illa

What is the difference between the first and second paragraphs? Rebbi Ḥanina said: Everything mentioned in the first paragraph is mentioned in the second. In that case, should one have to recite only one of them? Rebbi Illa said: The first one is directed to the individual, the second one to the community; the first one concentrates on learning, the second one on doing.

It happened that someone was reading the Torah in Nsebin; when he came to the Divine Name he started to stutter. Rebbi Yehudah ben Bathyra told him: Open your mouth and let your words shine because words of the .Torah cannot receive impurity. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said: There they act following Rebbi Illaï regarding the first shearing, following Rebbi Josiah regarding kilaim in the vineyard, and following Rebbi Yehudah ben Bathyra regarding people with qeri. Following Rebbi Illaï regarding the first shearing. as we have stated: “Rebbi Illaï said: The first shearing applies only in the Land.” Following Rebbi Josiah regarding kilaim as it is stated: “One is never guilty unless one sowed wheat, barley, and grape kernels falling from the same hand.” Following Rebbi Yehudah ben Bathyra regarding people with qeri as it is stated: “Rebbi Yehudah ben Bathyra says, words of the Torah cannot receive impurity.”

It happened that someone was reading the Torah in Nsebin; when he came to the Divine Name he started to stutter. Rebbi Yehudah ben Bathyra told him: Open your mouth and let your words shine because words of the .Torah cannot receive impurity. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said: There they act following Rebbi Illaï regarding the first shearing, following Rebbi Josiah regarding kilaim in the vineyard, and following Rebbi Yehudah ben Bathyra regarding people with qeri. Following Rebbi Illaï regarding the first shearing. as we have stated: “Rebbi Illaï said: The first shearing applies only in the Land.” Following Rebbi Josiah regarding kilaim as it is stated: “One is never guilty unless one sowed wheat, barley, and grape kernels falling from the same hand.” Following Rebbi Yehudah ben Bathyra regarding people with qeri as it is stated: “Rebbi Yehudah ben Bathyra says, words of the Torah cannot receive impurity.”

It happened that someone was reading the Torah in Nsebin; when he came to the Divine Name he started to stutter. Rebbi Yehudah ben Bathyra told him: Open your mouth and let your words shine because words of the .Torah cannot receive impurity. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said: There they act following Rebbi Illaï regarding the first shearing, following Rebbi Josiah regarding kilaim in the vineyard, and following Rebbi Yehudah ben Bathyra regarding people with qeri. Following Rebbi Illaï regarding the first shearing. as we have stated: “Rebbi Illaï said: The first shearing applies only in the Land.” Following Rebbi Josiah regarding kilaim as it is stated: “One is never guilty unless one sowed wheat, barley, and grape kernels falling from the same hand.” Following Rebbi Yehudah ben Bathyra regarding people with qeri as it is stated: “Rebbi Yehudah ben Bathyra says, words of the Torah cannot receive impurity.”

The sister of Rebbi Gurin wrote her possessions over to her brother. His older brother came, made peace with her, and she wrote her possessions over to him. The case came before Rebbi Immi. He said: So says Rebbi Joḥanan, one may change his mind. Rebbi Zeïra said, but does Rebbi Joḥanan not agree that if it was written “from today” one may not change his mind? Rebbi Abbahu came in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, one may not change his mind. Rebbi Illaï came in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, one may not change his mind. Then Rebbi Immi remembered, and the judgement was reversed.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Illa said, it is written (Deut. 24:19): “When you are harvesting your harvest on your field and you forget a sheaf on the field,” a sheaf surrounded by harvest and not a sheaf surrounded by standing produce. And why a sheaf surrounded by harvest and not a sheaf surrounded by standing produce? Under a sheaf surrounded by harvest is the field, under a sheaf surrounded by standing produce is straw.

“ Early and late fruits are exempt. These are the early fruits, before one appoints a watchman.” But does this depend on the watchman? Rebbi Yose said, if they are not worth the attention of a watchman. “These are the late fruits, after they folded up the mats. Rebbi Illaï said in the name of Rebbi Eliezer, the early ones are obligated because of an assumption that they are being watched.” Rebbi Yose ben Ḥalaphta said, shitin in Sepphoris are obligated because of an assumption that they are watched.

It was stated: “Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah says, fallen dates sold with regular dates are free.” Is it about two boxes, one beside the other or one on top of the other? No, here we deal with a mixed bunch. Did they start to ferment or did they not start to ferment? Rebbi Mana said, we deal with fermenting ones. If they started to ferment, they should be obligated for themselves! You cannot say that, since Rebbi Joḥanan said, the Sages detailed them because the majority of these kinds are collected only from abandoned property. Rebbi Ḥanina said, we deal with nonfermenting ones. If we deal with nonfermenting ones they should be free even when mixed. You cannot say that, since it was stated: “Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose said in his father’s name that a bunch of grapes of which one berry ripened, is all connected for tithes.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rebbi Zeïra and Rebbi Illaï, one adopted the first opinion, the other the second opinion. But the Sages say one does not follow either of them; those fermenting are obligated, those not fermenting are free.

It was stated: “If unripe figs that one hid in ṭevel or a flat pita that one hid in glowing charcoal were partially uncovered they may be taken on the Sabbath, otherwise they may not be taken on the Sabbath. Rebbi Eleazar ben Taddeus said, in either case he pushes in a spear or a knife and lifts them out.” The statement of Rebbi Eleazar ben Taddeus turns out following Rebbi Simeon, as we have stated: “One should not drag a chair, or a bed, or an easy chair because one makes a groove, but Rebbi Simeon permits it.” Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Huna, Rebbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Illaï: The Sages admit to Rebbi Simeon that a chair whose legs are stuck in mud one is permitted to move. And just as you say that one is permitted to move it, so one is permitted to bring it back. Rebbi Yose said, we also have stated: “They may be taken on the Sabbath.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, that is from Rebbi Simeon. But we have stated: “The Sabbatical year!” Can you say that “the Sabbatical year” follows Rebbi Simeon? Explain “the Sabbatical year!” For Rebbi Simeon permits the aftergrowth of the Sabbatical year, and here he says so? Even though Rebbi Simeon permits aftergrowth of the Sabbatical year, he still holds it subject to the holiness of the Sabbatical year. Here also, he worries neither about the Sabbatical year nor about the holiness of the Sabbatical year!

Does Rebbi Judah say that in this case it is not kilaim? Rebbi Zeïra said, Rebbi Jehudah follows his own opinion, since Rebbi Jehudah said, in the case of a vegetable field one hand-breadth. Rebbi Yose said, he who wants to question this statement of Rebbi Zeïra might deduce the opinion of Rebbi Jehudah from that of the rabbis. Just as the rabbis say, in the case of the prohibition of bet rova‘ one needs six-by-six to whip, so Rebbi Judah said in the case of the prohibition of six-by-six that one needs a hand-breadth to whip. But did we not state, Rebbi Judah permits it? Then it is difficult: what is the reason of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? Since he threw it out from his hand as seed, he is guilty. But did we not state that “Rebbi Jehudah says, it is not kilaim?” Explain it, until the moment that it comes to rest. But was it not stated that Rebbi Judah permits it? Even if it came to rest, Rebbi Jehudah permits it. Rebbi Illaï said, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish follows his own opinion, since Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said in the name of Ḥizqiah: A vertex from a dry spot is permitted. Then it also should be thus in the case of two wheat grains and one of barley? That is correct. But did we not state, “unless there are two wheat kernels and one barley kernel, or one wheat kernel and two barley kernels, or one each of wheat, barley, and spelt?” Explain it if there is a grain of wheat on each side, a fence on each side, and the grain of barley caught in the middle. Rebbi Mattaniah said, that is only if there is no dry spot, but if there is a dry spot there, it is permitted.

They asked before Rebbi Illaï: May one sew one’s shoes with flax? He said to them, because of Rebbi Zeïra, for Rebbi Zeïra said it is forbidden. Rebbi Illaï will agree that it is forbidden to wear woolen socks over linen socks since he cannot take off the inner ones unless he first takes off the outer ones. The father of Rav Safra asked Rebbi Zeïra: May one put coins in a woolen bag and tie it with a linen thread, or put coins on a linen cloth and tie it with a woolen thread? He said to him, does the rabbi not know Rav Huna? For Rav Huna said, it is forbidden. Rebbi Avina said, it is forbidden. Samuel said, it is permitted. Rebbi Jacob bar Ada in the name of Rebbi Yasa said, it is permitted.

They asked before Rebbi Illaï: May one sew one’s shoes with flax? He said to them, because of Rebbi Zeïra, for Rebbi Zeïra said it is forbidden. Rebbi Illaï will agree that it is forbidden to wear woolen socks over linen socks since he cannot take off the inner ones unless he first takes off the outer ones. The father of Rav Safra asked Rebbi Zeïra: May one put coins in a woolen bag and tie it with a linen thread, or put coins on a linen cloth and tie it with a woolen thread? He said to him, does the rabbi not know Rav Huna? For Rav Huna said, it is forbidden. Rebbi Avina said, it is forbidden. Samuel said, it is permitted. Rebbi Jacob bar Ada in the name of Rebbi Yasa said, it is permitted.

HALAKHAH: There, we stated: “One does not give heave from finished for unfinished,” and here you say so? Rebbi Illa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Because of robbing the tribe. What means, because of robbing the tribe? Rebbi Ḥanania said, because of the exertion. Think about it, if there was a grain of rice? People willingly will pound something. Think about it, if it were in ears? So far goes our question. Rebbi Ḥanina, Rebbi Mana did not say so but he wanted to give heave proportional to the oil and gave only proportional to olives. Think about it, if he gave proportional to the oil? Now he did so, another time he will not do so. In addition, his neighbor will see him and say, this one wants to give a lot but I do not want to give a lot.

It was stated: “Rebbi Illaï says in the name of Rebbi Eliezer: For food in fluids, one gives heave from pure for impure. How is this? If somebody pickled olives in impurity and wants to give heave in purity, he brings a funnel whose opening is less than [the width of] an egg, fills it with eggs and puts it on top of the amphora; it turns out that he gives heave from what is earmarked.” Why does it have to be less than [the width of] an egg? Are these not single pieces? It is only that not many olives should become impure. “ They said to him, the only food fluid called fluid is wine and olive oil.” How is that? One beam for two pits or two beams for one pit. One understands one beam for two pits, but two beams for one pit? Is it not that if it is partially impure it is totally impure? Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Explain it, if he had intended to process it in one batch, and he changed his mind to make it in two batches. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, this applies if it became impure after he syphoned off [the froth] and [the seeds] formed lumps. But if it became impure before he syphoned off and lumps were formed, it does not apply. Rebbi Tabi, Rebbi Joshia the son of Rebbi Yannai: Practice follows Rebbi Eliezer. Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Practice follows Rebbi Eliezer. Rebbi Ḥuna, Rebbi Ḥanania: Practice does not follow Rebbi Eliezer. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Samuel: Practice does not follow Rebbi Eliezer. There came a case before Rebbi Immi and he did not decide; he said there are two against two. They said to him, but Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman decided! Nevertheless, he gave no opinion.

“ They came back to say, a dish which will improve the more it shrinks is forbidden, deteriorate the more it shrinks is permitted. What is a dish better the more it shrinks? Cabbage, peas, and chopped meat.” Rebbi Tanḥum bar Illa said, they also considered heads of turnips and leeks as dishes better the more they shrink. What about eggs? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Ismael: Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose: My father came home and found eggs and forbade them, hot water and permitted it. Rebbi Samuel bar Natan in the name of Rebbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina: I went with my father to Ḥammat Gader where they brought before us eggs small like ḥizrar apples and they tasted delicious like sweet bread.

HALAKHAH: There, we have stated: “If a vine is planted in the courtyard, one may take an entire bunch, and similarly for pomegranate and water melon, the words of Rebbi Ṭarphon.” Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Ḥiyya, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi Ṭarphon says following Rebbi Eliezer. Rebbi Ṭarphon says, one makes the cut of food equal to its start. Rebbi Illa, Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Either Rebbi Ṭarphon follows Rebbi Eliezer or Rebbi Ṭarphon makes a meal consisting of two or three snacks equal to one snack. What is the reason of Rebbi Eliezer? Because he started with permission. It was stated: “Rebbi Nathan said, not that Rebbi Eliezer said because he started with permission but Rebbi Eliezer holds he should wait until the end of the Sabbath or he should leave the courtyard again and finish.”

There, we have stated: “If he was eating a bunch of grapes and entered into the courtyard from the garden. Rebbi Eliezer said, he should finish, but Rebbi Joshua said, he should not finish.” Rebbi Zeїra in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Either Rebbi Ṭarphon says following Rebbi Eliezer or Rebbi Ṭarphon says, one makes the cut of food equal to its start. Rebbi Illa, Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Either Rebbi Ṭarphon follows Rebbi Eliezer or Rebbi Ṭarphon makes one snack containing two or three snacks equal to one snack. What is the reason of Rebbi Eliezer? Because he started with permission. It was stated: “Rebbi Nathan said, not that Rebbi Eliezer said because he started with permission but Rebbi Eliezer holds he should wait until the end of the Sabbath or he should leave the courtyard again and finish.”

It was stated: “Rebbi Illaï says in the name of Rebbi Eliezer: For food in fluids, one gives heave from pure for impure. How is this? If somebody pickled olives in impurity and wants to give heave in purity, he brings a funnel whose opening is less than [the width of] an egg, fills it with olives and puts it on top of the amphora; it turns out that he gives heave from what is earmarked.” Why does it have to be less than [the width of] an egg? Are these not single pieces? It is only that not many olives should become impure. “They said to him, the only food fluids called fluid are wine and olive oil.” How is that? One beam for two pits or two beams for one pit. [One understands one beam for two pits, but two beams for one pit?] Is it not that if it is partially impure it is totally impure? Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Assi: Explain it, if he had intended to process it in one batch, and he changed his mind to make it in two batches. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, this applies if it became impure after he siphoned off [the froth] and [the seeds] formed lumps. But if it became impure before lumps were formed and he siphoned off, it does not apply. Rebbi Tabi, Rebbi Joshia in the name of Rebbi Yannai: Practice follows Rebbi Eliezer. Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia followed Rebbi Eliezer. Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: Practice does not follow Rebbi Eliezer. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun, Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: Practice does not follow Rebbi Eliezer. There came a case before [Rebbi Immi] and he did not decide; he said there are two against two. They said to him, but Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman agreed! Nevertheless, he gave no opinion.

It was stated: Gentile workmen who were working for an Israel, in the Israel’s house it is forbidden, in their houses it is permitted. Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar said, when has this been said? For contract work. But for one hired by the day it is forbidden. When has this been said, when it was cut from the ground, but as long as it is standing on the ground it is forbidden. In another town, in any case it is permitted. What means “in any case”? Whether cut from the ground or standing on the ground; whether a hireling or contract work. Rebbi Illa said, whether separated from the ground or connected to the ground, but only for contract work. Rebbi Simeon ben Barqana in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: Concerning Sabbath, mourning, and idolatry, practice follows Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar.

“They came back to say, a dish which will improve the more it shrinks is forbidden; a dish which will deteriorate the more it shrinks is permitted. What is a dish which improves the more it shrinks? For example cabbage, peas, and chopped meat.” Rebbi Tanḥum bar Illa said, they also considered heads of beets and heads of of leeks as dishes which improve the more they shrink. What about eggs? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose: My father came home and found hot water and permitted it, eggs and forbade them. Rebbi Samuel bar Natan in the name of Rebbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina: I went with my father to Ḥammat Gader where they brought before us eggs small like crab apples and they tasted delicious like sweetbread.

“Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah’s cow went out with a strip between her horns against the will of the Sages.” Rebbi Abba: Both (and Rebbi) [Rav and] Samuel are saying, the words of the Sages are that even pulling her with them is forbidden. Rebbi Abba in the name of Samuel: If its horns were drilling it is permitted. Rebbi Yose said, I pointed out the difficulty before Rebbi Abba and he said, we only stated: “the female camel with a nose ring.” Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Samuel: A badly behaved ox goes out with his bridle; our teachers in the Diaspora do this. Rebbi Illa, Rav Jehudah in the name of [Rebbi] Simeon ben [Rebbi] Ḥiyya: A dog goes out with his muzzle. If to (expect) [punish] him it is forbidden, if so he should not eat his bridle it is permitted.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. Rebbi Zeriqa, Rebbi Jacob bar Abun in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: Rebbi Eleazar said this only for the place of partitions if the main parts had been removed on both sides, and only four [handbreadths]. Rebbi Zeˋira and Rebbi Illa both are saying, it is forbidden not at the place of partitions, but at the place of partitions even the rabbis agree. Rebbi Zeriqan said, many times I explained [the Mishnah] with Rebbi Jacob bar Abun and never heard this from him. They said to him, does it not happen that one person hears something which another does not hear? Rav Jeremiah in the name of Rav: if the main partitions had been removed on both sides, and only if it is level.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, about this Abba bar Abba enlightened me, for they are saying, from where that Pesaḥ is changed into the denomination of well-being sacrifices? The verse says, and if his sacrifice be from small cattle as meal well-being offering; anything from small cattle comes as well-being offering. They objected, is there not an elevation offering from small cattle? Anything which only comes from small cattle; this eliminates the elevation offering which even may come from large cattle. They objected, is there not reparation offering? Rebbi Abun bar Cahana said, “from small cattle”. this eliminates the reparation offering, which only comes from rams. Everywhere you are saying that מִן (is to include) [is to exclude], but here you are saying that (מִן is to exclude) [is to include]. Rebbi Mana said, (it excludes it,) [here also מִן is to exclude: It excludes in that it may not be brought two years old; it excludes that it cannot be brought female; and for a reparation offering also it excludes] since it only comes from rams. They objected, is there not written, and if his sacrifice be from small cattle, from sheep or goats, as elevation offering; then excess Pesaḥ should become elevation offering? Rebbi Abun said, one changes something to be eaten into something to be eaten, but one does not change something to be eaten into something not to be eaten. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, one changes simple sancta into simple sancta, but one does not change simple sancta into most holy sacrifices. Rebbi Joḥanan said, about what Rebbi Ḥanina enlightened, that they are saying, Pesaḥ is changed into a well-being offering only if he slaughtered it for the purpose of well-being offering; but I am saying, even for the purpose of an elevation offering. Rebbi Illa said, the reason of Rebbi Joḥanan: And if his sacrifice be from small cattle as meal well-being offering; anything to be consumed as sanctum is a well-being offering. Does it change with respect to disqualifying thoughts? How is this? If he slaughtered it for the purpose of an elevation offering in order to pour its blood the next day. In any case, it is disqualified. If you are saying that it changes with respect to disqualifying thoughts, it is piggul. If you are saying that it does not change with respect to disqualifying thoughts, it is disqualified.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, it was stated so that the eighth day was a separate holiday, a separate lottery, a separate benediction, a separate sacrifice. Holiday, as Rebbi Abbin said in the name of Rebbi Aḥa, for all of them is written and on day, but here is written on day, to teach you that it is a separate holiday. Lottery, Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah says this, “on the eighth day they returned to the lottery as on holidays.” Benediction, Illa said, time. Sacrifice, one bull and one ram.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Abba: Both Rav and Samuel are saying, the words of the Sages are that even pulling her with them is forbidden. Rebbi Abba in the name of Samuel: If its horns were drilling it is permitted. Rebbi Yose said, I pointed out the difficulty before Rebbi Abba and he said, we only stated: “the female camel with a nose ring.” Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Samuel: A badly behaved ox goes out with his bridle; our teachers in the Diaspora do this. Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rebbi Jonathan, Rebbi Tanḥum bar Ḥiyya: A badly behaved donkey goes out with his bridle. Rebbi Illa, Rav Jehudah in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Rebbi Ḥiyya: A dog goes out with his muzzle. If to punish him it is forbidden, if so he should not eat his bridle it is permitted.

Rebbi Illa said: He himself, who touched the corpse, is guilty. He said it and gave its reason: “who became impure,” that refers to the impurity of a human. But is there not a third? As Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, for impurity of a person from a person a man is guilty for impurity in the Sanctuary. They objected: If objects touch the corpse, a human the objects, and objects the human. For impurity of a person from a person, not for impurity of a person from objects. Rebbi Zeriqa in the name of Rav Hamnuna: The Tanna there disagrees with Rebbi Illa: “For an object made half of cement־earth and half of dung one is not guilty for coming to the Sanctuary” Because it is half of earth and half of dung; but if it were totally of earth, one would be guilty. Who is guilty? Not the one who touches it? Is he not the second who touches the first? Rebbi Phineas said before Rebbi Yose: Explain it if he threw it. He answered him, about him who threw it we stated: For washing his body he is subject to extirpation, for washing his garments to the forty. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose said before Rebbi Yose, do we not have the Mishnah in support of that first Tanna, as is stated: “Rebbi Eleazar said in the name of Rebbi Joshua: For any impurity caused by a corpse for which the nazir shaves, one is guilty if entering the Sanctuary, but for any impurity caused by a corpse for which the nazir does not shave, one is not guilty if entering the Sanctuary.” For the first, for which the nazir shaves, one is guilty if entering the Sanctuary; for the second, for which the nazir does not shave, one is not guilty if entering the Sanctuary. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is needed from what comes from the corpse: For a quartarius of blood or a quarter qab of bones, for which the nazir does not shave, one is not guilty if entering the Sanctuary; for half a log of blood and half a qab of bones, for which the nazir shaves, one is guilty if entering the Sanctuary. Rebbi Jeremiah said, we were of the opinion that they disagree about a sacrifice, but one whips even the third, even the fourth. Rebbi Yose from Sidon stated before Rebbi Jeremiah in opposition to Rebbi Jeremiah: “For any impurity caused by a corpse for which the nazir shaves, one is guilty if entering the Sanctuary, but for any impurity caused by a corpse for which the nazir does not shave, one is not guilty if entering the Sanctuary.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rebbi Yannai, Rebbi Joḥanan: It is needed from what comes from the corpse: For a quartarius of blood or a quarter qab of bones, for which the nazir does not shave, one is not guilty; for half a log of blood and half a qab of bones, for which the nazir shaves, one is guilty.

Rebbi Illa said: He himself, who touched the corpse, is guilty. He said it and gave its reason: “who became impure,” that refers to the impurity of a human. But is there not a third? As Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, for impurity of a person from a person a man is guilty for impurity in the Sanctuary. They objected: If objects touch the corpse, a human the objects, and objects the human. For impurity of a person from a person, not for impurity of a person from objects. Rebbi Zeriqa in the name of Rav Hamnuna: The Tanna there disagrees with Rebbi Illa: “For an object made half of cement־earth and half of dung one is not guilty for coming to the Sanctuary” Because it is half of earth and half of dung; but if it were totally of earth, one would be guilty. Who is guilty? Not the one who touches it? Is he not the second who touches the first? Rebbi Phineas said before Rebbi Yose: Explain it if he threw it. He answered him, about him who threw it we stated: For washing his body he is subject to extirpation, for washing his garments to the forty. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose said before Rebbi Yose, do we not have the Mishnah in support of that first Tanna, as is stated: “Rebbi Eleazar said in the name of Rebbi Joshua: For any impurity caused by a corpse for which the nazir shaves, one is guilty if entering the Sanctuary, but for any impurity caused by a corpse for which the nazir does not shave, one is not guilty if entering the Sanctuary.” For the first, for which the nazir shaves, one is guilty if entering the Sanctuary; for the second, for which the nazir does not shave, one is not guilty if entering the Sanctuary. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is needed from what comes from the corpse: For a quartarius of blood or a quarter qab of bones, for which the nazir does not shave, one is not guilty if entering the Sanctuary; for half a log of blood and half a qab of bones, for which the nazir shaves, one is guilty if entering the Sanctuary. Rebbi Jeremiah said, we were of the opinion that they disagree about a sacrifice, but one whips even the third, even the fourth. Rebbi Yose from Sidon stated before Rebbi Jeremiah in opposition to Rebbi Jeremiah: “For any impurity caused by a corpse for which the nazir shaves, one is guilty if entering the Sanctuary, but for any impurity caused by a corpse for which the nazir does not shave, one is not guilty if entering the Sanctuary.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rebbi Yannai, Rebbi Joḥanan: It is needed from what comes from the corpse: For a quartarius of blood or a quarter qab of bones, for which the nazir does not shave, one is not guilty; for half a log of blood and half a qab of bones, for which the nazir shaves, one is guilty.

Is it subject to a declaration of notoriety in a matter extraneous to its body? Rebbi Ze‘ira said, one accepts. Rebbi Illa said, one does not accept. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, a baraita disagrees with him: An ox which rubs itself against a wall which fell on a human and killed him is obligated for weregilt but free from death. Does there exist weregilt for a harmless animal? But it does not disagree with Rebbi Illa. Why is it free from death if it was notorious to destroy walls? When it destroyed it, no human was there.

Is it subject to a declaration of notoriety in a matter extraneous to its body? Rebbi Ze‘ira said, one accepts. Rebbi Illa said, one does not accept. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, a baraita disagrees with him: An ox which rubs itself against a wall which fell on a human and killed him is obligated for weregilt but free from death. Does there exist weregilt for a harmless animal? But it does not disagree with Rebbi Illa. Why is it free from death if it was notorious to destroy walls? When it destroyed it, no human was there.

HALAKHAH: “You raped or seduced my daughter,” etc. Rebbi Ze`ira, Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The words of Rebbi Simeon [imply that] the main claim is for the fine, which is not so for the words of the Sages. Rebbi Illa said, the words of Rebbi Simeon if he claims the fine, shame and diminution; the words of the Sages if he claims shame, diminution, and fine. The rabbis say, the words of Rebbi Simeon if he advances three claims; the words of the Sages if he advances one claim. Rebbi Ze`ira asked before Rebbi Yasa, did you hear explicitly from Rebbi Joḥanan, or from his word? Rebbi Yasa said, for he is of the rabbis’ opinion. Rebbi Mana said, even if he is of Rebbi Illa’s opinion, the words of Rebbi Simeon if he advances one claim; the words of the Sages if he advances three claims. “Not only matters for which he has to pay the capital, from where double payment, quadruple and quintuple payment, the rapist, and the seducer, and the calumniator? The verse says, everything about which one would swear falsely.” Is the calumniator’s not a fine? Rebbi Jeremiah says, this is Rebbi Simeon’s who said, all depends on the collection.

HALAKHAH: “You raped or seduced my daughter,” etc. Rebbi Ze`ira, Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The words of Rebbi Simeon [imply that] the main claim is for the fine, which is not so for the words of the Sages. Rebbi Illa said, the words of Rebbi Simeon if he claims the fine, shame and diminution; the words of the Sages if he claims shame, diminution, and fine. The rabbis say, the words of Rebbi Simeon if he advances three claims; the words of the Sages if he advances one claim. Rebbi Ze`ira asked before Rebbi Yasa, did you hear explicitly from Rebbi Joḥanan, or from his word? Rebbi Yasa said, for he is of the rabbis’ opinion. Rebbi Mana said, even if he is of Rebbi Illa’s opinion, the words of Rebbi Simeon if he advances one claim; the words of the Sages if he advances three claims. “Not only matters for which he has to pay the capital, from where double payment, quadruple and quintuple payment, the rapist, and the seducer, and the calumniator? The verse says, everything about which one would swear falsely.” Is the calumniator’s not a fine? Rebbi Jeremiah says, this is Rebbi Simeon’s who said, all depends on the collection.

HALAKHAH: “One does not swear on the claim of a deaf-and-dumb person, an insane person, or a minor,” etc. It is written: If a man give to his neighbor, to exclude the minor. So far if a minor gave to him and the minor requested from him. If he gave it as a minor and requested it as an adult? The verse says, his neighbor; only if giving and requesting are equal. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, is that not obvious by what Rebbi Joḥanan said, one who claims a claim of theft in respect of his neighbor’s lost object is liable? “Where is my lost object?” He told him, it was stolen. Rebbi Abba said, explain it if he told him, you already asked me when you were underage and I was freed from swearing for you. An oath of the Eternal shall be between both of them, to exclude the heir. Rebbi Illa in the name of Rebbi Yasa: The baraita is about the heir.