances? Rebbi Simeon in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: There is disagreement also about appurtenances.

Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Only if he put an idol on it. In the opinion of Rebbi Eleazar there are two stones. But have we not stated “there are three stones”? Here temporarily, there permanently.

Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Only if he put an idol under it. In the opinion of Rebbi Eleazar there are two Asherot. But have we not stated “there are three kinds of Ashera”? Here temporarily, there permanently.

They said in Rabbi Yannai’s name: There is no blind woman. Does this hold up? They said in Rabbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina’s name: There is no blind woman. Does this hold up? Rebbi Ila, Rabbi Yose ben Ḥanina, in the name of the House of Rebbi Yannai: There is no blind woman.

Rebbi Yannai said, the first one also is called religious. We have stated “they have to check themselves”, and you say so? Rebbi Ila said, to tell you that everybody who keeps the directives of the rabbis is called religious.

R. Ila b. Rab Samuel b. Marta said in the name of Rab: [If one recited only the verse] "Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one" and was then overcome by sleep, he has fulfilled his obligation. Rab Nahman said to Daro his servant : With the first verse worry me [to keep awake], but do not so after that. Rab Joseph asked Rab Joseph b. Raba, "How used thy father to do ?" He replied, "With the first verse he took pains [to keep awake], but he did not so after that."

“But falling you shall fall.” (Esther 6:14). Judah b. Ila’i expounded Why are two fallings mentioned here? Haman’s friends said to him: This people is compared to the dust and it is compared to the stars. When they go down, they go down to the dust, and when they rise they rise to the stars.

The study of the Torah may be suspended for escorting a dead body and for bringing a bride into marriage. It was said of R. Judah b. Ila’i that he used to suspend the study of the Torah for escorting a dead body and for bringing a bride into marriage. When was this said? When there are not present sufficient numbers, but if sufficient numbers are available, [the study of the Torah] is not suspended.