intends

“And they who believed from the ninth mountain, which was deserted, and had in it creeping things and wild beasts which destroy men, were the following: they who had the stains are servants, who discharged their duty ill, and who plundered widows and orphans of their livelihood, and gained possessions for themselves from the ministry, which they had received. If, therefore, they remain under the dominion of the same desire, they are dead, and there is no hope of life for them; but if they repent, and finish their ministry in a holy manner, they shall be able to live. And they who were covered with scabs are those who have denied their Lord, and have not returned to Him again; but becoming withered and desert-like, and not cleaving to the servants of God, but living in solitude, they destroy their own souls. For as a vine, when left within an enclosure, and meeting with neglect, is destroyed, and is made desolate by the weeds, and in time grows wild, and is no longer of any use to its master, so also are such men as have given themselves up, and become useless to their Lord, from having contracted savage habits. These men, therefore, have repentance in their power, unless they are found to have denied from the heart; but if any one is found to have denied from the heart, I do not know if he may live. And I say this not for these present days, in order that any one who has denied may obtain repentance, for it is impossible for him to be saved who now intends to deny his Lord; but to those who denied Him long ago, repentance seems to be possible. If, therefore, any one intends to repent, let him do so quickly, before the tower is completed; for if not, he will be utterly destroyed by the women. And the chipped stones are the deceitful and the slanderers; and the wild beasts, which you saw on the ninth mountain, are the same. For as wild beasts destroy and kill a man by their poison, so also do the words of such men destroy and ruin a man. These, accordingly, are mutilated in their faith, on account of the deeds which they have done in themselves; yet some repented, and were saved. And the rest, who are of such a character, can be saved if they repent; but if they do not repent, they will perish with those women, whose strength they have assumed.”

“And they who believed from the ninth mountain, which was deserted, and had in it creeping things and wild beasts which destroy men, were the following: they who had the stains are servants, who discharged their duty ill, and who plundered widows and orphans of their livelihood, and gained possessions for themselves from the ministry, which they had received. If, therefore, they remain under the dominion of the same desire, they are dead, and there is no hope of life for them; but if they repent, and finish their ministry in a holy manner, they shall be able to live. And they who were covered with scabs are those who have denied their Lord, and have not returned to Him again; but becoming withered and desert-like, and not cleaving to the servants of God, but living in solitude, they destroy their own souls. For as a vine, when left within an enclosure, and meeting with neglect, is destroyed, and is made desolate by the weeds, and in time grows wild, and is no longer of any use to its master, so also are such men as have given themselves up, and become useless to their Lord, from having contracted savage habits. These men, therefore, have repentance in their power, unless they are found to have denied from the heart; but if any one is found to have denied from the heart, I do not know if he may live. And I say this not for these present days, in order that any one who has denied may obtain repentance, for it is impossible for him to be saved who now intends to deny his Lord; but to those who denied Him long ago, repentance seems to be possible. If, therefore, any one intends to repent, let him do so quickly, before the tower is completed; for if not, he will be utterly destroyed by the women. And the chipped stones are the deceitful and the slanderers; and the wild beasts, which you saw on the ninth mountain, are the same. For as wild beasts destroy and kill a man by their poison, so also do the words of such men destroy and ruin a man. These, accordingly, are mutilated in their faith, on account of the deeds which they have done in themselves; yet some repented, and were saved. And the rest, who are of such a character, can be saved if they repent; but if they do not repent, they will perish with those women, whose strength they have assumed.”

And Philip, enraged, said: O earth, lay fast hold of him, even to the navel. And immediately it dragged him down. And he said: The one of my feet underneath is turned into ice, and the other is frightfully hot; but by your magic, Philip, I will not be overcome. Except, therefore, that I am sore tortured underneath, I do not believe at all. And the crowds wished to stone him. And Philip says: Not so; for this has in the meantime happened, that he has been swallowed up as far as the navel, that the salvation of your souls may be effected, because he would almost have drawn you by his wicked words into unbelief. But if even he repented, I should bring him up out of the earth to the salvation of his soul; but assuredly he is not worthy of salvation. If, then, he remain in unbelief, you shall see him sunk down into the abyss, unless the Lord intends to raise those who are in Hades, that they may confess that Jesus is Lord. For in that day every tongue shall confess that Jesus is Lord, and that there is one glory of the Father, and the Son, with the Holy Spirit for evermore.

He then said to his son, "O my son, I know that God intends to bring the waters of the Flood upon the earth, and to destroy our creation.

And the children of Chittim sent a memorial to Angeas, saying, Behold Turnus has sent for Jania to take her unto him for a wife, and thus have we answered him; and we heard that he has collected his whole army to go to war against thee, and he intends to pass by the road of Sardunia to fight against thy brother Lucus, and after that he will come to fight against thee.

When they shall have arrived at the place, and all things being disposed in their proper order, the master shall take the knife or other convenient consecrated magical implement of steel, wherewith to form the circle of art which he intends to construct. This being done, he must perfume it, and sprinkle it with water; and having warned and exhorted his disciples, he shall work thus:—

One who harvests by night and binds sheaves [by night] or one who is blind [that which he leaves] is subject to the law of the “forgotten.” If he intends to remove large leaves first, then the law of “forgotten” does not apply. If he said: “Behold, I am reaping on the condition that I take afterwards that which I have forgotten,” the law of “forgotten” still applies.

He who intends saying ‘terumah’ and says ‘tithe’, or ‘tithe’ and says ‘terumah’; ‘Burnt-offering’ and he says ‘peace-offering’, or ‘peace-offering’ and he says ‘burnt-offering’; ‘[I vow] that I will not enter this house,’ and says ‘that house’, ‘That I will not derive any benefit from this [man],’ and says ‘from that [man],’ he has said nothing until his heart and mind are at one.

One who brings produce from the Galilee to Judea, or if he goes up to Jerusalem, he may eat of them until he arrives at the place to which he intends to go, and the same is true when he returns. Rabbi Meir says: [he may eat] until he reaches the place where he intends to rest [on Shabbat]. But peddlers who travel from town to town may eat until they reach the place where they intend to stay over night. Rabbi Judah says: the first house [he reaches] is his house.

One who brings produce from the Galilee to Judea, or if he goes up to Jerusalem, he may eat of them until he arrives at the place to which he intends to go, and the same is true when he returns. Rabbi Meir says: [he may eat] until he reaches the place where he intends to rest [on Shabbat]. But peddlers who travel from town to town may eat until they reach the place where they intend to stay over night. Rabbi Judah says: the first house [he reaches] is his house.

If one intends to carry out [an object] in front of him, but it comes around behind him, he is not liable. Behind him, but it comes around in front of him, he is liable. In truth they said: a woman who wraps herself with an apron whether in front of her or behind her, is liable, because it is normal for it to reverse itself. Rabbi Judah said: also those who receive notes.

[If one intended] to eat as much as an olive on the next day [and] as much as an olive on the outside its intended place, [or] as much as an olive outside its designated place [and] as much as an olive on the next day; Half as much as an olive on the next day [and] half as much as an olive outside its designated place; Half as much as an olive on the next day [and] half as much as an olive outside its designated place, [The sacrifice] is unfit, and does not involve karet. Rabbi Judah said: this is the general rule: where the [improper] intention of time precedes the [improper] intention of place, [the sacrifice] is piggul, and involves karet; but if the [improper] intention of place precedes the [improper] intention of time, it is invalid and does not involve kareth. But the sages say: in both cases [the sacrifice] is invalid and does not involve karet. [If one intends] to eat half as much as an olive [after its intended time or outside its intended place] [and] to burn half as much as an olive [similarly] it is valid, for eating and burning do not combine.

How is the mattir not offered in accordance with the law? If one took out the fistful [intending to eat it] outside the designated place, [and] put it in a vessel, carried it to the altar, and burned [with the intention of eating it] after its designated time; Or if one took out the fistful [intending to eat it] after its designated time, [and] received, carried it to the altar, and burned it [intending to eat it] outside its designated place, or if one took out the fistful, received, carried it to the altar, and burned [intending to eat it] outside its designated time. If one took out the fistful of a sinner’s minhah or the minhah of jealousy for the sake of something else, and received, carried it to the altar, and burned [intending to eat them] after their designated time; Or if one took out the fistful [from them, intending to eat] after their designated time, [and] received, carried it to the altar, and burned for the sake of something else, or if one took out the fistful, received, carried it to the altar, and burned for the sake of something else; Rabbi Judah said: this is the general rule: where the [improper] intention of time precedes the [improper] intention of place, [the sacrifice] is piggul, and involves karet; but if the [improper] intention of place precedes the [improper] intention of time, it is invalid and does not involve kareth. In these cases the mattir was not offered in accordance with the law. But the sages say: in both cases [the sacrifice] is invalid and does not involve karet. [If one intended] to eat as much as an olive outside its designated place [and] as much as an olive on the next day, [or] as much as an olive on the next day [and] as much as an olive outside its designated place; Half as much as an olive outside its designated place [and] half as much as an olive on the next day; Half as much as an olive on the next day [and] half as much as an olive outside its designated place, [The sacrifice] is unfit, and does not involve karet. [If one intends] to eat half as much as an olive [after its intended time or outside its intended place] [and] to burn half as much as an olive [similarly] it is valid, for eating and burning do not combine.

If one put his olives on a roof to dry, even though they are piled up to the height of a cubit, they do not become susceptible to uncleanness. If he put them in the house to putrefy, even though he intends to take them up on the roof, or if he put them on the roof so that they might open so that they could be salted, they become susceptible to uncleanness. If he put them in the house while he secured his roof or until he could take them elsewhere, they do not become susceptible to uncleanness.

It is a condition of Joshua that one may collect grasses everywhere except in a field of fenugreek. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman: The Mishnah deals with him who sowed for sheaves. But did we not state: “One is not required to weed … fenugreek in which grasses appeared?” Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in his own name: “When it grew for seeds.” Rebbi Yose said, did Joshua come only to help sinners? If he committed a sin, it is forbidden as robbery, if he did not commit a sin it is permitted in respect to robbery. Hence, there is no difference whether he sowed for seeds or for sheaves. But did we not state: “One is not required to weed … fenugreek in which grasses appeared?” If he intends to use the grasses, one should oblige him to weed! Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Miasha: He would be happy if they were torn out and lying before him. Rebbi Yose did not say so, but in the end he approves that they should be torn out and lying before him. But then, if somebody found kilaim in a vineyard, they should be forbidden as robbery since in the end he desires that they should be torn out and lie before him! There, he has the means to bring it in, here he does not have the means to bring it in. Rav Naḥman said that Rebbi Mana asked: Think about it, if he had another field of fenugreek close by, then he has the means to bring it in! The words of the rabbis disagree, since Rebbi Zeriqan said in the name of the House of Yannai: All aftergrowth is forbidden except for that which appears on a fallow field, a field ready to be ploughed under, and a vineyard. He should have added, except for a field of fenugreek sown for the production of seeds! Rebbi Yose said, the words of Rebbi Joḥanan support me. It happened that somebody bought a garden plot of vegetables from a Gentile. He came and asked Rebbi Joḥanan, who said to him, go, harvest and sell at the going rate. Rebbi Abbahu objected before Rebbi Joḥanan: Did we not state: “or the threshing place on which many kinds are appearing?” He said to him, that place proves that he does not want them to exist. Could he not have answered, the one is like robbery, the other is permitted with respect to robbery? How can you object based on a scenario where it is forbidden as robbery to a decision in a case which is permitted with respect to robbery? It is as Rebbi Immi said, they were rich in answers. Or it is as Rebbi Nasa said, like a person who has two reasons but he answers only with one of them.

“Towels of the bath attendant,” sometimes seeing his teacher he wraps himself in them. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: women’s bath towels are not subject to kilaim. Women’s bath towels are the same as men’s bath towels. What are men’s bath towels? The rabbis of Caesarea say, אנטיטיה. Towels of the bath attendant, that means if he intends them as clothing, but if he does not intend them as clothing, not about that.

One may give two explanations: If he had little [manure] on his field, he may continuously add to it after the agricultural workers stopped; Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah forbids it. What is the reason of Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah? Maybe there will be manure and it will turn out that he fertilizes that place. One may give another explanation: If he had little [manure] in his house before the Sabbatical year and he wants to transport it to his field during the Sabbatical, he may continuously add to it after the agricultural workers stopped; Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah forbids it. What is the reason of Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah? Maybe there will be no more manure and it will turn out that he fertilizes that place. Has it not been fertilized before the Sabbatical year? Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamai: Because of the bad impression [it is forbidden] unless he transports ten boxes together. Do the rabbis not care for a bad impression? Rebbi Idi said his stick, his basket, and his shovel prove that he intends to make a dungheap.

MISHNAH: If somebody intends to say heave but says tithe, tithe but says heave, fire offering but says well-being offering, well-being offering but says fire offering, that I shall not enter this house and he says that one, that I shall have no enjoyment from this one and he says from that one, he did not say anything unless his statement and his intention be equal.

HALAKHAH: There, we have stated: “The House of Shammai say, dedication in error is dedication.” Rebbi Jeremiah said, if he intends to say “profane” and he says “fire sacrifice”, he dedicated it. Rebbi Yose said, we consider only if he intended to dedicate but he erred because of something else. What is the status of this Mishnah? In the opinion of Rebbi Jeremiah it is in dispute, in the opinion of Rebbi Yose it is everybody’s opinion.

The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: The first amphora following Rebbi Yose, the second following Rebbi Meïr. The colleagues say, the first amphora following Rebbi Yose but Rebbi Meïr will not agree; the second following Rebbi Meïr but Rebbi Yose will not agree. Rebbi Yose told them, be careful what you teach. The first amphora following Rebbi Yose; therefore, following Rebbi Meïr one burns and following Rebbi Simeon one burns. Then Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon should form a majority against Rebbi Yose and one should burn. In addition, we see that the rabbis, in cases which come before them, say, go and consider it suspended. We find that Rebbi Simeon says one burns, as we have stated: “Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Joshua agree that one burns each one separately.” On this, Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Simeon taught that. And if you want to say that Rebbi Meïr does not recognize suspension, have we not stated: “Suspended heave and impure heave are burned on Sabbath eve when it gets dark, the words of Rebbi Meïr; but the Sages say, at its appointed time.” Rebbi Zeïra said before Rebbi Mana, explain it if it is suspended because he intends to ask about it. He said to him, so said my teacher Rebbi Assi: All suspended [heave] we are dealing with here is suspended [heave] about which he has no intention of asking. But if he intends to ask about it, it has to be treated as pure. As we have stated: “If he said, it is pure or impure, then it is impure. But if he said, I am keeping it in order to ask about the situation, it is pure.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, explain it if the doubt arose at sundown. Then you cannot infer anything.

The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: The first amphora following Rebbi Yose, the second following Rebbi Meïr. The colleagues say, the first amphora following Rebbi Yose but Rebbi Meïr will not agree; the second following Rebbi Meïr but Rebbi Yose will not agree. Rebbi Yose told them, be careful what you teach. The first amphora following Rebbi Yose; therefore, following Rebbi Meïr one burns and following Rebbi Simeon one burns. Then Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon should form a majority against Rebbi Yose and one should burn. In addition, we see that the rabbis, in cases which come before them, say, go and consider it suspended. We find that Rebbi Simeon says one burns, as we have stated: “Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Joshua agree that one burns each one separately.” On this, Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Simeon taught that. And if you want to say that Rebbi Meïr does not recognize suspension, have we not stated: “Suspended heave and impure heave are burned on Sabbath eve when it gets dark, the words of Rebbi Meïr; but the Sages say, at its appointed time.” Rebbi Zeïra said before Rebbi Mana, explain it if it is suspended because he intends to ask about it. He said to him, so said my teacher Rebbi Assi: All suspended [heave] we are dealing with here is suspended [heave] about which he has no intention of asking. But if he intends to ask about it, it has to be treated as pure. As we have stated: “If he said, it is pure or impure, then it is impure. But if he said, I am keeping it in order to ask about the situation, it is pure.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, explain it if the doubt arose at sundown. Then you cannot infer anything.

HALAKHAH: When its peksos is removed, when its šelqoq is removed. “ When he continued removing peksos or šelqoq, it becomes ṭevel only when he finished with all he needs.” When he removed peksos or šelqoq when it was property of the Temple and redeemed it, if he made a large bundle in the field. But if he made a small bundle for the market, it became ṭevel.” Rebbi Ezra asked: The work on the field is not yet finished and you say so? But so it must be: If he made a large bundle in the field and he intends later to make it into small bundles for the market, it became ṭevel.

“Grain when it is in smooth piles.” Rebbi Ḥanania in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: When he straightens his heap. But did not Rebbi Jacob ben Sisin state: “When does he start to give heave from his threshing floor? When he removes the pitchfork.” Here, when he intends to smoothe, there if he did not intend to smoothe. It was stated: “He sifts part and gives heave from the sifted part for what is not sifted.” Rebbi Ila said, for this is the way of householders to bring it into their houses. What is the reason? (Is. 30:24) “The bulls and young donkeys which work the soil will eat sour mix.” If he sifted [grain] dedicated to the Temple and then redeemed it; since he was able to eat from it as a snack and now he cannot eat, it is as if he did it with the permission of the Temple and he is obligated. Rebbi Ḥinena objected: Did we not state, “if he took out and cleaned what was dedicated to the Temple, he is free?” Rebbi Yudan said, there it is not impossible for him not to preserve or not to cook a long time. But here it is impossible for him not to smooth it, as Rebbi Ila said, the bulls and young donkeys, etc.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, if one exports from a private domain to the public domain through karmelit, he is liable because of him who carries on his back, from the following: “One who intends to carry on his front but it turns out that he carried on his back is not liable. On his back and he carried on his front he is liable.” For it is impossible that between him and the wall should not karmelit be created. Rebbi Yose said, explain it that his face was turned to the wall and his load on his back and so his load exited first. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba asked before Rebbi Mana: But this is not a usual way of carrying out! He told him, professional porters act in this way. But the following implies it, as Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Maisha said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: “If one carries out foodstuffs and puts them on the threshold.” Is the threshold not karmelit? Rebbi Yose was sorry that he had not said this himself.

The statement of Rebbi Abba bar Ḥana follows Rebbi Ḥanina, as Rebbi Ḥanina said, we were ascending with Rebbi to the Hot Springs of Gadara when he said to us, choose yourselves smooth stones; then you are permitted to move them tomorrow. Rebbi Zeˋira said, only if he chiseled. The colleagues say, only if he polished. The Sepphoreans say, only if he intends. Rebbi Joḥanan said, only if it falls under the designation of implement. You might say that Rav Ḥana bar Abba, and Rebbi Joḥanan, and Rebbi Jonathan are one [opinion]. Rav, and Rebbi Zeˋira, and Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose are one [opinion]. The Sepphoreans, and Rebbi Yose ben Shaul, and Rebbi Ḥalaphta ben Shaul are one [opinion]. The collegues have no pairing.

MISHNAH: One who intends to carry on his front but it turns out that he carried on his back is not liable. On his back and he carried on his front he is liable. In truth a woman who ties to her sinar whether in front or back is liable since it is apt to move. Rebbi Jehudah says, the same holds for messengers.

One may bathe in the ocean and in the waters of Tiberias even though one intends to do this for medical purposes, but not in water used for soaking flax or in the Dead Sea. When? If he intended this for medical purposes; therefore to lift himself from impurity to purity it is permitted. Rebbi Samuel, Rebbi Berekhiah’s brother said, on condition that he not tarry.

“If somebody leaves to travel by sea, before thirty days he does not have to check; within thirty [days] he has to check”. That is to say, if he intends to return. But if he does not intend to return, even before thirty days he has to check. If there is a doubt; but if it is certain then even from New Year’s Day. Rebbi Abba said, but even if he intends to return he has to check, maybe he will change his mind and not return.

“If somebody leaves to travel by sea, before thirty days he does not have to check; within thirty [days] he has to check”. That is to say, if he intends to return. But if he does not intend to return, even before thirty days he has to check. If there is a doubt; but if it is certain then even from New Year’s Day. Rebbi Abba said, but even if he intends to return he has to check, maybe he will change his mind and not return.

The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: The first amphora following Rebbi Yose, the second following Rebbi Meïr. The colleagues say, the first amphora following Rebbi Yose but Rebbi Meïr will not agree; the second following Rebbi Meïr but Rebbi Yose will not agree. Rebbi Yose told them, be careful what you are saying. The first amphora following Rebbi Yose, but following Rebbi Meïr one burns and following Rebbi Simeon one burns. Then Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon should form a majority against Rebbi Yose and one should burn. In addition, we understand from the following: we see the rabbis, if a case comes before them, they say, go and suspend. Where do we find that Rebbi Simeon says, one burns? It is what we have stated: “Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Joshua agree that each of these is burned separately.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Simeon stated this. If you want to say that Rebbi Meïr does not recognize suspension, have we not stated: “Suspended (pure) heave is burned on Sabbath eve when it gets dark, the words of Rebbi Meïr; but the Sages say, at its appointed time.” Rebbi Ezra said before Rebbi Mana, explain it that it is suspended because he does not intend to ask about it. He said to him, so also said Rebbi Yose: All we are occupied with here is with suspended [heave] about which he does not intend to ask; but suspended [heave] about which he intends to ask is pure. It was stated thus: “Suspended heave about which they said, is it pure? It is impure. If he said, I am keeping it in order to ask about it, it is pure.” What about it? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, explain it if the doubt arose at sundown. Then one cannot infer anything.

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Rebbi Jehudah parallels Rabban Gamliel, the rabbis parallel Rebbi Eliezer, Rebbi Simeon parallels Rebbi Joshua. It was stated in the name of Rebbi Simeon: “He should bleed it even if he intends to make a blemish.” This parallels another opinion of Rebbi Joshua. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said before Rebbi Zeˋira: Explain about sancta for which he is liable following Rebbi Simeon.

HALAKHAH: Is it permitted to raise them? Rebbi Abba said, for example Mahir which is sixteen by sixteen mil. They wanted to say, he who said it is permitted to sell [says] it is permitted to leave it alone. But he who says, it is forbidden to sell [says] it is forbidden to leave it alone. Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rav: Even one who says it is permitted to sell it [says] it is forbidden to leave it alone. What is the difference between selling and leaving alone? There, because he intends to sell it to him it is like the Gentile’s animal. But here it is the Jew’s animal and he is suspected about it.

“Places walled from the days of Joshua bin Nun read on the Fifteenth.” Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: They honored the Land of Israel which was desolate in those days and attached it to the days of Joshua bin Nun. Then should not everybody read on the Fifteenth? Rebbi Abbahu analyzed “dwelling, dwelling”. Since “dwelling” mentioned there refers to the days of Joshua bin Nun, so also “dwelling” mentioned here refers to the days of Joshua bin Nun. Then should not everybody read on the Fourteenth? Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazy analyzed “open, openness.” It is said here “openness” and it said there except for very many open towns. Since “open” mentioned there refers to the days of Joshua bin Nun, so also “openness” mentioned here refers to the days of Joshua bin Nun. It was stated: “Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥa says, from the days of Ahasuerus. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah said to him, what has the reference to Susa the Fortress to do here? If you are inferring from Susa the Fortress then one should read in Susa the Fortress, but not read at any other place.” It seems that there are three Tannaim. The first Tanna intends to say, from the days of Joshua bin Nun. Another Tanna intends to say, from the days of Ahasuerus. Another Tanna intends to say, “town” in any case. It turns out that you may say that Rebbi Joshua ben Qorha and Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah say the same, only that each one of them infers from a separate argument; and it was stated so: “what is close to a walled place and what is seen with it has the same standing as it.” Rebbi Ayvo bar Naggari in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: For example like Ḥamata. Since he only said “like”, therefore Ḥamata itself was walled in the days of Joshua bin Nun. From the following: Fortified towns, Haṣsiddim, Ṣer, and Ḥamat, Raqqat, and Kinneret. Haṣsiddim is Wheat village, Ṣer is next to it, Ḥamat Ḥamata, Raqqat Tiberias, Kinneret, Genezareth. Rebbi Levi objected, is it not written, the prairie to the Kinneret lake? Were there two Genesareths? Or were there only two autonomous districts, like Bet Yeraḥ and Zinbarai, which are towers on Lake Kinneret, where the fortification was abandoned and taken over by Gentiles. Come and see, there one does not read, outside one reads?

“Places walled from the days of Joshua bin Nun read on the Fifteenth.” Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: They honored the Land of Israel which was desolate in those days and attached it to the days of Joshua bin Nun. Then should not everybody read on the Fifteenth? Rebbi Abbahu analyzed “dwelling, dwelling”. Since “dwelling” mentioned there refers to the days of Joshua bin Nun, so also “dwelling” mentioned here refers to the days of Joshua bin Nun. Then should not everybody read on the Fourteenth? Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazy analyzed “open, openness.” It is said here “openness” and it said there except for very many open towns. Since “open” mentioned there refers to the days of Joshua bin Nun, so also “openness” mentioned here refers to the days of Joshua bin Nun. It was stated: “Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥa says, from the days of Ahasuerus. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah said to him, what has the reference to Susa the Fortress to do here? If you are inferring from Susa the Fortress then one should read in Susa the Fortress, but not read at any other place.” It seems that there are three Tannaim. The first Tanna intends to say, from the days of Joshua bin Nun. Another Tanna intends to say, from the days of Ahasuerus. Another Tanna intends to say, “town” in any case. It turns out that you may say that Rebbi Joshua ben Qorha and Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah say the same, only that each one of them infers from a separate argument; and it was stated so: “what is close to a walled place and what is seen with it has the same standing as it.” Rebbi Ayvo bar Naggari in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: For example like Ḥamata. Since he only said “like”, therefore Ḥamata itself was walled in the days of Joshua bin Nun. From the following: Fortified towns, Haṣsiddim, Ṣer, and Ḥamat, Raqqat, and Kinneret. Haṣsiddim is Wheat village, Ṣer is next to it, Ḥamat Ḥamata, Raqqat Tiberias, Kinneret, Genezareth. Rebbi Levi objected, is it not written, the prairie to the Kinneret lake? Were there two Genesareths? Or were there only two autonomous districts, like Bet Yeraḥ and Zinbarai, which are towers on Lake Kinneret, where the fortification was abandoned and taken over by Gentiles. Come and see, there one does not read, outside one reads?

“Places walled from the days of Joshua bin Nun read on the Fifteenth.” Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: They honored the Land of Israel which was desolate in those days and attached it to the days of Joshua bin Nun. Then should not everybody read on the Fifteenth? Rebbi Abbahu analyzed “dwelling, dwelling”. Since “dwelling” mentioned there refers to the days of Joshua bin Nun, so also “dwelling” mentioned here refers to the days of Joshua bin Nun. Then should not everybody read on the Fourteenth? Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazy analyzed “open, openness.” It is said here “openness” and it said there except for very many open towns. Since “open” mentioned there refers to the days of Joshua bin Nun, so also “openness” mentioned here refers to the days of Joshua bin Nun. It was stated: “Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥa says, from the days of Ahasuerus. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah said to him, what has the reference to Susa the Fortress to do here? If you are inferring from Susa the Fortress then one should read in Susa the Fortress, but not read at any other place.” It seems that there are three Tannaim. The first Tanna intends to say, from the days of Joshua bin Nun. Another Tanna intends to say, from the days of Ahasuerus. Another Tanna intends to say, “town” in any case. It turns out that you may say that Rebbi Joshua ben Qorha and Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah say the same, only that each one of them infers from a separate argument; and it was stated so: “what is close to a walled place and what is seen with it has the same standing as it.” Rebbi Ayvo bar Naggari in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: For example like Ḥamata. Since he only said “like”, therefore Ḥamata itself was walled in the days of Joshua bin Nun. From the following: Fortified towns, Haṣsiddim, Ṣer, and Ḥamat, Raqqat, and Kinneret. Haṣsiddim is Wheat village, Ṣer is next to it, Ḥamat Ḥamata, Raqqat Tiberias, Kinneret, Genezareth. Rebbi Levi objected, is it not written, the prairie to the Kinneret lake? Were there two Genesareths? Or were there only two autonomous districts, like Bet Yeraḥ and Zinbarai, which are towers on Lake Kinneret, where the fortification was abandoned and taken over by Gentiles. Come and see, there one does not read, outside one reads?

MISHNAH: A villager who went to a walled city, or a dweller in a walled city who went to a village, if he intends to return to his place he reads as at his place; otherwise he reads with them.

There, we have stated: [“For heave and First Fruits one incurs the penalty of death or a fine of a fifth; they are forbidden to lay persons, are property of the Cohen, may be lifted by one in 100, need washing of the hands and sundown.] This applies to heave and First Fruits but not to tithe.” There, you are saying tithe does not need washing, but here, you are saying that tithe needs washing. When you are saying that tithe needs washing, following the rabbis; but when you are saying that tithe does not need washing, following Rebbi Meïr. As we have stated there, “anything which requires immersion by the words of the Sopherim makes sancta impure and disqualifies heave but is permitted for profane food and tithe, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages forbid for tithe.” He did not understand that Rebbi Samuel said in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira: What means, “but the Sages forbid for tithe”? His body became disqualified from consuming tithe. How it that? If you are saying, tithe needs washing, [for one who intends to eat. If you are saying, tithe does not need washing,] if he intends to touch. But does not one who wants to eat also want to touch? Only because of [handwashing as discipline. But did we not state “heave”? For heave is there] handwashing as discipline? Therefore about profane food prepared in the purity of sancta. But is profane food prepared in the purity of sancta not profane food? Explain either following Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar or Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Ṣadoq. Either following Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar, as it was stated, Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says in the name of Rebbi Meïr, hands are first degree impure for profane food and second degree impure for heave. Or Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Ṣadoq, as we have stated there: “profane food prepared in the purity of sancta is profane food. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Ṣadoq says, it is like heave, to be impure in two stages and disqualified in the third.”

There, we have stated: [“For heave and First Fruits one incurs the penalty of death or a fine of a fifth; they are forbidden to lay persons, are property of the Cohen, may be lifted by one in 100, need washing of the hands and sundown.] This applies to heave and First Fruits but not to tithe.” There, you are saying tithe does not need washing, but here, you are saying that tithe needs washing. When you are saying that tithe needs washing, following the rabbis; but when you are saying that tithe does not need washing, following Rebbi Meïr. As we have stated there, “anything which requires immersion by the words of the Sopherim makes sancta impure and disqualifies heave but is permitted for profane food and tithe, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages forbid for tithe.” He did not understand that Rebbi Samuel said in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira: What means, “but the Sages forbid for tithe”? His body became disqualified from consuming tithe. How it that? If you are saying, tithe needs washing, [for one who intends to eat. If you are saying, tithe does not need washing,] if he intends to touch. But does not one who wants to eat also want to touch? Only because of [handwashing as discipline. But did we not state “heave”? For heave is there] handwashing as discipline? Therefore about profane food prepared in the purity of sancta. But is profane food prepared in the purity of sancta not profane food? Explain either following Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar or Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Ṣadoq. Either following Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar, as it was stated, Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says in the name of Rebbi Meïr, hands are first degree impure for profane food and second degree impure for heave. Or Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Ṣadoq, as we have stated there: “profane food prepared in the purity of sancta is profane food. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Ṣadoq says, it is like heave, to be impure in two stages and disqualified in the third.”

HALAKHAH: There, we have stated: “Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah forbids unless he raises or lowers by three {hand-breadths} or puts it on a rock.” One may give two explanations. If he had a small amount{of manure} in his house from before the Sabbatical and he wants to transport it to his field during the Sabbatical, he may continuously add to it after the sinning sinners stopped. Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah forbids it. What is the reason of Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah? Maybe there will be no more manure and it turns out that he fertilizes that place. It turns out that Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah parallels Rebbi Yose. Just as Rebbi Yose says, manure is not easily found, so Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah says, manure is not easily found. One may give another explanation: If he had a small amount{of manure} in his house from before the Sabbatical and he wants to transport it to his field during the Sabbatical, he may continuously add to it after the sinning sinners stopped. Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah forbids it. What is the reason of Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah? Maybe there will be no more manure and it turns out that he fertilizes that place. Is it not already fertilized from before the Sabbatical? Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: because of the bad impression, unless he transports ten boxes together. Do the rabbis not care about bad impressions? Rebbi Idi said his stick, his basket, and his shovel prove that he intends to make a dungheap. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun applied these traditions from here, as we have stated: “Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah says, one does not make new water canals on the holiday or in the Sabbatical year.” Rebbi Jeremiah said, because he would prepare its banks to be sown. Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: because of the bad impression. They wanted to say, the one who says there “because of the bad impression” also here “because of the bad impression”. The one who says there “because he would prepare its banks to be sown”, what would you have here? The only answer would be, “maybe there will be no more manure and it turns out that he fertilizes that place.” What is the difference between them? If he dug a water canal for a building. They wanted to say that the one who said there “because of the bad impression” also here “because of the bad impression”. The one who says here “because he would prepare its banks to be sown”, clearly here its banks will not be prepared to be sown. Everybody agrees that if he assembled there stones, pebbles, lime, or cement it is permitted.

MISHNAH: It is sufficient even if somebody heard women say, the man X died. Rebbi Jehudah said, even if he heard children say, we go to lament and bury X, whether intentional or unintentional. Rebbi Jehudah ben Baba said, if he is a Jew, only if he intends [to testify]; but if a Gentile intends to testify, it is no testimony.

MISHNAH: It is sufficient even if somebody heard women say, the man X died. Rebbi Jehudah said, even if he heard children say, we go to lament and bury X, whether intentional or unintentional. Rebbi Jehudah ben Baba said, if he is a Jew, only if he intends [to testify]; but if a Gentile intends to testify, it is no testimony.

It was stated: “Just as vows of exaggeration are permitted so oaths of exaggeration are permitted.” But was it not stated: Vows of exaggeration are forbidden? Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Pedat: Here about those who insist, there about those who do not insist. Rebbi Abba said, you may even say in either case if they insist or if they do not insist; here about one who intends that his oath should fall on his property, “an oath that my property [should be forbidden] to me.” Then his property is forbidden [to him]. But in the matter of whipping, he cannot be whipped. Just as speeding-up vows are permitted so speeding-up oaths are permitted. It is the same case; if he intends that his oath should fall on his property then his property is forbidden [to him]. But concerning the matter of whipping, he cannot be whipped.

It was stated: “Just as vows of exaggeration are permitted so oaths of exaggeration are permitted.” But was it not stated: Vows of exaggeration are forbidden? Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Pedat: Here about those who insist, there about those who do not insist. Rebbi Abba said, you may even say in either case if they insist or if they do not insist; here about one who intends that his oath should fall on his property, “an oath that my property [should be forbidden] to me.” Then his property is forbidden [to him]. But in the matter of whipping, he cannot be whipped. Just as speeding-up vows are permitted so speeding-up oaths are permitted. It is the same case; if he intends that his oath should fall on his property then his property is forbidden [to him]. But concerning the matter of whipping, he cannot be whipped.

HALAKHAH: “The House of Shammai say, dedication in error is dedication.” There, we have stated: “If somebody intends to say heave but says tithe, tithe but says heave, fire offering but says well-being offering, well-being offering but says fire offering.” Rebbi Jeremiah said, if he intends to say “profane” and says “fire sacrifice”, he dedicated it. Rebbi Yose said, we consider only whether he intended to dedicate but erred because of something else. What is the status of this Mishnah? In the opinion of Rebbi Jeremiah it is in dispute, in the opinion of Rebbi Yose it is everybody’s opinion.

HALAKHAH: “The House of Shammai say, dedication in error is dedication.” There, we have stated: “If somebody intends to say heave but says tithe, tithe but says heave, fire offering but says well-being offering, well-being offering but says fire offering.” Rebbi Jeremiah said, if he intends to say “profane” and says “fire sacrifice”, he dedicated it. Rebbi Yose said, we consider only whether he intended to dedicate but erred because of something else. What is the status of this Mishnah? In the opinion of Rebbi Jeremiah it is in dispute, in the opinion of Rebbi Yose it is everybody’s opinion.

MISHNAH: If a person appropriates a deposit, the House of Shammai say, he shall be hit by less or more, but the House of Hillel say, [at the price] at the time of delivery; Rebbi Aqiba says, at the time of claim. If somebody intends to take the deposit, the House of Shammai hold him liable but the House of Hillel say, he is liable only from the moment he takes it. How is this? If he tilted the amphora and took a quartarius, and then it broke, he pays only for a quartarius. If he lifted it and took a quartarius, and then it broke, he pays for all.

It was stated: “Just as vows of exaggeration are permitted, so oaths of exaggeration are permitted.” But was it not stated: Vows of exaggeration are forbidden? Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Pedat: Here about those who insist, there about those who do not insist. You may even say in both cases if they insist; here it is about one who intends that his oath should fall on his property, “an oath that my property [should be forbidden] to me.” Then his property is forbidden [to him]. But in matters of flogging, he cannot be flogged. Just as speeding-up vows are permitted, so speeding-up oaths are permitted. It is the same case; if he intends that his oath should fall on his property, “an oath that my property [should be forbidden] to me.” Then his property is forbidden [to him]. But in matters of flogging, he cannot be flogged.

It was stated: “Just as vows of exaggeration are permitted, so oaths of exaggeration are permitted.” But was it not stated: Vows of exaggeration are forbidden? Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Pedat: Here about those who insist, there about those who do not insist. You may even say in both cases if they insist; here it is about one who intends that his oath should fall on his property, “an oath that my property [should be forbidden] to me.” Then his property is forbidden [to him]. But in matters of flogging, he cannot be flogged. Just as speeding-up vows are permitted, so speeding-up oaths are permitted. It is the same case; if he intends that his oath should fall on his property, “an oath that my property [should be forbidden] to me.” Then his property is forbidden [to him]. But in matters of flogging, he cannot be flogged.

They said to him, "Our master, bless us !" He said to them, "May it be His will that the fear of Heaven be upon you [as great] as the fear of flesh and blood," His disciples exclaimed, "Only as great !" He replied, "Would that it be [as great] ; for know ye, when a man intends to commit a transgression, he says, 'I hope nobody will see me'."

He answered, "Thou hast reminded me of something which R. Jose b. R. Hannina said, viz. : What means that which is written, 'Through a land that no man passed through, and where no man dwelt' (Jer. ii. 6) ? Since no man passed through it, how could anyone dwell there ! But it intends to tell us that every land concerning which Adam decreed that it should be inhabited has become inhabited, and every land concerning which Adam did not so decree has not been inhabited."

This is evident! But shouldest thou imagine that because he intends it as a cure no benediction at all is necessary, therefore it informs us that since he derives enjoyment from it, he is required to pronounce a benediction.

Straw that he intends not to remove, and earth without thought to removal: It is an argument between Rabbi Yose and the Rabbis, as we learn in a Mishnah: A house that he filled with straw or stones, and he nullified them: they are nullified.

If he nullified them, yes. If he did not nullify them, no! And we learn in a baraita, on this Rabbi Yose says: Straw that he intends not to remove: this is like earth without thought to intention, and it is nullified. Earth that he intends to remove: this is like straw without thought to intention, and it is not nullified.

If he nullified them, yes. If he did not nullify them, no! And we learn in a baraita, on this Rabbi Yose says: Straw that he intends not to remove: this is like earth without thought to intention, and it is nullified. Earth that he intends to remove: this is like straw without thought to intention, and it is not nullified.

The law is that a mourner is not allowed to bathe his entire body either in warm or in cold water during the whole week of mourning, but as to face, hands, and feet, he is forbidden to wash them in warm water, but may wash them in cold water; he is not allowed to anoint his body to any extent whatever, but if he intends only to use the oil in order to remove dirt he may do so.

What was Trajan Day? It was reported that when Trajan had ordered the execution of Lulianus (Julianus) and his brother Pappos in Laodicea (Lydia), he said to them, if you are of the people of Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, let your God come and save you from my hands, as He saved them from the hand of Nebuchadnezzar; to which they replied: Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah were wholly righteous men and worthy of a miracle being performed for their sake; Nebuchadnezzar, too, was a respectable king, worthy of being the medium through which a miracle should be performed, but you are a wicked and ignoble man, not deserving that a miracle should be performed through you. Now, we have been found guilty of death in the eyes of God, and if you do not slay us, God has enough other slayers; He has plenty of bears and leopards and lions to attack and kill us, and the only reason for God's delivering us into your hand is that He intends to avenge our blood on you. It is reported that he had not yet moved from the place, when two deputies arrived from Rome and split his skull with clubs.

Similarly, if it did not rain upon a certain city, etc. Said R. Judah in the name of Rab: Both cities are here (in the verse of Amos quoted in the Mishnah) pointed out as being punished. "Jerusalem is among them as one unclean" (Lament., 1. 17). Said R. Judah in the name of Rab, this verse contains a promise of (future) blessing, for just as an unclean (menstruating) woman becomes clean again, so also Jerusalem. "She is become as a widow" (ib., 1. 1). Said R. Judah in the name of Rab, this verse also is meant as a blessing, for Scripture says, 'as a widow', not a 'widow', but as a woman whose husband went to a country beyond the sea and intends to come back to her. "Therefore have I also made you contemptible and base before all the people" (Malachi, 2. 9). Said R. Judah in the name of Rab, this is also meant as a blessing, for (in thus despising us) they do not appoint us as overseers of rivers, and as bailiffs. "The Lord will smite Israel, as a reed is shaken in the water" (I Kings, 14. 15). Said R. Judah in the name of Rab, this too is meant in a good sense, for R. Samuel b. Naḥamani said in the name of R. Jonathan: What is the meaning of the verse (Prov., 27. 6): "Faithful are the wounds of a friend; but the kisses of an enemy are importunate"? It means to say that the curse uttered by Ahijah the Shilonite against Israel was better than the blessing given them by the wicked Balaam; Ahijah the Shilonite cursed them by comparing them to a reed; now the reed rises in water, always drives young shoots and has many roots, so that even if all the winds of the world come and blow against it, the reed will move with the winds hither and thither, and when the winds have subsided the reed still stands firm in its place. Not so wicked Balaam. He blessed them by comparing them to a cedar tree, as is said (Numbers, 24. 6): "As cedars beside the waters;" now the cedar tree does not grow in water, does not drive young shoots and its roots are not many, and when the winds come and blow against it, it does not yield to them; hence when a strong southern wind arises, it uproots it and turns it upside down.

GEMARA. Rava said: They taught this only if he intends to return on the night of the fourteenth; but if he does not mean to return on the night of the fourteenth, he reads with the rest. Rava said: From where do I derive this ruling? As it is written, “Therefore do the Jews of the villages who dwell in the unwalled towns” (Esther 9:19). Since it is written, “the Jews of the villages” why did it need to write, “who dwell in the unwalled towns”? This teaches us that one who is a villager for one day is called a villager.

“Without awareness” (Deuteronomy 19:4) excludes intentionality. Intentionality is obvious! He is liable for death!? Rabbah said: This excludes [when] he intends to kill an animal and kills a person, [when he intends to kill] a Cutite and kills a Jew, [when he intends to kill] a stillbirth and kills a viable infant.

“Without awareness” (Deuteronomy 19:4) excludes intentionality. Intentionality is obvious! He is liable for death!? Rabbah said: This excludes [when] he intends to kill an animal and kills a person, [when he intends to kill] a Cutite and kills a Jew, [when he intends to kill] a stillbirth and kills a viable infant.

“Without awareness” (Deuteronomy 19:4) excludes intentionality. Intentionality is obvious! He is liable for death!? Rabbah said: This excludes [when] he intends to kill an animal and kills a person, [when he intends to kill] a Cutite and kills a Jew, [when he intends to kill] a stillbirth and kills a viable infant.

Our Rabbis taught [in a baraita]: “If he came upon him suddenly” (Numbers 35:22) this excludes a [case when someone turns quickly] around a corner. “Without hatred” (Numbers 35:22) excludes the one who hates [their victim]. “He pushed him” (Numbers 35:22) [means] when he pushed his body. “Or hurled upon him” (Numbers 35:22) includes downward motion that is for a need of upward motion. “Without lying in wait (tz’diyah)” (Numbers 35:22) excludes the one who intends [to throw something] to one side (tzad) and it goes to the other side. “And if one does not lie in wait (tzadah)” (Exodus 21:13) excludes the one who intends to throw [something] two cubits and he threw [it] four cubits.

Our Rabbis taught [in a baraita]: “If he came upon him suddenly” (Numbers 35:22) this excludes a [case when someone turns quickly] around a corner. “Without hatred” (Numbers 35:22) excludes the one who hates [their victim]. “He pushed him” (Numbers 35:22) [means] when he pushed his body. “Or hurled upon him” (Numbers 35:22) includes downward motion that is for a need of upward motion. “Without lying in wait (tz’diyah)” (Numbers 35:22) excludes the one who intends [to throw something] to one side (tzad) and it goes to the other side. “And if one does not lie in wait (tzadah)” (Exodus 21:13) excludes the one who intends to throw [something] two cubits and he threw [it] four cubits.

And Rabbi Yehudah?: "Without knowledge"—[this verse] comes to exclude the one who intends.