included

Rebbi Mana said, I went to Caesarea and I saw them using fig cake as free. I asked Rebbi Isaac bar Eleazar; he said to me that Zeugos used to permit it. Rebbi Isaac bar Eleazar in the name of Zeugos of Caesarea: All that sees the water is free. Some want to say, up to the salt tower, some want to say, up to the Telamon cave. Rebbi Abba Mari said, the words of the rabbis imply that all kinds are forbidden in Caesarea. “Wheat, bread, oil, dates, rice, and cumin.” Fig cakes are not included? It is in the Mishnah. But we have also mentioned rice and cumin; these are in the Mishnah and we have spelled them out! Those are the ones which are left out. “These are permitted in the Sabbatical year, in all other years of the Sabbatical cycle they are demay.” These are permitted in the Sabbatical year; why are they not Sabbatical fruits in the Sabbatical year? The Jews treat them as Sabbatical, the Gentiles are free, Jews and Gentiles outnumber Samaritans. In all other years of the Sabbatical cycle they are demay, the Judean Jews put them in order, Gentiles are free, Jews and Gentiles outnumber Samaritans. How far? The inn of the pillars, the inn at Tayibeh, as far as Kefar Saba. Their juices are certain in Caesarea.

MISHNAH: He who accepts upon himself to be a ḥaver will not sell to the am haäreẓ wet or dry and will not buy wet from him, is not guest of an am haäreẓ and does not have him as a guest in his clothing. Rebbi Jehudah says, moreover he should not raise animals of the flock, should not overstep bounds by vows and laughter, should not defile himself with the dead, and be a regular in the house of study. They said to him, these are not included.

A holiday next to the Sabbath, be it before the Sabbath or after the Sabbath, and likewise the two holidays of the diaspora, according to him who says they are one sanctity, he may eat; according to him who says that they are two sanctities, he may not eat. Even according to him who says that they are two sanctities, he may eat as long as there was no possibility to tithe between them. It was stated: “If he asks him on the holiday, he eats on the Sabbath; if he asks him on the Sabbath, he eats on the holiday.” Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Zeïra, explain it regarding produce he had intended to use on Sabbath eve. But produce he had not intended on Sabbath eve (to use during the Sabbath) is not included. Rebbi Mana said, the words of the rabbis support Rebbi Jonah, my father, since we have stated there: “He who takes a vow regarding his friend that he will eat at his place but he does not trust him with the tithes.” Rebbi Yannai ben Rebbi Ismaël in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: On the Sabbath of the preliminary marriage they permitted because of hatred. Is the Sabbath of the preliminary marriage not comparable to produce that on Sabbath eve he intended to use (later on the Sabbath)? Nevertheless, he only said “because of hatred.”

Rebbi Zeïra, Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Cahana: He who is planting on the Sabbath is guilty because of sowing. Rebbi Zeïra said, he who prunes is like one who plants. If he planted and pruned on the Sabbath, according to Cahana he is guilty on two counts, according to Rebbi Zeïra only on one count. Did not Rebbi Zeïra say the pruner is like the planter, did he say the planter is like the pruner? All was included in the notion of sowing; pruning was singled out for particular stringency. Because pruning was singled out for particular stringency you want to exempt it because of sowing? There is no difference, both according to Cahana and according to Rebbi Zeïra he is guilty on two counts.

HALAKHAH: “Only [wool and linen] are forbidden as kilaim”. It is written (Deut. 22:11): “Do not wear ša‘aṭnez, wool and linen together.” I would say one is only forbidden to wear it; the verse says (Lev. 19:19): “It shall not come on you.” If it shall not come on you I would say one may not carry a chest on his back; the verse says “do not wear.” Since a garment is specifically useful to the body, [included are] only things useful to the body. Why was it said that “it shall not come on you?” Rebbi Niḥa bar Sava, Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Zeïra, if there was a large piece of cloth, in a part of which was kilaim and that part was lying on the ground, one cannot cover himself with the other part. I would say, it includes even sea flax, even hemp; the verse says “wool and linen”; just as wool cannot have an epithet so nothing else can have an epithet. From where that [wool] has no epithet? Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, it is written (2K. 3:4) “Mesha‘, the king of Moab, was a nôqēd;” what is a nôqēd? A shepherd! “He delivered to the king of Israel 100’000 lambs and 100’000 wool rams.” Only ram’s wool is called “wool”.

HALAKHAH: “They established a comprehensive principle for the Sabbatical,” etc. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Zeïra: Human and animal food is mentioned in the paragraph. What reason do you have to say that from human food one cannot make a wound dressing but from animal feed one may make a wound dressing? He said to him (Lev. 25:6): “The Land’s Sabbath shall be for you as food”, an exclusion. It excludes human food that cannot be made into wound dressing. It also excludes animal feed! Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, any interpretation you give which contradicts the prior interpretation is not valid. Rebbi Yose did not say so, but (Lev. 25:6): “The Land’s Sabbath shall be for you as food”, an exclusion, “for you, your slave, and your handmaid”, an exclusion after an exclusion, to add that human food cannot be made into wound dressing. He added animal feed! As Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, any interpretation you give which contradicts the prior interpretation is not valid. Rebbi Mattaniah said, when you did exclude, you excluded from human food; when you included, you included animal feed.

HALAKHAH: “They established a comprehensive principle for the Sabbatical,” etc. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Zeïra: Human and animal food is mentioned in the paragraph. What reason do you have to say that from human food one cannot make a wound dressing but from animal feed one may make a wound dressing? He said to him (Lev. 25:6): “The Land’s Sabbath shall be for you as food”, an exclusion. It excludes human food that cannot be made into wound dressing. It also excludes animal feed! Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, any interpretation you give which contradicts the prior interpretation is not valid. Rebbi Yose did not say so, but (Lev. 25:6): “The Land’s Sabbath shall be for you as food”, an exclusion, “for you, your slave, and your handmaid”, an exclusion after an exclusion, to add that human food cannot be made into wound dressing. He added animal feed! As Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, any interpretation you give which contradicts the prior interpretation is not valid. Rebbi Mattaniah said, when you did exclude, you excluded from human food; when you included, you included animal feed.

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

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

HALAKHAH: “Second Tithe is to be used for eating,” etc. It is to be used for eating, since eating is written regarding it. For drinking, since drinking is included in eating. From where that drinking is included in eating? Rebbi Jonah understood if from the following (Lev. 17:12): “Therefore, I said to the Children of Israel, no person among you may eat blood.” Where do we hold? If about congealed blood, did we not state: “Congealed blood is neither food nor drink”? So we must hold as is, and the Torah called it “eating.” But did we not state: “If he mashed the fat and sipped it, congealed the blood and ate it, he is guilty!” How does Rebbi Jonah explain? It is neither food, to accept the impurity of food, nor drink, to accept the impurity of drinks.

HALAKHAH: “Second Tithe is to be used for eating,” etc. It is to be used for eating, since eating is written regarding it. For drinking, since drinking is included in eating. From where that drinking is included in eating? Rebbi Jonah understood if from the following (Lev. 17:12): “Therefore, I said to the Children of Israel, no person among you may eat blood.” Where do we hold? If about congealed blood, did we not state: “Congealed blood is neither food nor drink”? So we must hold as is, and the Torah called it “eating.” But did we not state: “If he mashed the fat and sipped it, congealed the blood and ate it, he is guilty!” How does Rebbi Jonah explain? It is neither food, to accept the impurity of food, nor drink, to accept the impurity of drinks.

(Deut. 14:28) “In that year” your are obliged to remove it but you are not obliged to remove it in any other year. “In that year” you are obliged to remove; you are not required to remove vegetables which grew between New Year’s Day and Passover. The colleagues say, because he can make a declaration [for the latter] only in the fifth year. Rebbi Hila said, because it does not hinder the declaration in the fourth, only in the fifth. Where do they differ? If he transgressed and included it in his declaration. According to the colleagues it is invalid, according to Rebbi Hila is it valid.

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Everywhere it is written “do not eat, do not eat, it shall not be eaten”, you understand a prohibition of usufruct included in the probition of eating unless the verse comes and explains to you as it did explain about limbs of a living animal and a carcass. What did it explain about limbs of a living animal? (Ex. 22:30) “Flesh torn in the field you shall not eat.” And what did it explain about a carcass? (Deut. 14:21) “Do not eat any carcass; to the sojourner in your gates you shall give it and he may eat it.” Hizqiah stated a disagreement. What does one forbid to the dog?

The rabbis of Caesarea, Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Nowhere do you understand a prohibition of usufruct included in the probition of eating if it is written “do not eat”. The paradigm for all cases is (Lev. 6:23): “Any purification offering of whose blood was brought into the Tent of Meeting to purify the sanctuary shall not be eaten, in fire it shall be burned.” Ḥizqiah stated support for Rebbi Joḥanan: If one understands what has been said (Lev. 7:23): “Any fat of cattle, sheep, or goats you shall not eat,” why has it been said (Lev. 7:24): “But fat of a carcass and fat of a torn animal may be used for any work”? It comes to tell you, even for the work of Heaven. If one understands what has been said (Lev. 12:16): “But the blood you shall not eat,” why has it been said “you shall pour it on the ground like water”? It comes to tell you, as water prepares, so blood prepares. If one understands what has been said (Deut. 14:21) “Do not eat any carcass;” why has it been said “to the sojourner in your gates you shall give it and he may eat it”? To tell you that the resident sojourner may eat carcass meat. If one understands what has been said (Ex. 22:30): “Flesh torn in the field you shall not eat,” why has it been said “throw it to the dog”? This you throw to the dog but not profane meat slaughered in the Temple precinct.

Rebbi Berekhiah in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman: Why is “Land, Land” written twice? To tell you that a house stands only on these two things. Why are [the others] included? Rebbi Jehuda ben Rebbi and Rebbi Samuel ben Naḥman, one says for benedictions, the other says for measures. He who says for benedictions is understandable. He who says for measures, did we not state: “A shiny mark the size of half a bean”? That is not reliable. “The size of a lentil from a crawling thing”? That is not reliable.

Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish worked on this Chapter for three and one half years. They produced 39 derivatives for each single one. Where they found a way to include it they included it. Where they did not find a way to include it they classified it as “who hits with a hammer.”

Rebbi Zakkai stated before Rebbi Joḥanan: If somebody sacrificed, burned incense, and poured a libation in one forgetting, he is guilty for each action separately. Rebbi Joḥanan told him, Babylonian! You crossed three rivers with your hands and were broken. He is guilty only once! {Before he broke it in his hand there is “one” but not “those”; after he broke it in his hand there are “those” but not “one”.} Rebbi Abba bar Mamal asked before Rebbi Zeˋira: Should he not be guilty for each action separately? As you say for the Sabbath: Do not perform any work, principle. Do not light fire in any of your dwelling places, a detail. Was not lighting fire subsumed under the principle, but it is mentioned separately from this principle! Since lighting fire is special in that it is the work of a single individual and one would be guilty for it alone, so everything for which one alone is guilty. Also here: Do not worship them, a principle. Do not prostrate yourself, a detail. Was not prostrating itself included in the principle and why was it mentioned separately? To infer, to tell you that prostrating oneself is special in that it is the action of a single individual and one would be guilty for it alone, so everything for which one alone is guilty. He answered: For the Sabbath, He mentioned the principle at one place and the details at another place. For idol worship, the principle is found close to the detail. He retorted: Is it not written: Do not prostrate yourself before another power? He who sacrifices to Elohim shall be banned. He mentioned the principle at one place and the details at another place! He said, since you do [not] infer anything from it close up, you cannot infer anything from afar. The colleagues say, it makes no difference; whether He gave the principle at one place and the detail at another, or gave principle and detail at the same place, it is a matter of principle and detail. For the Sabbath, He first gave the principle and then the detail. For idolatry, He gave the detail and only later the principle. Rebbi Yose said, it makes no difference whether He first gave the principle and then the detail or He gave the detail and only later the principle, or He gave principle, detail, and principle; it is a matter of principle and detail. For the Sabbath, He gave a general prohibition of work, followed by details; for idolatry, He gave the general principle regarding its worship but detailed the works of Heaven.

Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun does not say so but Rebbi Eleazar asked Rebbi Joḥanan, should not the Two Breads, being mentioned separately, teach about all sancta on the ramp? He said to him, them is a restriction. For these one is liable on the ramp, for all other sancta one is not liable on the ramp. This implies that a single item which is mentioned separately necessarily does not divide, but unnecessarily it divides. Two items which are mentioned separately do not divide but according to Rebbi Ismael they do divide, as Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, the words of Rebbi Ismael are that two items which are mentioned separately divide. As Rebbi Ismael stated, you shall neither divine nor cast spells. Were not divining and spellbinding included in the general class? The were mentioned separately to be treated differently from the general case.

In general by extirpation, the separate case by extirpation; the word of Rebbi Joḥanan implies that it is “general case and detail”, as Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, since anybody who would perform any of these abomination s, they will be extirpated. Was not his sister included in the general class and was mentioned separately of the general class to divide from the general class. Rebbi Eleazar objected, is it not written, the nakedness of your mother’s sister and your father’s sister you shall not uncover, for he would touch his relative? He told him, this was mentioned separately for a reason, to judge by “touching”. He said to him, is it not written, a man who would lie with an unwell woman, uncover her nakedness and touch her source? He told him, this was mentioned separately for a reason, to judge the one “touching” as finishing. That you should not say, since he is liable for her [already] for impurity we should not consider for him “touching” as finishing. Therefore it was necessary to mention (that he is liable for each single one.) He said to him, is it not written, a man who would sleep with his aunt, his uncle’s nakedness he uncovered? He told him, this was mentioned separately to judge by childlessness. But is it not written, a man who would marry his brother’s wife, she is separated? He told him, this was mentioned separately to judge by childlessness, as Rebbi Yudan said, where it is written childless they shall be, they will be without children, childless they shall die, they bury their children.

If He stated a general principle as a positive commandment but the detail as a prohibition, the word of Rebbi Eleazar is that this is a general principle followed by a detail. Rebbi Eleazar said, one whips for ploughing in the Sabbatical year. Rebbi Joḥanan said, one does not whip for ploughing in the Sabbatical year. What is Rebbi Eleazar’s reason? The Land shall keep a Sabbath for the Eternal, a general principle. Your field you shall not sow, your vineyard you shall not prune, detail. Sowing and pruning were included in the general case; why were they mentioned separately? To include with them; since sowing and pruning are particular in that they perform work on the soil or on a tree, I have only what is work on the soil or on a tree. How does Rebbi Joḥanan treat this? They are two different things, and two different details for one general principle do divide. In Rebbi Eleazar’s opinion do they not divide? He holds that because they do not divide, they are for making inferences. In Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion, are they not for making inferences? There is a difference here because He stated a general principle as a positive commandment but the detail as prohibitions. No positive commandment allows inferences for a prohibition and no prohibition allows inferences for a positive commandment. Rebbi Eleazar said, a positive commandment allows inferences for a prohibition but no prohibition allows inferences for a positive commandment. In Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion it is obvious that one may dig cisterns, ditches, and caves during it. In Rebbi Eleazar’s opinion, may one dig cisterns, ditches, and caves during it? Just as one cannot make inferences for prohibitions, so one should not be able to make inferences for permissions. Rebbi Abba from Carthage said, Rebbi Joḥanan’s reason is six years you shall sow, not in the Sabbatical; and six years you shall prune your vineyard, not in the Sabbatical at all. Any prohibition inferred from a positive commandment is a positive commandment; one violates a positive commandment. Rebbi Yose said, there is not even a positive commandment. Rebbi Jeremiah said, one violates a positive commandment. Why is it written that the Land shall keep a Sabbath for the Eternal? That is for the prohibition implied by it.

[Rebbi] Zeˋira, Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Cahana: He who is planting on the Sabbath is guilty because of sowing. Rebbi Zeˋira said, he who prunes is like one who plants. If he planted and pruned on the Sabbath, according to Cahana he is guilty on two counts, according to Rebbi Zeˋira only on one count. Did not Rebbi Zeˋira say the pruner is like the planter, did he say perhaps the planter is like the pruner? All was included in the category of sowing; pruning was singled out for particular stringency. Because pruning was singled out for particular stringency you want to exempt it because of sowing? This means, there is no difference. If he planted and pruned on the Sabbath, according to both Cahana and Rebbi Zeˋira he is guilty on two counts.

HALAKHAH: According to Rebbi Jehudah, is the well included in the measure of two [bet] se’ah? Let us hear from the following: If a well is two bet se’ah one may not go farther away than for the head and most of the body of a cow. This implies that the well is included in the measure of two [bet] se’ah.

HALAKHAH: According to Rebbi Jehudah, is the well included in the measure of two [bet] se’ah? Let us hear from the following: If a well is two bet se’ah one may not go farther away than for the head and most of the body of a cow. This implies that the well is included in the measure of two [bet] se’ah.

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Everywhere it is written do not eat, do not eat, it shall not be eaten, you understand a prohibition of usufruct included in the prohibition of eating unless the verse is explicit and explains to you as it did explain about limbs of a living animal and a carcass. What did it explain about limbs of a living animal? Flesh torn in the field you shall not eat; throw it to the dog. And what did it explain about a carcass? Do not eat any carcass; to the sojourner in your gates you shall give it and he may eat it, or sell to the stranger. Ḥizqiah stated a disagreement. What does one forbid to the dog?

The rabbis of Caesarea, Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Nowhere do you understand a prohibition of usufruct included in the prohibition of eating if it is written do not eat, do not eat. It may not be eaten (f.). it may not be eaten (m.), you understand a prohibition of usufruct included in the prohibition of eating. The paradigm for all cases is: Any purification offering of whose blood was brought into the Tent of Meeting to purify the sanctuary shall not be eaten, in fire it shall be burned. Ḥizqiah stated support for Rebbi Joḥanan: If one understands what has been said: Any fat of cattle, sheep, or goats you shall not eat, why has it been said: but fat of a carcass and fat of a torn animal may be used for any work? Even for the work of Heaven. If one understands what has been said: But the blood you shall not eat, why has it been said,you shall pour it on the ground like water? As water prepares, so blood prepares. If one understands what has been said: Do not eat any carcass; why has it been said, to the sojourner in your gates you shall give it and he may eat it? It serves to tell you that the resident sojourner may eat carcass meat. If one understands what has been said: Flesh torn in the field you shall not eat, why does the verse say, throw it to the dog? This you throw to the dog but you do not throw profane meat slaughtered in the Temple precinct.

The rabbis of Caesarea, Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Nowhere do you understand a prohibition of usufruct included in the prohibition of eating if it is written do not eat, do not eat. It may not be eaten (f.). it may not be eaten (m.), you understand a prohibition of usufruct included in the prohibition of eating. The paradigm for all cases is: Any purification offering of whose blood was brought into the Tent of Meeting to purify the sanctuary shall not be eaten, in fire it shall be burned. Ḥizqiah stated support for Rebbi Joḥanan: If one understands what has been said: Any fat of cattle, sheep, or goats you shall not eat, why has it been said: but fat of a carcass and fat of a torn animal may be used for any work? Even for the work of Heaven. If one understands what has been said: But the blood you shall not eat, why has it been said,you shall pour it on the ground like water? As water prepares, so blood prepares. If one understands what has been said: Do not eat any carcass; why has it been said, to the sojourner in your gates you shall give it and he may eat it? It serves to tell you that the resident sojourner may eat carcass meat. If one understands what has been said: Flesh torn in the field you shall not eat, why does the verse say, throw it to the dog? This you throw to the dog but you do not throw profane meat slaughtered in the Temple precinct.

Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: The olive-sized piece of mazzah with which a person fulfills his obligation on Passover must be without fluid. Rebbi Jeremiah said, this was said for a meritorious deed. Rebbi Abba said, this was said for a meritorious deed. Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi said, this was said as a necessary condition. The word of Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya implies that this was said as a necessary condition. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya objected, did we not state: “flat cakes for a thanksgiving offering”? Are there flat cakes for a thanksgiving offering without fluids? Rebbi Yose said, there it is a quartarius; one quartarius splits into many kinds. But what implies this? “One might think and a person could satisfy his obligation with pancake, the verse says, guard the mazzot, a mazzah which needs guarding, excluding this one which does not need guarding.” Because it does not need guarding; therefore if it would need guarding one would satisfy his obligation with it. And so we stated: “One fulfills his obligation with spiced mazzah, even if it does not taste of grain, on condition that it be mostly grain”. They thought to say, spiced by fluids. We may say, spiced by sesame, spiced by nuts. But the following says it: One might think that a person only could satisfy his obligation on Passover with (roasted) [whole grain] bread? From where even with Solomon’s mazzah? The verse says, you shall eat mazzot, it included. If it is so, why does it say bread of affliction? To exclude sursīn, and pancake, and cake.

MISHNAH: And the following are removed on Passover: Babylonian kutah, and Median beer, and Edomite vinegar, and Egyptian zythum, and dyers’ gravy, and cooks’ starch, and scribes’ glue; Rebbi Eliezer says, also women’s make-up This is the principle: Anything made from grain one removes on Passover; these are included in the warning but they are not cause for extirpation.

Rebbi Yose said, Rebbi Joshua ben Levi left out the beginning and said the end; is that not what was stated: “Ḥanania ben Jehudah says, I hear between evenings, between [two] evenings, between the evening of the 14th and the evening of the fifteenth. I could think that day and night are included; the verse says, day. Since He said day, this excludes the night. If it is day, I could think at two hours into the day; the verse says, in the evening. If in the evening, I could think after it became dark. The verse says, between the evenings. How is this? Split the evening into two, give it two and a half hours before, two and a half hours afterwards, and one hour for its work. It turns out that the daily sacrifice is brought at nine hours and a half.

HALAKHAH: There, we have stated: “They went, ate, and drank. In the evening they returned and red the Great Hallel.” What is the Great Hallel? Rebbi Pamakh in the name of Rebbi Ḥaninah; Give thanks to Almighty God. Rebbi Joḥanan said, on condition of who stand in the Eternal’s house. Why these two chapters? Because rainfall is included in them. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan it is understandable, for it is written, He brings up vapors from the ends of the earth. How is it for Rebbi Ḥaninah? Because it is written, He gives nourishment to all flesh; Truly, His kindness is forever. Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Simon, both are saying, ours. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, ours. Bar Qappara said, ours. Bar Qappara follows his opinion, as it was stated: “during the existence of a third group they never reached I am loving; truly the Eternal listened to my voice, my supplication, since its people were few.” Bar Qappara stated, this is the Great Hallel. A patrician stood before the Ark; he said to them, repeat after me what I am saying. This implies that it is not ours. Rebbi Mana said, it is ours. The miracle was great; therefore he said to them, repeat after me what I am saying.

Rebbi Zeˋira said, should not making the benediction for Pesaḥ not exempt the sacrifice, but for the sacrifice exempt the Pesaḥ, since the Pesaḥ is included in the notion of sacrifice? Rebbi Mana said, the Pesaḥ is the main item, the {family} sacrifice a minor part.

As in the following: The city council and the military district had to bring a gift. The case came before Rebbi who said, the city council is not included in the military district. For which purpose did he say “city council and military district”? But that each party give one half. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rebbi follows his opinion, as Rebbi said, for Aaron and his sons, half for Aaron and half for his sons.

The colleagues asked before Rebbi Jonah: Since you are saying there, and you shall offer a gift to the Eternal seven days, there are no seven without a Sabbath, why not similarly and you shall enjoy before the Eternal, your God, for seven days, there are no seven without a Sabbath? He answered them, there is a difference, for it is written You shall take for yourselves on the First Day, He separated the first from them. Then it should push aside in the Temple, it should not push aside in the country. Rebbi Jonah said, if it had said, “you shall take before the Eternal, your God,” I would have said, here he excluded and at another place included. But you shall take for yourselves everywhere, and you shall enjoy before the Eternal, your God, for seven days, in Jerusalem.

The colleagues asked before Rebbi Jonah: Since you are saying there, and you shall offer a gift to the Eternal seven days, there are no seven without a Sabbath, why not similarly and you shall enjoy before the Eternal, your God, for seven days, there are no seven without a Sabbath? He answered them, there is a difference, for it is written You shall take for yourselves on the First Day, He separated the first from them. Then it should push aside in the Temple, it should not push aside in the country. Rebbi Jonah said, if it had said, “you shall take before the Eternal, your God,” I would have said, here he excluded and elsewhere included. But you shall take for yourselves everywhere, and you shall enjoy before the Eternal, your God, for seven days, in Jerusalem.

It was stated: “One sends wheat because when crushed it is food, beans because when wet they are food, barley because it is animal feed.” Did we not state so in the name of Rebbi Simeon? For all breathing, also breathing animals are included. The argument of Rebbi Simeon parallels that of his teacher Rebbi Aqiba. Just as Rebbi Aqiba said, for all breathing, also breathing animals are included, so Rebbi Simeon said, for all breathing, also breathing animals are included.

It was stated: “One sends wheat because when crushed it is food, beans because when wet they are food, barley because it is animal feed.” Did we not state so in the name of Rebbi Simeon? For all breathing, also breathing animals are included. The argument of Rebbi Simeon parallels that of his teacher Rebbi Aqiba. Just as Rebbi Aqiba said, for all breathing, also breathing animals are included, so Rebbi Simeon said, for all breathing, also breathing animals are included.

It was stated: “One sends wheat because when crushed it is food, beans because when wet they are food, barley because it is animal feed.” Did we not state so in the name of Rebbi Simeon? For all breathing, also breathing animals are included. The argument of Rebbi Simeon parallels that of his teacher Rebbi Aqiba. Just as Rebbi Aqiba said, for all breathing, also breathing animals are included, so Rebbi Simeon said, for all breathing, also breathing animals are included.

Rebbi Yudan asked, may one move straw from a private domain to the public domain? Is that not the Mishnah, “he who transports straw may not tie the box and throw it over his shoulder”? The Mishnah follows him who says, for all breathing, also animal’s breathing is included. What is his problem? Following him who says, animal’s breathing is not included. Also for him who says, animal’s breathing is included, the Mishnah is about transporting as feed. What is his problem? If he transports as fuel.

Rebbi Yudan asked, may one move straw from a private domain to the public domain? Is that not the Mishnah, “he who transports straw may not tie the box and throw it over his shoulder”? The Mishnah follows him who says, for all breathing, also animal’s breathing is included. What is his problem? Following him who says, animal’s breathing is not included. Also for him who says, animal’s breathing is included, the Mishnah is about transporting as feed. What is his problem? If he transports as fuel.

Rebbi Yudan asked, may one move straw from a private domain to the public domain? Is that not the Mishnah, “he who transports straw may not tie the box and throw it over his shoulder”? The Mishnah follows him who says, for all breathing, also animal’s breathing is included. What is his problem? Following him who says, animal’s breathing is not included. Also for him who says, animal’s breathing is included, the Mishnah is about transporting as feed. What is his problem? If he transports as fuel.

HALAKHAH: “How is the order of the fast days,” etc. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, why does one move to the town plaza? To say, we are considered as if exiled before You. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, because they prayed in privacy and were not answered; therefore they went public and were publicized. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, why does one bring the Ark to the town plaza? To say that we had one precious vessel and our sins caused it to become debased. The Elder Rebbi Ḥuna of Sepphoris said, our forefathers covered it with gold and we covered it with ashes. Rebbi Jacob the Southerner said, why does one blow horns? To say, we are considered as if bellowing like animals before You. Rebbi Levi said, and why does one visit graves? To say, we are considered like dead before You. Rebbi Tanḥuma says, all of this is included. If we are guilty to die there are the dead, if exile there is exile, if hunger there is hunger.

What is the Great Hallel? Rebbi Parnakh in the name of Rebbi Ḥaninah; Give thanks to the supreme Power; truly, His kindness is forever. Give thanks to the Master of masters; truly, His kindness is forever. Rebbi Joḥanan said, on condition of who stand in the Eternal’s house. Why these two chapters? Because rainfall is included in them. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan it is understandable, for it is written, He brings up vapors from the ends of the earth. How is it for Rebbi Ḥaninah? Because it is written, He gives nourishment to all flesh; truly, His kindness is forever. Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Simon, both are saying, ours. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, ours. Bar Qappara said, ours. Bar Qappara follows his opinion, as it was stated: “during the existence of a third group they never reached I am loving; truly the Eternal listened to my voice, my supplication, since its people were few.” Bar Qappara stated, this is the Great Hallel. A patrician stood before the Ark; he said to them, repeat after me what I am saying. This implies that it is not ours. [Rebbi Mana said, it is ours.] The miracle was great; therefore he said to them, repeat after me what I am saying

HALAKHAH: One understands the Day of Atonement which is atonement for all of Israel. Why on the Fifteenth of Av? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Yasa: For this is the good time to cut wood, because any wood cut on this day does not develop worms; as we have stated there, “any wood containing a worm is disqualified from the altar.” Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Rav, because on it Hoshea ben Ela abolished the guards which Jeroboam ben Nabath posted on the roads. Cahana asked [Rav]. He did all this good deed and it is written about him, against him came Salmanessar the king of Assyria? He answered him, because he removed the collar from his neck and hung it on the community’s neck. He did not say, all the people should go on pilgrimage, but, any one who wants to go may go. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac, but some say in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman: On it the tribes were permitted to intermarry. As it is written, family heritage should not be transferred from tribe to tribe; but the Children of Israel shall stick everyone to the family heritage of his forefathers, etc. And it is written, any daughter inheriting family heritage in the tribes of the Children of Israel, etc. How is it possible for a daughter to inherit from two tribes? Explain it if her father was from one tribe and her mother from another tribe. But the Rabbis say, on it the tribe of Benjamin was permitted to intermarry, as it is written, cursed be he who gives a wife to Benjamin. They read a verse and included him; they read a verse and excluded him. They read a verse and included him, Ephraim and Manasse shall be to me like Reuben and Simeon. They read a verse and excluded him, a people and community of peoples shall be from you and kings will come from your loins, and Benjamin was not yet born. Rebbi Abun said, digging stopped on it, as Rebbi Levi said, on every eve of the Ninth of Av, Moses had a declaration published in all the encampment and said, go out for digging, go out for digging. They went out, dug graves for themselves, and slept. In the morning they were getting up and found themselves missing 15’000 and detail. In the last year they did that, got up, and found themselves whole. They said, maybe we erred in the computation. The same on the Tenth, the Eleventh, the Twelfth, the Thirteenth, and the Fifteenth. Since the moon was full they said, it seems that The Holy One, praise to Him, vacated this hard judgment against us. They got up and made a holiday.

HALAKHAH: One understands the Day of Atonement which is atonement for all of Israel. Why on the Fifteenth of Av? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Yasa: For this is the good time to cut wood, because any wood cut on this day does not develop worms; as we have stated there, “any wood containing a worm is disqualified from the altar.” Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Rav, because on it Hoshea ben Ela abolished the guards which Jeroboam ben Nabath posted on the roads. Cahana asked [Rav]. He did all this good deed and it is written about him, against him came Salmanessar the king of Assyria? He answered him, because he removed the collar from his neck and hung it on the community’s neck. He did not say, all the people should go on pilgrimage, but, any one who wants to go may go. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac, but some say in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman: On it the tribes were permitted to intermarry. As it is written, family heritage should not be transferred from tribe to tribe; but the Children of Israel shall stick everyone to the family heritage of his forefathers, etc. And it is written, any daughter inheriting family heritage in the tribes of the Children of Israel, etc. How is it possible for a daughter to inherit from two tribes? Explain it if her father was from one tribe and her mother from another tribe. But the Rabbis say, on it the tribe of Benjamin was permitted to intermarry, as it is written, cursed be he who gives a wife to Benjamin. They read a verse and included him; they read a verse and excluded him. They read a verse and included him, Ephraim and Manasse shall be to me like Reuben and Simeon. They read a verse and excluded him, a people and community of peoples shall be from you and kings will come from your loins, and Benjamin was not yet born. Rebbi Abun said, digging stopped on it, as Rebbi Levi said, on every eve of the Ninth of Av, Moses had a declaration published in all the encampment and said, go out for digging, go out for digging. They went out, dug graves for themselves, and slept. In the morning they were getting up and found themselves missing 15’000 and detail. In the last year they did that, got up, and found themselves whole. They said, maybe we erred in the computation. The same on the Tenth, the Eleventh, the Twelfth, the Thirteenth, and the Fifteenth. Since the moon was full they said, it seems that The Holy One, praise to Him, vacated this hard judgment against us. They got up and made a holiday.

And following Rebbi Meïr? Since Rebbi Meïr said, a gezerah šawah is at the place it comes from, from where is the third generation (below) forbidden? And following the rabbis, who say, a gezerah šawah is said about them, from where that the third generation above is punished by burning? Both for Rebbi Meïr and the rabbis, from where that the third generation above is forbidden? Since it is written “taboo, taboo” for a gezerah šawah, it is as if all were included; all are included.

And following Rebbi Meïr? Since Rebbi Meïr said, a gezerah šawah is at the place it comes from, from where is the third generation (below) forbidden? And following the rabbis, who say, a gezerah šawah is said about them, from where that the third generation above is punished by burning? Both for Rebbi Meïr and the rabbis, from where that the third generation above is forbidden? Since it is written “taboo, taboo” for a gezerah šawah, it is as if all were included; all are included.

HALAKHAH: “I had a son overseas.” Rebbi Ḥanania asked before Rebbi Hila: Who is the one who stated that one takes her words into account and she performs ḥalîṣah? Rebbi Tarphon, but not Rebbi Aqibah! He said to him, it is the opinion of everybody and even Rebbi Aqiba agrees to it. What is the difference betweeen this statement and the first one? There, you say that she is not to be believed. But here, you say that she is believed! (When she left as included in the permission of levirate. But) where you say that she is not believed, when she left and was not included in the permission of levirate.

HALAKHAH: “I had a son overseas.” Rebbi Ḥanania asked before Rebbi Hila: Who is the one who stated that one takes her words into account and she performs ḥalîṣah? Rebbi Tarphon, but not Rebbi Aqibah! He said to him, it is the opinion of everybody and even Rebbi Aqiba agrees to it. What is the difference betweeen this statement and the first one? There, you say that she is not to be believed. But here, you say that she is believed! (When she left as included in the permission of levirate. But) where you say that she is not believed, when she left and was not included in the permission of levirate.

“A Cohen’s daughter may defile herself for the dead.” Rebbi Dosa from Malḥiyya, Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: A Cohen’s daughter is permitted to leave the Land. What is the reason? “Say to the Cohanim.” Not to the daughters of Cohanim. If it were not so, what would he say? Because she is included in the decree, she cannot leave. Why should she not be included in the decree and be forbidden to leave? If you say so, you push aside the paragraph on impurities.

“A Cohen’s daughter may defile herself for the dead.” Rebbi Dosa from Malḥiyya, Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: A Cohen’s daughter is permitted to leave the Land. What is the reason? “Say to the Cohanim.” Not to the daughters of Cohanim. If it were not so, what would he say? Because she is included in the decree, she cannot leave. Why should she not be included in the decree and be forbidden to leave? If you say so, you push aside the paragraph on impurities.

If somebody was overseas and said, certain things should be given to his sons, his daughters are included. If he said that when he was dying, certain things should be given to his sons, his daughters are not included.

If somebody was overseas and said, certain things should be given to his sons, his daughters are included. If he said that when he was dying, certain things should be given to his sons, his daughters are not included.

Rebbi Jeremiah said, both Admon and Rebbi Aqiba said the same thing, as we have stated there: “If he sold them to another person, Rebbi Aqiba said, he does not have to buy access, but the Sages say, he has to buy access.” He had not heard that Rebbi Hila said, Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They disagree when nothing was mentioned. Where do we hold? If it is obvious that access was included, everybody agrees that he does not have to pay for access. If it is obvious that access was not included, everybody agrees that he has to pay for access. But we must hold that nothing was mentioned. Then Rebbi Aqiba said, he does not have to buy access, but the rabbis say, he has to buy access. But in the case here, even while it is clear that he had access, everybody agrees that he has to pay for access.

Rebbi Jeremiah said, both Admon and Rebbi Aqiba said the same thing, as we have stated there: “If he sold them to another person, Rebbi Aqiba said, he does not have to buy access, but the Sages say, he has to buy access.” He had not heard that Rebbi Hila said, Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They disagree when nothing was mentioned. Where do we hold? If it is obvious that access was included, everybody agrees that he does not have to pay for access. If it is obvious that access was not included, everybody agrees that he has to pay for access. But we must hold that nothing was mentioned. Then Rebbi Aqiba said, he does not have to buy access, but the rabbis say, he has to buy access. But in the case here, even while it is clear that he had access, everybody agrees that he has to pay for access.

MISHNAH: One who vows not to use the bed is permitted the couch, the words of Rebbi Meïr, but the Sages say, a couch is included in the notion of bed. One who vows not to use the couch is permitted the bed.

There, we have stated: “If he called the ninth tenth, and the tenth ninth, and the eleventh tenth, all three are sanctified. The ninth may be eaten when it develops a defect, the tenth is tithe, the eleventh is brought as well-being sacrifice.” “It shall be holy”, this teaches that holiness falls on the ninth and the eleventh. I could think that both of them should be sacrificed, the verse says “cattle”, “cattle” to include the eleventh. “From the cattle”, to exclude the ninth. What reason do you have to include the eleventh and to exclude the ninth? After the verse included, it excluded. You can argue, when are sanctified [animals] subject to substitution? Before or after? One has to say, afterwards. I am including the eleventh which is after sanctification and I am excluding the ninth which is before sanctification.

Rav Zakkai stated before Rebbi Joḥanan: If somebody sacrificed, burned incense, and poured a libation in one forgetting, he is guilty for each action separately. Rebbi Joḥanan told him, Babylonian! You crossed three rivers with your hands and were broken. He is guilty only once! {Before he broke in his hand there is “one” but not “those”; after he broke in his hand there are “those” but not “one”.} Rebbi Abba bar Mamal asked before Rebbi Ze‘ira: Should he not be guilty for each action separately? As you say for the Sabbath: “Do not perform any work,” principle. “Do not light fire in any of your dwelling places,” a detail. Was not lighting fire subsumed under the principle, but it is mentioned separately from this principle! Since lighting fire is special in that it is the work of a single individual and one would be guilty for it alone, so everything for which alone one is guilty. Also here: “Do not worship them,” a principle. “Do not prostrate yourself,” a detail. Was not prostrating itself included in the principle and why was it mentioned separately? To infer, to tell you that prostrating oneself is special in that it is the work of a single individual and one would be guilty for it alone, so everything for which alone one is guilty. He answered: For the Sabbath, he mentioned the principle at one place and the details at another place. For idol worship, the principle is found close to the detail. He retorted: Is it not witten: “Do not prostrate yourself before another power”? He did not state the principle and the detail at the same spot! He said, since you do not infer anything from it close up, you cannot infer anything from afar. The colleagues say, it makes no difference; whether He gave the principle at one place and the detail at another, or gave principle and detail at the same place, it is a matter of principle and detail. For the Sabbath, He first gave the principle and then the detail. For idolatry, He gave the detail and only later the principle. Rebbi Yose said, it makes no difference whether [He first gave the principle and then the detail or He gave the detail and only later the principle, or He gave principle, detail, and principle]; it is a matter of principle and detail. For the Sabbath, He gave a general prohibition of work, followed by details; for idolatry, He was indeterminate regarding its worship but detailed the worship of Heaven.

A “torn” [creature] that was turned into a carcass. Rebbi Yasa, the son of Rebbi Yasa’s daughter, in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagree. Rebbi Joḥanan says, he is guilty twice; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he is guilty only once. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose said before Rebbi Yose, the following supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “ ‘Any person who would eat any carcass meat,’ why does the verse say ‘and torn’? If a ‘torn’ animal can survive, was ‘carcass meat’ mentioned before? If a ‘torn’ animal must die, is it not included in ‘carcass meat’ ”? Should he not say, it is carcass meat? Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: The reason of Rebbi Yose: “Do not defile yourself by animals and birds,” but only the Eight Reptiles impart impurity! But the measure of their impurities is the measure of their uses as food. Rebbi Eleazar objected: May not the limbs of pure animals impart impurity in the most minute amount but as food only in the volume of an olive? He accepted it. What is meant by “he accepted it”? Like a person who said, the opponent accepted it. Ḥiyya bar Abba said: “You shall not [eat] any carcass meat.” The Torah identified all eating together. Rebbi Ḥanina objected: Is not the impurity of the Eight Reptiles in the size of a lentil, but as food in the volume of an olive, whether for blood or for meat?

Rebbi Abba bar Aḥa said: The reason of Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah is because of a creature. But it was stated: “Skins and seeds,” to include the third [kind] between them. But was it not stated in the name of Rebbi Eliezer: “From anything made from the wine-vine”, leaves and twigs are also understood? Rebbi Eliezer parallels Rebbi Ismael, since Rebbi Ismael said, [if you have] a principle and a detail, everything is included in the principle. And more than that, since Rebbi Ismael said, with a principle and a detail, everything is included in the principle; why are “skins and seeds” said? To include the third [kind] in between.

Rebbi Abba bar Aḥa said: The reason of Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah is because of a creature. But it was stated: “Skins and seeds,” to include the third [kind] between them. But was it not stated in the name of Rebbi Eliezer: “From anything made from the wine-vine”, leaves and twigs are also understood? Rebbi Eliezer parallels Rebbi Ismael, since Rebbi Ismael said, [if you have] a principle and a detail, everything is included in the principle. And more than that, since Rebbi Ismael said, with a principle and a detail, everything is included in the principle; why are “skins and seeds” said? To include the third [kind] in between.

Rebbi Aḥa and Rebbi Tanḥum bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Simai: In a city of only Cohanim, all of them lift their hands. For whom do they recite the blessing? For their brothers to the North and South. Who answers after them? Women and children. Abbaie bar Benjamin stated: People who stand behind the Cohanim are not included in the blessing. For those in front of them, Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said that even an iron wall does not interrupt. Those who stand to their side? Let us hear from the following: “If he intended to sprinkle before himself but sprinkled behind himself, behind himself but sprinkled before himself; his sprinkling is invalid. Before himself but sprinkled sideways, his sprinkling is valid.” This implies that those who stand to their side are included in the blessing. Rav Ḥisda said, it is necessary that the organizer be an Israel. Rav Ḥisda said, if there was one Cohen, he says “Cohen.” For two, he says “Cohanim.” But Rav Huna said, even for one he says “Cohanim” since he only calls the tribe, lest you say, probably person X is an adulterer or a murderer, and he shall bless us? The Holy, praise to Him, said: Who blesses you? Am not I blessing you? As it was said: “They shall put My name over the Children of Israel and I shall bless them.”

Rebbi Aḥa and Rebbi Tanḥum bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Simai: In a city of only Cohanim, all of them lift their hands. For whom do they recite the blessing? For their brothers to the North and South. Who answers after them? Women and children. Abbaie bar Benjamin stated: People who stand behind the Cohanim are not included in the blessing. For those in front of them, Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said that even an iron wall does not interrupt. Those who stand to their side? Let us hear from the following: “If he intended to sprinkle before himself but sprinkled behind himself, behind himself but sprinkled before himself; his sprinkling is invalid. Before himself but sprinkled sideways, his sprinkling is valid.” This implies that those who stand to their side are included in the blessing. Rav Ḥisda said, it is necessary that the organizer be an Israel. Rav Ḥisda said, if there was one Cohen, he says “Cohen.” For two, he says “Cohanim.” But Rav Huna said, even for one he says “Cohanim” since he only calls the tribe, lest you say, probably person X is an adulterer or a murderer, and he shall bless us? The Holy, praise to Him, said: Who blesses you? Am not I blessing you? As it was said: “They shall put My name over the Children of Israel and I shall bless them.”

Rebbi Yose asked: What is the legal status of “touching” a male? What is the legal status of “touching” an animal? Were not all incest prohibitions inferred from the menstruating woman? The male is included; the animal is included. So far, for Israel. For Gentiles? Rebbi Mana said, not from this: “He shall cling to his wife”? Not in any way to somebody else’s wife, not in any way to a male or an animal.

Rebbi Yose asked: What is the legal status of “touching” a male? What is the legal status of “touching” an animal? Were not all incest prohibitions inferred from the menstruating woman? The male is included; the animal is included. So far, for Israel. For Gentiles? Rebbi Mana said, not from this: “He shall cling to his wife”? Not in any way to somebody else’s wife, not in any way to a male or an animal.

From where even if he fell ill? The verse says, “in the seventh year he shall leave into freedom gratis.” I could think, even if he fled; the verse says, “six years he shall work.” What did you see to include this and to exclude that? After the verse included, it excluded. I am including the one who remains in his power and am exluding the one who is not in his power. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said that Rav Hoshaia asked: I understand that if he fell ill and fled afterwards, he has to make up [the time lost]. If he fled and then fell ill? Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, let us hear from the following: “If a woman rebels against her husband, one writes him a bill of rebellion on her ketubah.” And Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: One writes a bill of rebellion on the ketubah of a menstruating woman or a sick one, a preliminarily married one and one waiting for her levir. Where do we hold? If she rebelled against him while she was menstruating, the Torah instructed her to rebel. But we must hold that she rebelled when she was not menstruating and then started menstruating. Here she is unable to rebel, nevertheless you say, one writes. Here also, if he rebelled and then fell ill he has to make up. For he can say to him, if you had stayed with me, you would not have become sick. Rebbi Ḥinena said, that argument even works in the first case. If he fell ill and fled afterwards, he has to make up, since he can say to him, if you had stayed with me, you would have recuperated sooner.

“Except ‘do not destroy’, ‘do not shear,’ and ‘do not become impure for the dead’.” Issy says, also because of “do not make a bald spot.” What is the reason? “They shall not make a bald spot.” One subject to the rules of the beard is subject to the rules of the bald spot; women who have no beard are free from the rules of the bald spot. And also from the following: “sons,” not daughters. Rebbi Eleazar said, women are obligated by the rules of the bald spot. What is the reason? “For you are a holy people for the Eternal, your God.” Both men and women. How does Rebbi Eleazar explain “sons”? When they do the will of the Holy One, praise to Him, they are called sons, but when they do not do the will of the Holy One, praise to Him, they are not called sons. Rav was ordering his students, there came Rav Hamnuna ordering the colleagues: Order you wives not to tear out their hair when standing by a deceased, that they should not make a bald spot. What is a bald spot? There are Tannaïm who stated: Any size. There are Tannaïm who state: The size of a peeled grain. The one who says, any size, because the meaning of “bald spot” is of any size. The one who says, a peeled grain, for it is said here “to make a bald spot”, and it says there, a bald spot. Since “bald spot” mentioned there means in the size of a peeled grain, here also it means the size of a peeled grain. Rebbi Yose bar Mamal: A Cohenet is permitted to leave the Land. What is the reason? “Say to the Cohanim,” not to the Cohanot. If it were otherwise, what would we say? Since she is included in the decision, she may not leave. If you say so, you push aside the paragraph of impurities.

MISHNAH: “I preliminarily married off my daughter, married her preliminarily and received her bill of divorce while she was underage,” and [now] she still is underage, he is believed. “I preliminarily married off my daughter, married her preliminarily and received her bill of divorce while she was underage,” and [now] she is an adult, he is not believed. “She had been kidnapped and I ransomed her,” he is not believed whether she is underage or adult. If somebody said when dying, I have children, he is believed; I have brothers, he is not believed. If somebody preliminarily marries off his daughter without mentioning her name, the adult ones are not included.

HALAKHAH: “I preliminarily married off my younger daughter,” etc. “I preliminarily married off my daughter.” The underaged are included, the adults are excluded. “My daughter was preliminarily married,” even the underaged are not included. “I accepted my daughter’s bill of divorce,” the underaged are included, the adults are excluded. “My daughter was divorced,” even the underaged are not included. “I preliminarily married off my daughter to one of those disqualified for her,” he is believed. “I made her sleep with one of those disqualified for her,” he is not believed. “She had been kidnapped and I ransomed her,” whether she is underage or adult or had intercourse with one of those disqualified for her, he is not believed.

HALAKHAH: “I preliminarily married off my younger daughter,” etc. “I preliminarily married off my daughter.” The underaged are included, the adults are excluded. “My daughter was preliminarily married,” even the underaged are not included. “I accepted my daughter’s bill of divorce,” the underaged are included, the adults are excluded. “My daughter was divorced,” even the underaged are not included. “I preliminarily married off my daughter to one of those disqualified for her,” he is believed. “I made her sleep with one of those disqualified for her,” he is not believed. “She had been kidnapped and I ransomed her,” whether she is underage or adult or had intercourse with one of those disqualified for her, he is not believed.

HALAKHAH: “I preliminarily married off my younger daughter,” etc. “I preliminarily married off my daughter.” The underaged are included, the adults are excluded. “My daughter was preliminarily married,” even the underaged are not included. “I accepted my daughter’s bill of divorce,” the underaged are included, the adults are excluded. “My daughter was divorced,” even the underaged are not included. “I preliminarily married off my daughter to one of those disqualified for her,” he is believed. “I made her sleep with one of those disqualified for her,” he is not believed. “She had been kidnapped and I ransomed her,” whether she is underage or adult or had intercourse with one of those disqualified for her, he is not believed.

HALAKHAH: “I preliminarily married off my younger daughter,” etc. “I preliminarily married off my daughter.” The underaged are included, the adults are excluded. “My daughter was preliminarily married,” even the underaged are not included. “I accepted my daughter’s bill of divorce,” the underaged are included, the adults are excluded. “My daughter was divorced,” even the underaged are not included. “I preliminarily married off my daughter to one of those disqualified for her,” he is believed. “I made her sleep with one of those disqualified for her,” he is not believed. “She had been kidnapped and I ransomed her,” whether she is underage or adult or had intercourse with one of those disqualified for her, he is not believed.

MISHNAH: If one who contracts with another for a field for a Sabbatical cycle at 700 denars, the Sabbatical year is included. If he contracted for seven years at 700 denars, the Sabbatical is not included.

MISHNAH: If one who contracts with another for a field for a Sabbatical cycle at 700 denars, the Sabbatical year is included. If he contracted for seven years at 700 denars, the Sabbatical is not included.

There, they said: Admon and Rebbi Aqiba. Rebbi La said, they disagree when nothing was specified. Where do we hold? If it is obvious that access was included, everybody agrees that he does not have to pay for access. If it is obvious that access was not included, everybody agrees that he has to pay for access. But we must hold that nothing was specified. Then Rebbi Aqiba said, he does not have to buy access, but the rabbis say, he does have to buy access.

There, they said: Admon and Rebbi Aqiba. Rebbi La said, they disagree when nothing was specified. Where do we hold? If it is obvious that access was included, everybody agrees that he does not have to pay for access. If it is obvious that access was not included, everybody agrees that he has to pay for access. But we must hold that nothing was specified. Then Rebbi Aqiba said, he does not have to buy access, but the rabbis say, he does have to buy access.

HALAKHAH: “If a relative of his died, he does not leave his palace.” This implies that a dargesh is included in overturning one’s bed. The king is not required to overturn his bed.

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: The rabbis explain that the inhabitants of a seduced city should have been included in the category of idolaters, by stoning. They were treated to a less painful way of execution; that should be by burning. It is not enough that you decree for them an easier death by burning, but should you have them judged by the easiest way, by strangulation? Rebbi Simeon explained: The false prophet should have been included in the category of idolaters, by burning. He was treated to a less painful way of execution, which should be by stoning. It is not enough that you decree for them an easier death by stoning, but you have him judged by the easiest way, by beheading.

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: The rabbis explain that the inhabitants of a seduced city should have been included in the category of idolaters, by stoning. They were treated to a less painful way of execution; that should be by burning. It is not enough that you decree for them an easier death by burning, but should you have them judged by the easiest way, by strangulation? Rebbi Simeon explained: The false prophet should have been included in the category of idolaters, by burning. He was treated to a less painful way of execution, which should be by stoning. It is not enough that you decree for them an easier death by stoning, but you have him judged by the easiest way, by beheading.

Rebbi Samuel ben Sosartai in the name of Rebbi Abbahu switches the arguments. The rabbis explained: The rabbis explain that the false prophet should have been included in the category of idolaters, by stoning. He was treated to a less painful way of execution, [this should have been] by burning. It is not enough that you decree burning for them, but you have him judged by the easiest way, by strangulation.

Rebbi Simeon explained: The inhabitants of a seduced city should have been included in the category of idolaters, by burning. They were treated to a less painful way of execution; that should be by stoning. This is not enough for you but you have them judged by the easiest way, by beheading.

Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said: Rebbi Ismael stated so: You shall not divine nor cast spells. Were not divination and spellbinding included in the general class but were mentioned separately to be treated differently from the general case? In general by extirpation, the separate cases for extirpation. A statement of Rebbi Joḥanan says, it is a case of general case and detail, as Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, for anybody who would perform any of these abominations will be extirpated, etc. Was not his sister included in the general class? Rebbi Eleazar objected: Was it not written, the nakedness of your mother’s sister and your father’s sister you shall not uncover? He told him, it was stated separately for a reason, to judge it by touching. But is it not written: A man who would lie with an unwellwoman, who uncovered her nakedness, he touched her source, and she uncovered the source of her blood? He told him, it was stated separately for a reason, to judge it by touching. That you should not say, since one is guilty about her already by the impurity of touching, we should not treat the one who touched equal to the one who had full intercourse. Therefore, it was necessary to say it. But is it not written: A man who would sleep with his aunt uncovered his uncle’s nakedness? He told him, it was stated separately for a reason, to judge it by destruction, as Rebbi Yudan said, at all places where they will be destroyed is mentioned, they will be childless; where they shall die destroyed is mentioned, they shall bury their children.

Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said: Rebbi Ismael stated so: You shall not divine nor cast spells. Were not divination and spellbinding included in the general class but were mentioned separately to be treated differently from the general case? In general by extirpation, the separate cases for extirpation. A statement of Rebbi Joḥanan says, it is a case of general case and detail, as Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, for anybody who would perform any of these abominations will be extirpated, etc. Was not his sister included in the general class? Rebbi Eleazar objected: Was it not written, the nakedness of your mother’s sister and your father’s sister you shall not uncover? He told him, it was stated separately for a reason, to judge it by touching. But is it not written: A man who would lie with an unwellwoman, who uncovered her nakedness, he touched her source, and she uncovered the source of her blood? He told him, it was stated separately for a reason, to judge it by touching. That you should not say, since one is guilty about her already by the impurity of touching, we should not treat the one who touched equal to the one who had full intercourse. Therefore, it was necessary to say it. But is it not written: A man who would sleep with his aunt uncovered his uncle’s nakedness? He told him, it was stated separately for a reason, to judge it by destruction, as Rebbi Yudan said, at all places where they will be destroyed is mentioned, they will be childless; where they shall die destroyed is mentioned, they shall bury their children.

If He stated a general principle as a positive commandment but the detail as a prohibition, the word of Rebbi Eleazar is that this is a general principle followed by a detail. Rebbi Eleazar said, one whips for ploughing in the Sabbatical year. Rebbi Joḥanan said, one does not whip for ploughing in the Sabbatical year. What is Rebbi Eleazar’s reason? The Land shall keep a Sabbath for the Eternal, a general principle. Your field you shall not sow, your vineyard you shall not prune, detail. The sower and the pruner were included in the general case; why were they mentioned separately? To include with them; since the sower and the pruner are particular in that they perform work on the ground or on a tree, I have only what is work on the ground or on a tree. How does Rebbi Joḥanan treat this? They are two different things, and two different details for one general principle do divide. In Rebbi Eleazar’s opinion they do not divide. But he holds that because they do not divide, they are for making inferences. In Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion, they are not for making inferences. There is a difference here because He stated a general principle as a positive commandment but the detail as prohibitions. No positive commandment allows inferences for a prohibition and no prohibition allows inferences for a positive commandment. In Rebbi Eleazar’s opinion a positive commandment allows inferences for a prohibition but no prohibition allows inferences for a positive commandment. In Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion it is obvious that one may dig cisterns, ditches, and caves during it. In Rebbi Eleazar’s opinion, may one dig cisterns, ditches, and caves during it? Just as one cannot make inferences for prohibitions, so one should not be able to make inferences for permissions. Rebbi Abba from Carthage said, Rebbi Joḥanan’s reason is six years you shall sow your field, not in the Sabbatical; and six years you shall prune your vineyard, not in the Sabbatical. Any prohibition inferred from a positive commandment is a positive commandment; one violates a positive commandment. Rebbi Jeremiah said, one violates a positive commandment. Rebbi Yose said, there is not even a positive commandment. But is it not written that the Land shall rest as a repose for the Eternal? That is for the prohibition implied by it.

Rebbi Zeˋira, Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Cahana: He who is planting on the Sabbath is guilty because of sowing. Rebbi Ze`ura said, he who prunes is like one who plants. If he planted and pruned on the Sabbath, according to Cahana he is guilty on two counts, according to Rebbi Ze`ura only on one count. Did not Rebbi Ze`ura say the pruner is like the planter, did perhaps he say the planter is like the pruner? All was included in the category of sowing; pruning was singled out for particular stringency. Because pruning was singled out for particular stringency you want to exempt it because of sowing? This means, there is no difference. If he planted and pruned on the Sabbath, according to both Cahana and Rebbi Ze`ura he is guilty on two counts

There, we have stated: Rebbi Jehudah says, if his mother was not fit for his father, he is liable only for one [sacrifice]. Therefore, if his mother was fit for his father, he is liable for two. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: There is no difference. Whether his mother was fit for his father or unfit for his father, he is liable only once. The reason of Rebbi Joḥanan: Your mother is she, you find him guilty because of his mother; this directs the entire chapter towards his mother. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Zeˋira: What caused Rebbi Joḥanan to concentrate on the mother and to leave the father’s wife aside? He told him, for he argues with Rebbi Ismael, as Rebbi Ismael explained: Your father’s wife’s nakedness; the verse refers to the male. Is not his father included in the category of the male? Only to make him liable twice, as we have stated: A person having sexual relations with his father is doubly liable about him. Then should we not state “thirty-seven extirpations in the Torah”? Rebbi Mana said, all denotations of males are one. Your father’s wife’s nakedness; the verse refers to the father’s wife. Your mother’s nakedness, that is his mother who is his father’s wife. From where his mother who is not his father’s wife? Your mother is she; do not uncover her nakedness. How does Rebbi Ismael treat this? He explains it to apply after [the father’s] death. Does Rebbi Aqiba not explain she is your father’s nakedness? There is no difference whether during lifetime or after death. Rebbi Aqiba explains: Your father’s wife’s nakedness, the verse refers to the father’s wife. Your mother’s nakedness, that is his mother who is his father’s wife. From where his mother who is not his father’s wife? Your mother is she; do not uncover her nakedness. How does Rebbi Ismael treat this? He explains it to apply after [the father’s] death. Does not Rebbi Aqiba treat your father’s nakedness, your mother’s nakedness? Since your father refers to your father in any capacity both for punishment and warning, so also your mother refers to one’s mother in any capacity both for punishment and warning. Is it not reasonable to explain that verse except following Rebbi Jehudah who because he does not accept “his mother who is his father’s wife” must explain that your father’s nakedness, your mother’s nakedness refers to your father in any capacity both for punishment and warning, so also your mother refers to your mother in any capacity both for punishment and warning. Rebbi Zeˋira said, this implies that one infers from parallel language even if it is free only from one side. Rebbi Yudan said to him, this is obvious for Rebbi Aqiba since Rebbi Aqiba infers from parallel language even if it is not free.

Do not worship them. Should I say, not unless he worshipped every single strange worship in the world? The verse says, do not prostrate yourself before them. Prostration was included; why is it mentioned separately? To tie to it: Prostration is special in that it is the act of a single person and is punishable separately, so I am adding any single act that one is liable for separately. Even though Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar said, if one sacrificed, and burned incense, and poured a libation in one forgetting he is liable only for one; he agrees that if one worshipped it in its proper worship which is identical with the worship of Heaven like prostrating, he is liable for each single action. As Rebbi Samuel said in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira: They should not continue to offer their sacrifices to spirits. They said to him, turn and refer it to sacrifices.

Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Zeˋira: Do not worship them, a principle. Do not prostrate yourself before them, a detail. For you shall not prostrate yourself before another god; He again stated the principle. Principle, detail, and principle: is nothing covered but the detail? Rebbi Abun bar Cahana asked before Rebbi Hila: Do not do such, a principle. One who sacrifices to gods shall be banned, a detail. Only for the Eternal alone, He again stated the principle. Principle, detail, and principle; is not everything included? Does it not add one who embraces and one who kisses? He told him, why is prostrating mentioned? Not to infer from it that it is an action? He who embraces and he who (prostrates himself) do not exemplify actions.

Rebbi Abba bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Look at the expression which the Torah taught you, Moloch; anything that you make king over yourself, even a chip of wood, even a pebble. I shall extirpate him from amidst his people, to include all other foreign worship in extirpation. Rebbi Nasa in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: to include all other foreign worship relating to sons and daughters, as it was stated: He is guilty whether for the Moloch or any other foreign worship, whether he worshipped them with sons and daughters, or worshipped them with fathers and mothers. Rebbi Zeˋira said: if its worship did not prescribe this; but if its worship did prescribe it, he is free from prosecution. Rebbi Hila said, even if its worship did prescribe it, he is twice guilty. A baraita supports Rebbi Hila: The Moloch was included in all other foreign worships; it is mentioned separately to be lenient in this regard that he be guilty only for his descendants. Rebbi Tanḥum bar Jeremiah said, it follows that Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon follows the argument of his father Rebbi Simeon. Just as Rebbi Simeon said, the Moloch was included in all other foreign worships; it is mentioned separately to be lenient in this regard that he be guilty only for his descendants, so Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon said, the Moloch was included in all other foreign worships; it is mentioned separately to be lenient in this regard that he be guilty only for his descendants.

Rebbi Abba bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Look at the expression which the Torah taught you, Moloch; anything that you make king over yourself, even a chip of wood, even a pebble. I shall extirpate him from amidst his people, to include all other foreign worship in extirpation. Rebbi Nasa in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: to include all other foreign worship relating to sons and daughters, as it was stated: He is guilty whether for the Moloch or any other foreign worship, whether he worshipped them with sons and daughters, or worshipped them with fathers and mothers. Rebbi Zeˋira said: if its worship did not prescribe this; but if its worship did prescribe it, he is free from prosecution. Rebbi Hila said, even if its worship did prescribe it, he is twice guilty. A baraita supports Rebbi Hila: The Moloch was included in all other foreign worships; it is mentioned separately to be lenient in this regard that he be guilty only for his descendants. Rebbi Tanḥum bar Jeremiah said, it follows that Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon follows the argument of his father Rebbi Simeon. Just as Rebbi Simeon said, the Moloch was included in all other foreign worships; it is mentioned separately to be lenient in this regard that he be guilty only for his descendants, so Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon said, the Moloch was included in all other foreign worships; it is mentioned separately to be lenient in this regard that he be guilty only for his descendants.

Rebbi Abba bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Look at the expression which the Torah taught you, Moloch; anything that you make king over yourself, even a chip of wood, even a pebble. I shall extirpate him from amidst his people, to include all other foreign worship in extirpation. Rebbi Nasa in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: to include all other foreign worship relating to sons and daughters, as it was stated: He is guilty whether for the Moloch or any other foreign worship, whether he worshipped them with sons and daughters, or worshipped them with fathers and mothers. Rebbi Zeˋira said: if its worship did not prescribe this; but if its worship did prescribe it, he is free from prosecution. Rebbi Hila said, even if its worship did prescribe it, he is twice guilty. A baraita supports Rebbi Hila: The Moloch was included in all other foreign worships; it is mentioned separately to be lenient in this regard that he be guilty only for his descendants. Rebbi Tanḥum bar Jeremiah said, it follows that Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon follows the argument of his father Rebbi Simeon. Just as Rebbi Simeon said, the Moloch was included in all other foreign worships; it is mentioned separately to be lenient in this regard that he be guilty only for his descendants, so Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon said, the Moloch was included in all other foreign worships; it is mentioned separately to be lenient in this regard that he be guilty only for his descendants.

The words of the rabbis support Rebbi Yasa, as Rebbi Yasa said in the rabbis’ name: Because they burn incense to spirits. Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Yasa: Because they all were included by actions.

MISHNAH: The following are to be burned: one who copulates with a woman and her daughter, and the daughter of a Cohen who committed adultery. In the category of a woman and her daughter are included his daughter, his daughter’s daughter, his son’s daughter, his wife’s daughter, her daughter’s daughter, and her son’s daughter. The following are to be beheaded: the murderer, and the inhabitants of a seduced town.

HALAKHAH: “One who prophesies in the name of foreign worship,” etc. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, everything was included in do not testify against your neighbor as a false witness. It came to judge whether by sign, or by miracle, whether about foreign worship or any other commandment. But about foreign worship, whether he intended to uproot the entire body or did not intend to uproot the entire body, by the words of Rebbi Simeon one does not prosecute him, but by the words of the Sages one stones him. For any other commandment by the words of the Sages one stones him, by the words of Rebbi Simeon he should understand his pywnṭ.

HALAKHAH: “They said to him, did not the teacher use to say,” etc. Rebbi Yose the Southerner said before Rebbi Jonah: Would it not have been necessary to state, if it is so then those of the Days of the New Moon could be brought on the Day of Atonement since one increases holiness but one does not diminish; but those of the Day of Atonement cannot be brought on the Days of the New Moon since one does not diminish holiness. Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Bun explained it by another explanation: if it is so then those of the Day of Atonement could be brought on the Days of the New Moon, for included in their atoning is the atoning of the Days of the New Moon, but those of the days of the New Moon cannot be brought on the Day of Atonement, for they atone only their atonement. For if anybody ate five olive-sized pieces of fat and dedicated four sacrifices, being of the impression that he had dedicated five, did he atone? Or if he ate four olive sized pieces of fat, dedicated five sacrifices, being of the impression that he had dedicated four, not so much more? And so “Rebbi Simeon used to say, thirty-two rams are brought for the public every year. Thirty one outside, they are eaten. One inside which is not eaten. And the scapegoat. Twelve for the twelve months of the year. Eight on Tabernacles, seven on Passover, two on Pentecost, one for the day and one for the bread. One on New Year’s Day and one on the Day of Atonement.” When Moses heard this he said, it follows that anybody for whom the doubt of a transgression arises should bring all these sacrifices! Rebbi Tanḥuma in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: When the Holy One, praise to Him, said to Moses, he shall confess on it etc., he started and said, A Song of confession, inspired by he shall confess on it.

How does Rebbi Ismael explain the verse? Or a person, if he would swear blurting out with his lips, a general statement. To cause evil or cause good, a detail. A general statement followed by a detail; the general statement contains only what is in the detail. But the detail only contains matters of causing evil or good! But it is so: To cause evil or cause good, a detail. Anything which a person will blurt out, a general statement. A detail followed by a general statement, everything is included; this adds matters directed towards the past. But it is so: Or a person, if he would swear blurting out with his lips, a general statement. To cause evil or cause good, a detail. Anything which a person will blurt out, a general statement. A general statement followed by a detail followed by a general statement, you only argue in the pattern of the detail. Since the detail is explicit, matters of causing evil or good, from where matters not causing evil or good? “He answered him, from the additional text of the verse. He answered, just as the verse added for this, the verse added for the other.” You cannot, as Rebbi Hila said in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: So did Rebbi Ismael answer Rebbi Aqiba. Do we find cases where one is liable for intentional action because of a false oath but if in oblivion because of a blurted oath? Could he not have objected, do we find cases where one is liable for intentional action because of a false oath and he has to bring a sacrifice? He said to him, do you agree that there are cases which are not matters of causing evil or good, even if they are not written? He told him, even though I accept cases which are not matters of causing evil or good, are they only written if they be matters of causing evil or good? Therefore never for the past.

For the borrower only the broken is written. From where loss and theft? It is logical. Since the paid keeper and the renter who do not pay for the broken or the dead have to pay for theft and loss, the borrower who pays for the broken or the dead certainly has to pay for theft and loss. It was stated about this: This is an argument de minore ad majus which cannot be challenged. From where the abducted? It is said here, it was broken or died; and it is said there, it dies or was broken. Since there the abducted was included, here also the abducted was included. So far following Rebbi Aqiba. Following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Ismael follows Rebbi Nathan. Rebbi Nathan says, or, to include the abducted. Or following Rebbi Meïr who said, an equal cut at the place it comes from. Since there one swears for duress, also here one swears for duress. Still following Rebbi Nathan, for Rebbi Nathan said, or it died, to include the abducted one.

For the borrower only the broken is written. From where loss and theft? It is logical. Since the paid keeper and the renter who do not pay for the broken or the dead have to pay for theft and loss, the borrower who pays for the broken or the dead certainly has to pay for theft and loss. It was stated about this: This is an argument de minore ad majus which cannot be challenged. From where the abducted? It is said here, it was broken or died; and it is said there, it dies or was broken. Since there the abducted was included, here also the abducted was included. So far following Rebbi Aqiba. Following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Ismael follows Rebbi Nathan. Rebbi Nathan says, or, to include the abducted. Or following Rebbi Meïr who said, an equal cut at the place it comes from. Since there one swears for duress, also here one swears for duress. Still following Rebbi Nathan, for Rebbi Nathan said, or it died, to include the abducted one.

HALAKHAH: “How are plotting witnesses treated,” etc. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, everything was included in do not testify against your neighbor as a false witness. As an exception, do to him as he plotted to do to his neighbor. If you can satisfy do to him as he plotted then fulfill (do not testify) [do to him as he plotted to do]. But if you cannot satisfy do to him as he plotted to do to his neighbor then (do not) satisfy do not testify against your neighbor. Another explanation: Do to him, not to his descendants.

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.

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.