ismael

MISHNAH: Rebbi Ismael says, three months in the first and three months in the last with twelve months in the middle, for a total of eighteen months. Rebbi Aqiba says, one month in the first and one month in the last with twelve months in the middle, for a total of fourteen months. Rebbi Ismael said, when has this been said? A field of grain. But for an orchard, if he harvested his yield, lifted his olives, and collected his cut figs it counts for three years.

MISHNAH: Rebbi Ismael says, three months in the first and three months in the last with twelve months in the middle, for a total of eighteen months. Rebbi Aqiba says, one month in the first and one month in the last with twelve months in the middle, for a total of fourteen months. Rebbi Ismael said, when has this been said? A field of grain. But for an orchard, if he harvested his yield, lifted his olives, and collected his cut figs it counts for three years.

HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Ismael says, the first three months,” etc. Samuel said, these are the words of Rebbi Ismael and Rebbi Aqiba. But the Sages say, three years grain cutting, three years grape harvesting, three years olive harvesting. Rav said, these are the words of Rebbi Ismael and Rebbi Aqiba. But the Sages say, three years from day to day. Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: Just as they disagree here, so they disgree about Elijah’s years.

HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Ismael says, the first three months,” etc. Samuel said, these are the words of Rebbi Ismael and Rebbi Aqiba. But the Sages say, three years grain cutting, three years grape harvesting, three years olive harvesting. Rav said, these are the words of Rebbi Ismael and Rebbi Aqiba. But the Sages say, three years from day to day. Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: Just as they disagree here, so they disgree about Elijah’s years.

HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Ismael says, the first three months,” etc. Samuel said, these are the words of Rebbi Ismael and Rebbi Aqiba. But the Sages say, three years grain cutting, three years grape harvesting, three years olive harvesting. Rav said, these are the words of Rebbi Ismael and Rebbi Aqiba. But the Sages say, three years from day to day. Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: Just as they disagree here, so they disgree about Elijah’s years.

HALAKHAH: 8: “He who sells a field,” etc. Halakhah 9: “But he sold neither,” etc. Halakhah 10: “Neither the cistern,” etc. Halakhah 11: “If somebody dedicated a field to the Temple,” etc. In the House of Rebbi Yannai they said, poles for vines. The Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya asked, if there were split rings to select? Rebbi Isaac bar Tebelai asked, if there were marble plates for walls? Rebbi Yudan ben Rebbi Ismael asked: If there were split rods to frame windows?

Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: A vegetable bed which is six by six [handbreadths] and has its own name is not sold. Rebbi Joḥanan said: There is disagreement between Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose and the rabbis about one who bought an anvil sycamore on another’s property. Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose says, he acquired the land. The rabbis say, he did not acquire. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba asked: If somebody sold all trees but reserved for himself an anvil sycamore. In the opinion of Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose, he acquired the land. In the opinion of the rabbis, he did not acquire the land. Rebbi Isaac bar Tebelai asked: If somebody sold all trees and an olive tree at place X, are all olive trees at that place sold? Rebbi Yudan ben Rebbi Ismael asked: If somebody bought three groups of reeds, did he buy the greatest cedar in the Land of Israel?

Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: A vegetable bed which is six by six [handbreadths] and has its own name is not sold. Rebbi Joḥanan said: There is disagreement between Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose and the rabbis about one who bought an anvil sycamore on another’s property. Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose says, he acquired the land. The rabbis say, he did not acquire. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba asked: If somebody sold all trees but reserved for himself an anvil sycamore. In the opinion of Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose, he acquired the land. In the opinion of the rabbis, he did not acquire the land. Rebbi Isaac bar Tebelai asked: If somebody sold all trees and an olive tree at place X, are all olive trees at that place sold? Rebbi Yudan ben Rebbi Ismael asked: If somebody bought three groups of reeds, did he buy the greatest cedar in the Land of Israel?

Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: A vegetable bed which is six by six [handbreadths] and has its own name is not sold. Rebbi Joḥanan said: There is disagreement between Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose and the rabbis about one who bought an anvil sycamore on another’s property. Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose says, he acquired the land. The rabbis say, he did not acquire. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba asked: If somebody sold all trees but reserved for himself an anvil sycamore. In the opinion of Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose, he acquired the land. In the opinion of the rabbis, he did not acquire the land. Rebbi Isaac bar Tebelai asked: If somebody sold all trees and an olive tree at place X, are all olive trees at that place sold? Rebbi Yudan ben Rebbi Ismael asked: If somebody bought three groups of reeds, did he buy the greatest cedar in the Land of Israel?

Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: A vegetable bed which is six by six [handbreadths] and has its own name is not sold. Rebbi Joḥanan said: There is disagreement between Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose and the rabbis about one who bought an anvil sycamore on another’s property. Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose says, he acquired the land. The rabbis say, he did not acquire. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba asked: If somebody sold all trees but reserved for himself an anvil sycamore. In the opinion of Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose, he acquired the land. In the opinion of the rabbis, he did not acquire the land. Rebbi Isaac bar Tebelai asked: If somebody sold all trees and an olive tree at place X, are all olive trees at that place sold? Rebbi Yudan ben Rebbi Ismael asked: If somebody bought three groups of reeds, did he buy the greatest cedar in the Land of Israel?

MISHNAH: If somebody sells a plot to another to build a house, or he contracts to build him a wedding building for his son, a widow’s seat for his daughter, builds four by six cubits, the words of Rebbi Aqiba. Rebbi Ismael says, this is a cowshed. If one wants to build a cowshed, he builds four by six cubits, a small room six by eight, a large one eight by ten, a dining hall ten by ten, and its height equal to half its length and width; the reason is the Temple and its walls. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, a building like the Temple?

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

HALAKHAH: “Some inherit and bequeath,” etc. It is written: “If a man die without a son, you shall transfer his estate to his daughter.” Rebbi Ismael stated: The verse distinguished this inheritance from all other inheritances mentioned in the Torah, since for all of them it is written “you shall give,” but here is written: “you shall transfer.” It is an extension of the law that the daughter shall inherit. The Gentile Sages say, son and daughter are equal, for they explain “if he have no son;” therefore, if he has one both are equal. One objected, is it not written “if he have no daughter;” therefore, if he has one are both equal? And you agree, if there is no child, here also, if there is no son. The Sadducees say, the son’s daughter and the daughter are equal, for they explain: Since my son’s daughter who comes by force of her father does inherit from me, would it not be logical that my daughter who comes by force of myself should inherit from me? One told them, no. If you mention the son’s daughter who only inherits by the power of the brothers, what could you say about the daughter who only inherits by the power of the old man? The verse says, “any daughter who is an heiress of the tribes.” How is it possible for a daughter to inherit from two tribes? But explain it if her father was from one tribe and her mother from another.

MISHNAH: Somebody who lent to another by a document collects from encumbered property, by witnesses collects from free property. If he presents a note in his own handwriting that he owes him, he collects from free property. From a guarantor who endorsed after the signature of the witnesses, one collects from free property. This case came before Rebbi Ismael who said, he collects from free property. Ben Nannas said to him, he collects neither from encumbered nor from free property. He asked, why? He answered, if one would strangle another in the market place and a third person would say, let him go, I shall pay you, he is not liable since the loan was not made on his faith. Who is the guarantor who is liable? If he told him, “lend to him and I shall pay you,” he is liable because the loan was extended on his faith. Rebbi Ismael said, anybody who wants to train to become wise should study the laws of money matters since nothing greater is there in the Torah; they are like a flowing source, and anybody wanting to study the laws of money matters should serve Simeon ben Nannas.

MISHNAH: Somebody who lent to another by a document collects from encumbered property, by witnesses collects from free property. If he presents a note in his own handwriting that he owes him, he collects from free property. From a guarantor who endorsed after the signature of the witnesses, one collects from free property. This case came before Rebbi Ismael who said, he collects from free property. Ben Nannas said to him, he collects neither from encumbered nor from free property. He asked, why? He answered, if one would strangle another in the market place and a third person would say, let him go, I shall pay you, he is not liable since the loan was not made on his faith. Who is the guarantor who is liable? If he told him, “lend to him and I shall pay you,” he is liable because the loan was extended on his faith. Rebbi Ismael said, anybody who wants to train to become wise should study the laws of money matters since nothing greater is there in the Torah; they are like a flowing source, and anybody wanting to study the laws of money matters should serve Simeon ben Nannas.

“Ben Nannas said to him,” etc. Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Even though Rebbi Ismael praised Ben Nannas, he praised him only for his argument. But [practice] does not follow Ben Nannas. Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Also in the case of the strangled person practice follows Rebbi Ismael. Rebbi Yose said, one infers from here that a person who caught another in the market place, when a third person came and said, let him go and I shall give, collects from the one but does not collect from the other.

“Ben Nannas said to him,” etc. Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Even though Rebbi Ismael praised Ben Nannas, he praised him only for his argument. But [practice] does not follow Ben Nannas. Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Also in the case of the strangled person practice follows Rebbi Ismael. Rebbi Yose said, one infers from here that a person who caught another in the market place, when a third person came and said, let him go and I shall give, collects from the one but does not collect from the other.

MISHNAH: Whipping by three [judges]; in the name of Rebbi Ismael they said, by 23. The lengthening of a month by three [judges], the intercalation of a year by three [judges], the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, one starts with three, one discusses with five, and one votes with seven. But if they voted with three, it is intercalated. The leaning of Elders and the breaking of the calf’s neck by three [judges], the words of Rebbi Simeon, but Rebbi Jehudah says, by five. Ḥalîṣah and repudiations by three [judges], [redemption of] the growth of the fourth year and Second Tithe whose value is not known by three [appraisers], also of Temple dedications by three. Estimations of movables by three [appraisers], Rebbi Jehudah says that one of them must be a Cohen; of real estate nine and a Cohen. The same holds for humans. Capital crimes [are judged] by 23. The participants in active or passive bestiality [is judged] by 23, as it is said, you shall slay the woman and the animal, and it says, and you shall slay the animal. The bull to be stoned [is judged] by 23, as it is said, the bull shall be stoned, also its owner shall die; like the owner’s death sentence so is the ox’s death sentence. The wolf and the lion, the bear, and the tiger, and the panther, and the snake are sentenced to death by 23. Rebbi Eliezer says, anyone quick to kill them is meritorious; Rebbi Aqiba says, they are sentenced by 23.

“When they sanctified the year at Usha, on the first day Rebbi Ismael, the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa, led and recited following the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, we did not follow this at Jabneh. On the second day, Rebbi Ḥananiah, the son of Rebbi Yose the Galilean, led and recited following Rebbi Aqiba. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, this we did follow at Jabneh.” But does this not mean that they sanctified it on the first and the second day? Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rav Ḥisda: That year was disorganized. What is “on the first, on the second”? Rav Abba in the name of Rav: The first year, the second year! But was it not stated: the first day, the second day?

It was stated: One does not make public tender for slaves, securities, and movables. [What is public tender?] Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi said, announcement. Ulla bar Ismael said, slaves lest they flee, securities and movables lest they be stolen. Rebbi Abba bar Cohen asked before Rebbi Yose: Does this not imply that a slave be redeemed in front of three people? He answered him, yes. But did we not state: “Real estate nine and a Cohen. The same holds for humans”? He answered him, but the human here is a free person. Ḥanania bar Šelemiah in the name of Rav: A case came before Rebbi who wanted to act following the rabbis. Rebbi Eleazar ben Proteus, the grandson of Rebbi Eleazar ben Proteus, said to him: Rebbi, did you not teach us in your grandfather’s name, “except if he offered public tender”? He answered, yes, changed his mind, and acted following Rabban Gamliel.

Rebbi Jehudah said, I heard that if the judge wants to let both of them sit, he may tell them to sit down. Rebbi Ismael says, one says to him, either you dress as he is dressed or pay him to be dressed as you are.

From where following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Ismael stated: The congregation shall judge; the congregation shall save. The congregation be neither relatives of the murderer nor relatives of the murdered. Rebbi Yose said, otherwise you would say that the court is engaged in vendetta. This implies that the judges may not be related to the accused. And from where that the witnesses may not be related to the accused? The Torah said, kill on the testimony of witnesses, kill on the sentence of judges. Since judges may not be related to the accused, neither may witnesses be related to the accused. From where that witnesses may not be relatives of one another? Think of it, if they be found perjured, would they not be killed by their testimony?

From where following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Ismael stated: The congregation shall judge; the congregation shall save. The congregation be neither relatives of the murderer nor relatives of the murdered. Rebbi Yose said, otherwise you would say that the court is engaged in vendetta. This implies that the judges may not be related to the accused. And from where that the witnesses may not be related to the accused? The Torah said, kill on the testimony of witnesses, kill on the sentence of judges. Since judges may not be related to the accused, neither may witnesses be related to the accused. From where that witnesses may not be relatives of one another? Think of it, if they be found perjured, would they not be killed by their testimony?

From where two witnesses? He and another make two. Or following Rebbi Ismael, as Rebbi Ismael said, any place where the Torah mentions a witness without further determination it implies two witnesses unless the verse informs you that a single witness is meant. It was found stated in the name of Rebbi Ismael: Can a single witness be found guilty of a blurted oath? Since it is possible to say that another person could team up with him, then he would be subject to the oath of testimony, how could you find him guilty of a blurted oath?

From where two witnesses? He and another make two. Or following Rebbi Ismael, as Rebbi Ismael said, any place where the Torah mentions a witness without further determination it implies two witnesses unless the verse informs you that a single witness is meant. It was found stated in the name of Rebbi Ismael: Can a single witness be found guilty of a blurted oath? Since it is possible to say that another person could team up with him, then he would be subject to the oath of testimony, how could you find him guilty of a blurted oath?

From where two witnesses? He and another make two. Or following Rebbi Ismael, as Rebbi Ismael said, any place where the Torah mentions a witness without further determination it implies two witnesses unless the verse informs you that a single witness is meant. It was found stated in the name of Rebbi Ismael: Can a single witness be found guilty of a blurted oath? Since it is possible to say that another person could team up with him, then he would be subject to the oath of testimony, how could you find him guilty of a blurted oath?

Rebbi Ismael stated: He has to bear his punishment, a sacrifice. From where that one needs a court? One learns “telling, telling”. Since telling mentioned there is before a court, also telling here is before a court.

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 Yose said, it was necessary that his aunt be mentioned separately, to exclude his mother’s brother’s wife. What is the reason? It is said here his aunt, and it is said there, either his uncle or his uncle’s son shall freehim. Since by his uncle mentioned there, the verse understands his father’s paternal brother, also by his aunt mentioned here, the verse speaks of his father’s paternal brother’s wife. Also his brother’s wife can be inferred from his aunt. Since by his aunt mentioned there, the verse speaks of his father’s paternal brother’s wife, also by his brother’s wife mentioned here, the verse speaks of his paternal brother’s wife. So far following Rebbi Aqiba. Following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Ismael stated: It is said here his brother’s wife and it is said there, a man who would take his brother’s wife, she is niddah. Since a menstruating woman will be permitted after being forbidden, also his [paternal] brother’s wife may be permitted [after being forbidden.] This excludes his maternal brother’s wife, who cannot be permitted after being forbidden.

Rebbi Yose said, it was necessary that his aunt be mentioned separately, to exclude his mother’s brother’s wife. What is the reason? It is said here his aunt, and it is said there, either his uncle or his uncle’s son shall freehim. Since by his uncle mentioned there, the verse understands his father’s paternal brother, also by his aunt mentioned here, the verse speaks of his father’s paternal brother’s wife. Also his brother’s wife can be inferred from his aunt. Since by his aunt mentioned there, the verse speaks of his father’s paternal brother’s wife, also by his brother’s wife mentioned here, the verse speaks of his paternal brother’s wife. So far following Rebbi Aqiba. Following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Ismael stated: It is said here his brother’s wife and it is said there, a man who would take his brother’s wife, she is niddah. Since a menstruating woman will be permitted after being forbidden, also his [paternal] brother’s wife may be permitted [after being forbidden.] This excludes his maternal brother’s wife, who cannot be permitted after being forbidden.

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.

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.

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.

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.

HALAKHAH: “A man who had sexual relations with a male.” From where the warning for a person having sexual relations with a male? With a male you shall not sleep in women’s ways. From where extirpation? For anybody who would commit any of these abominations will be extirpated, etc. Punishment from where? A man who would sleep with a male in women’s ways, an abomination did both of them commit; they shall be put to death; their blood be on them. You learn their blood be on them from their blood be on them. That is for the active one. For the passive one from where? With a male you shall not sleep in women’s ways, read: to be slept with. So far following Rebbi Aqiba. Following Rebbi Ismael? There shall be no qadeš among the sons of Israel. From where extirpation for the passive homosexual following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Abbahu. It says here qadeš and it says there, also a qadeš was in the land. You learn qadeš from qadeš and qadeš from abomination. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: Abomination from abomination. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, a baraita states this: Both committed an abomination. Both are stoned, both are subject to warning, both by extirpation.

HALAKHAH: “A man who had sexual relations with a male.” From where the warning for a person having sexual relations with a male? With a male you shall not sleep in women’s ways. From where extirpation? For anybody who would commit any of these abominations will be extirpated, etc. Punishment from where? A man who would sleep with a male in women’s ways, an abomination did both of them commit; they shall be put to death; their blood be on them. You learn their blood be on them from their blood be on them. That is for the active one. For the passive one from where? With a male you shall not sleep in women’s ways, read: to be slept with. So far following Rebbi Aqiba. Following Rebbi Ismael? There shall be no qadeš among the sons of Israel. From where extirpation for the passive homosexual following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Abbahu. It says here qadeš and it says there, also a qadeš was in the land. You learn qadeš from qadeš and qadeš from abomination. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: Abomination from abomination. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, a baraita states this: Both committed an abomination. Both are stoned, both are subject to warning, both by extirpation.

From where the warning for a person having sexual relations with an animal? Do not give your emission into an animal to defile yourself by it. From where extirpation? For anybody who would commit any of these abominations will be extirpated, etc. Punishment from where? A man who would sleep with a animal shall be put to death. You infer their blood be on them from their blood be on them. So far following Rebbi Aqiba. Following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Ismael from his source and Rebbi Aqiba from his source. Extirpation for a male passive partner is not found for Rebbi Ismael. Punishment for a male passive partner is not found for Rebbi Ismael or Rebbi Aqiba, but it is written: One who sacrifices to the forces of nature shall be banned. Since this one is in for stoning and extirpation, also that one is in for stoning and extirpation. What is the difference between them? If one had active homosexual relations followed by passive ones, in Rebbi Ismael’s opinion he is liable only once; in Rebbi Aqiba’s opinion he is liable twice. If one had active relations with an animal followed by passive ones. Both in Rebbi Aqiba’s as in Rebbi Ismael’s opinions he is liable twice. If he had active homosexual relations with both a male and an animal he is liable twice. If he had passive homosexual relations with both a male and an animal he is liable twice. If he had simultaneous active sexual relations with two males, since both of them became guilty because of him, he is liable twice. If he had simultaneous passive sexual relations with two males, since both of them became guilty because of him, he is liable twice. It was stated: For males, an underage boy does not have the status of an adult; a young animal has the status of a fully grown one. Rebbi Eleazar said, he cannot become liable because of it unless it be three years and one day of age.

From where the warning for a person having sexual relations with an animal? Do not give your emission into an animal to defile yourself by it. From where extirpation? For anybody who would commit any of these abominations will be extirpated, etc. Punishment from where? A man who would sleep with a animal shall be put to death. You infer their blood be on them from their blood be on them. So far following Rebbi Aqiba. Following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Ismael from his source and Rebbi Aqiba from his source. Extirpation for a male passive partner is not found for Rebbi Ismael. Punishment for a male passive partner is not found for Rebbi Ismael or Rebbi Aqiba, but it is written: One who sacrifices to the forces of nature shall be banned. Since this one is in for stoning and extirpation, also that one is in for stoning and extirpation. What is the difference between them? If one had active homosexual relations followed by passive ones, in Rebbi Ismael’s opinion he is liable only once; in Rebbi Aqiba’s opinion he is liable twice. If one had active relations with an animal followed by passive ones. Both in Rebbi Aqiba’s as in Rebbi Ismael’s opinions he is liable twice. If he had active homosexual relations with both a male and an animal he is liable twice. If he had passive homosexual relations with both a male and an animal he is liable twice. If he had simultaneous active sexual relations with two males, since both of them became guilty because of him, he is liable twice. If he had simultaneous passive sexual relations with two males, since both of them became guilty because of him, he is liable twice. It was stated: For males, an underage boy does not have the status of an adult; a young animal has the status of a fully grown one. Rebbi Eleazar said, he cannot become liable because of it unless it be three years and one day of age.

From where the warning for a person having sexual relations with an animal? Do not give your emission into an animal to defile yourself by it. From where extirpation? For anybody who would commit any of these abominations will be extirpated, etc. Punishment from where? A man who would sleep with a animal shall be put to death. You infer their blood be on them from their blood be on them. So far following Rebbi Aqiba. Following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Ismael from his source and Rebbi Aqiba from his source. Extirpation for a male passive partner is not found for Rebbi Ismael. Punishment for a male passive partner is not found for Rebbi Ismael or Rebbi Aqiba, but it is written: One who sacrifices to the forces of nature shall be banned. Since this one is in for stoning and extirpation, also that one is in for stoning and extirpation. What is the difference between them? If one had active homosexual relations followed by passive ones, in Rebbi Ismael’s opinion he is liable only once; in Rebbi Aqiba’s opinion he is liable twice. If one had active relations with an animal followed by passive ones. Both in Rebbi Aqiba’s as in Rebbi Ismael’s opinions he is liable twice. If he had active homosexual relations with both a male and an animal he is liable twice. If he had passive homosexual relations with both a male and an animal he is liable twice. If he had simultaneous active sexual relations with two males, since both of them became guilty because of him, he is liable twice. If he had simultaneous passive sexual relations with two males, since both of them became guilty because of him, he is liable twice. It was stated: For males, an underage boy does not have the status of an adult; a young animal has the status of a fully grown one. Rebbi Eleazar said, he cannot become liable because of it unless it be three years and one day of age.

From where the warning for a person having sexual relations with an animal? Do not give your emission into an animal to defile yourself by it. From where extirpation? For anybody who would commit any of these abominations will be extirpated, etc. Punishment from where? A man who would sleep with a animal shall be put to death. You infer their blood be on them from their blood be on them. So far following Rebbi Aqiba. Following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Ismael from his source and Rebbi Aqiba from his source. Extirpation for a male passive partner is not found for Rebbi Ismael. Punishment for a male passive partner is not found for Rebbi Ismael or Rebbi Aqiba, but it is written: One who sacrifices to the forces of nature shall be banned. Since this one is in for stoning and extirpation, also that one is in for stoning and extirpation. What is the difference between them? If one had active homosexual relations followed by passive ones, in Rebbi Ismael’s opinion he is liable only once; in Rebbi Aqiba’s opinion he is liable twice. If one had active relations with an animal followed by passive ones. Both in Rebbi Aqiba’s as in Rebbi Ismael’s opinions he is liable twice. If he had active homosexual relations with both a male and an animal he is liable twice. If he had passive homosexual relations with both a male and an animal he is liable twice. If he had simultaneous active sexual relations with two males, since both of them became guilty because of him, he is liable twice. If he had simultaneous passive sexual relations with two males, since both of them became guilty because of him, he is liable twice. It was stated: For males, an underage boy does not have the status of an adult; a young animal has the status of a fully grown one. Rebbi Eleazar said, he cannot become liable because of it unless it be three years and one day of age.

From where the warning for a person having sexual relations with an animal? Do not give your emission into an animal to defile yourself by it. From where extirpation? For anybody who would commit any of these abominations will be extirpated, etc. Punishment from where? A man who would sleep with a animal shall be put to death. You infer their blood be on them from their blood be on them. So far following Rebbi Aqiba. Following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Ismael from his source and Rebbi Aqiba from his source. Extirpation for a male passive partner is not found for Rebbi Ismael. Punishment for a male passive partner is not found for Rebbi Ismael or Rebbi Aqiba, but it is written: One who sacrifices to the forces of nature shall be banned. Since this one is in for stoning and extirpation, also that one is in for stoning and extirpation. What is the difference between them? If one had active homosexual relations followed by passive ones, in Rebbi Ismael’s opinion he is liable only once; in Rebbi Aqiba’s opinion he is liable twice. If one had active relations with an animal followed by passive ones. Both in Rebbi Aqiba’s as in Rebbi Ismael’s opinions he is liable twice. If he had active homosexual relations with both a male and an animal he is liable twice. If he had passive homosexual relations with both a male and an animal he is liable twice. If he had simultaneous active sexual relations with two males, since both of them became guilty because of him, he is liable twice. If he had simultaneous passive sexual relations with two males, since both of them became guilty because of him, he is liable twice. It was stated: For males, an underage boy does not have the status of an adult; a young animal has the status of a fully grown one. Rebbi Eleazar said, he cannot become liable because of it unless it be three years and one day of age.

From where the warning for a person having sexual relations with an animal? Do not give your emission into an animal to defile yourself by it. From where extirpation? For anybody who would commit any of these abominations will be extirpated, etc. Punishment from where? A man who would sleep with a animal shall be put to death. You infer their blood be on them from their blood be on them. So far following Rebbi Aqiba. Following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Ismael from his source and Rebbi Aqiba from his source. Extirpation for a male passive partner is not found for Rebbi Ismael. Punishment for a male passive partner is not found for Rebbi Ismael or Rebbi Aqiba, but it is written: One who sacrifices to the forces of nature shall be banned. Since this one is in for stoning and extirpation, also that one is in for stoning and extirpation. What is the difference between them? If one had active homosexual relations followed by passive ones, in Rebbi Ismael’s opinion he is liable only once; in Rebbi Aqiba’s opinion he is liable twice. If one had active relations with an animal followed by passive ones. Both in Rebbi Aqiba’s as in Rebbi Ismael’s opinions he is liable twice. If he had active homosexual relations with both a male and an animal he is liable twice. If he had passive homosexual relations with both a male and an animal he is liable twice. If he had simultaneous active sexual relations with two males, since both of them became guilty because of him, he is liable twice. If he had simultaneous passive sexual relations with two males, since both of them became guilty because of him, he is liable twice. It was stated: For males, an underage boy does not have the status of an adult; a young animal has the status of a fully grown one. Rebbi Eleazar said, he cannot become liable because of it unless it be three years and one day of age.

Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked of Rebbi Zeˋira: For what reason did Rebbi Ismael and Rebbi Aqiba disagree about a male and an animal but did not disagree about any incest prohibition? He told him, because for all incest prohibitions it is written blood relative, and about these it is not written blood relative. They objected: About the menstruating woman it is not written blood relative; did they disagree about her? Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: For it is written approach, approach; it is as if all were here and there. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Aba in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: To the wife in the separation of her impurity you shall not come near to uncover her nakedness. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, “not to come near” is “not to uncover.”

HALAKHAH: “The blasphemer is not liable,” etc. From where a warning for the blasphemer? You shall not curse God. Extirpation from where? Anybody who curses his God shall bear his sin. Punishment from where? He who curses the Name of the Eternal shall be put to death. But according to Rebbi Ismael, since Rebbi Ismael said that the verse refers to judges? If he is warned about judges, then so much more about [divine] substitute names. If he is subject to extirpation for substitute names, so much more for the Unique Name. Some Tannaïm state: for substitute names warning and extirpation, for the Unique Name the death penalty. Some Tannaïm state: for substitute names warning, for the Unique Name the death penalty or extirpation. He who says, for substitute names warning and extirpation, you shall not curse God and anybody who curses his God shall bear his sin by extirpation; for the Unique Name the death penalty, he who curses the Name of the Eternal shall be put to death. He who says, for substitute names warning, you shall not curse God, for the Unique Name the death penalty or extirpation, he who curses the Name of the Eternal shall be put to death; anybody who curses his God shall bear his sin, etc.

HALAKHAH: “The blasphemer is not liable,” etc. From where a warning for the blasphemer? You shall not curse God. Extirpation from where? Anybody who curses his God shall bear his sin. Punishment from where? He who curses the Name of the Eternal shall be put to death. But according to Rebbi Ismael, since Rebbi Ismael said that the verse refers to judges? If he is warned about judges, then so much more about [divine] substitute names. If he is subject to extirpation for substitute names, so much more for the Unique Name. Some Tannaïm state: for substitute names warning and extirpation, for the Unique Name the death penalty. Some Tannaïm state: for substitute names warning, for the Unique Name the death penalty or extirpation. He who says, for substitute names warning and extirpation, you shall not curse God and anybody who curses his God shall bear his sin by extirpation; for the Unique Name the death penalty, he who curses the Name of the Eternal shall be put to death. He who says, for substitute names warning, you shall not curse God, for the Unique Name the death penalty or extirpation, he who curses the Name of the Eternal shall be put to death; anybody who curses his God shall bear his sin, etc.

HALAKHAH: “The intruder by stealth,” etc. Rebbi Ismael stated: This is one of three verses which in the Torah have been formulated as a simile: If he gets up and walks outside on his support. If the thief is found in the digging, if the sun shone on him, he has blood. Does the sun shine only on him? Does the sun not shine on all beings in the world? But just as sunshine is special in that it brings peace to the entire world, so in any case in which you know that you are at peace with him, whether it be day or night his killer will be killed. If sometimes he comes to steal, sometimes he comes to kill, you say that if certainly he comes to steal, his killer will be killed? Since sometimes he comes to kill, he may be killed. From here you argue about danger to life, to say that just as (foreign worship) is special in that it defiles the Land, desecrates the Name, removes the Divine Presence, and doubts are disregarded, so much more that doubts have to be disregarded in cases of danger to life.

They said, what was asked of Rebbi Yose also can be asked of Rebbi Ismael since it was stated in the name of Rebbi Ismael: If she became widowed, divorced, desecrated, and a whore in this order: when afterwards he copulated with her, he is liable only once. If she whored, was desecrated, and after that he copulated with her, he is liable for every single [transgression]. If she became widowed and divorced simultaneously, how does Rebbi Ismael treat this? The more severe and the lesser, how does Rebbi Ismael treat this? Two simultaneous prohibitions, how does Rebbi Ismael treat this?

They said, what was asked of Rebbi Yose also can be asked of Rebbi Ismael since it was stated in the name of Rebbi Ismael: If she became widowed, divorced, desecrated, and a whore in this order: when afterwards he copulated with her, he is liable only once. If she whored, was desecrated, and after that he copulated with her, he is liable for every single [transgression]. If she became widowed and divorced simultaneously, how does Rebbi Ismael treat this? The more severe and the lesser, how does Rebbi Ismael treat this? Two simultaneous prohibitions, how does Rebbi Ismael treat this?

They said, what was asked of Rebbi Yose also can be asked of Rebbi Ismael since it was stated in the name of Rebbi Ismael: If she became widowed, divorced, desecrated, and a whore in this order: when afterwards he copulated with her, he is liable only once. If she whored, was desecrated, and after that he copulated with her, he is liable for every single [transgression]. If she became widowed and divorced simultaneously, how does Rebbi Ismael treat this? The more severe and the lesser, how does Rebbi Ismael treat this? Two simultaneous prohibitions, how does Rebbi Ismael treat this?

They said, what was asked of Rebbi Yose also can be asked of Rebbi Ismael since it was stated in the name of Rebbi Ismael: If she became widowed, divorced, desecrated, and a whore in this order: when afterwards he copulated with her, he is liable only once. If she whored, was desecrated, and after that he copulated with her, he is liable for every single [transgression]. If she became widowed and divorced simultaneously, how does Rebbi Ismael treat this? The more severe and the lesser, how does Rebbi Ismael treat this? Two simultaneous prohibitions, how does Rebbi Ismael treat this?

They said, what was asked of Rebbi Yose also can be asked of Rebbi Ismael since it was stated in the name of Rebbi Ismael: If she became widowed, divorced, desecrated, and a whore in this order: when afterwards he copulated with her, he is liable only once. If she whored, was desecrated, and after that he copulated with her, he is liable for every single [transgression]. If she became widowed and divorced simultaneously, how does Rebbi Ismael treat this? The more severe and the lesser, how does Rebbi Ismael treat this? Two simultaneous prohibitions, how does Rebbi Ismael treat this?

“One who copulates with a Gentile woman,” etc. Rebbi Ismael stated: This is one who marries a Gentile woman, sires children, and from her raises enemies of the Omnipresent. It is written: Phineas ben Eleazar ben Aharon the priest saw. What did he see? He understood what happened and remembered practice: “One who copulates with a Gentile woman, zealots strike him.” It was stated: not with the agreement of the Sages. Would Phineas act against the Sages? Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi said, they wanted to excommunicate him had not the Holy Spirit jumped on him and declared that an eternal covenant of priesthood shall be for him and his descendants after him, etc.

Rebbi Matthew ben Ḥarash asked Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah in the Academy. He told him, did you hear the four types of Atonement which Rebbi Ismael explained? He answered him, there are three in addition to repentance. One verse says, return, naughty children, I shall heal your waywardness. But another verse says, for on that day, He shall pardon you, to cleanse you. And another verse says, I shall visit their crime with the rod, and their iniquity with plagues. And another verse says, the iniquity of this people shall not be atoned for until you die. How is this? If somebody violates a positive commandment and repents, immediately before he moves from there the Holy One, praise to Him, would forgive him. About this one it says, return, naughty children, I shall heal your waywardness. If one transgresses a prohibition, repentance suspends judgment, and the Day of Atonement pardons. About this one it says, for on that day, He shall pardon you, etc. If one intentionally transgressed [sins punishable by] extirpations or death penalties, repentance and the Day of Atonement pardon half, and sufferings pardon half. About this one it says, I shall visit their crime with the rod, etc. But by whom the Name of Heaven was desecrated, there is no power in repentance to suspend judgment, nor in the Day of Atonement to pardon, nor in sufferings to scour; but repentance and the Day of Atonement pardon a third, and suffering a third, and death scours a third. About this one it says, the iniquity of this people shall not be atoned for until you die. From this we learn that death scours.

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

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

Rebbi Ismael stated: In the Torah there are forbidden matters and permitted matters. There are easy parts and severe parts. But in the words of the Sopherim all are severe. You can realize that this is so since we have stated: “He who says that there are no phylacteries, to transgress the words of the Torah, is not prosecutable. Five compartments to add to the words of the Sopherim is punishable.” Rebbi Ḥinena, the son of Rebbi Ada, in the name of Rebbi Tanḥum bar Ḥiyya: The words of the Sages carry more weight than those of the prophets since it is written, do not preach, they preach. And it is written, I shall preach to you for wine and liquor. The relation of prophet and scholar can be compared to the case of a king who sent two diplomatarii to a province. About one of them it was written, if he does not show you my seal and σημαντήριον, do not believe him. About the other it was written, even if he does not show you my seal and σημαντήριον, believe him. So about a prophet is written, he gives you a sign or miracle. But here it is written, according to the teachings that they will teach you.

Rebbi Mana said it without attribution; Rebbi Abin in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: We did state two principles which do not compare. “There are two kinds of oaths which are four kinds”; one has to bring four sacrifices. “There are two kinds of appearances of skin disease which are four kinds”; one has to bring two sacrifices. Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Abin explained it otherwise: “There are two kinds of oaths which are four kinds” was said by Rebbi Aqiba; “there are two kinds of appearances of skin disease which are four kinds” by Rebbi Ismael. Rebbi Ḥaggai asked before Rebbi Yose: why do I need to follow Rebbi Ismael? Does it not come even following Rebbi Aqiba? Knowing and forgetting about impurity of the Sanctuary is the same as knowing and forgetting about impurity of sancta. He told him, does not Rebbi Ismael have forgetting impurity and forgetting the Sanctuary, and we want to follow Rebbi Aqiba? Sometimes there is forgetting impurity and forgetting the Sanctuary but he is liable for only one sacrifice. How is this? If one became impure, realized it, then forgot about impurity, entered the Sanctuary, and left; then he became aware. Here is forgetting impurity and forgetting the Sanctuary but he is liable for only one sacrifice. Sometimes there are many forgettings of impurity and many forgettings of the Sanctuary but he is liable for only one [sacrifice]. How [is this]? If one became impure and realized it, then forgot and while being oblivious of impurity entered the Sanctuary and left; then he became aware. He said, there is no sacrifice due for this impurity. Again he became impure and realized it, then forgot and while being oblivious of impurity entered the Sanctuary and left even several times; in the end he became aware. Here are many forgettings of impurity and forgettings of the Sanctuary but he is liable for only one [sacrifice].

Rebbi Mana said it without attribution; Rebbi Abin in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: We did state two principles which do not compare. “There are two kinds of oaths which are four kinds”; one has to bring four sacrifices. “There are two kinds of appearances of skin disease which are four kinds”; one has to bring two sacrifices. Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Abin explained it otherwise: “There are two kinds of oaths which are four kinds” was said by Rebbi Aqiba; “there are two kinds of appearances of skin disease which are four kinds” by Rebbi Ismael. Rebbi Ḥaggai asked before Rebbi Yose: why do I need to follow Rebbi Ismael? Does it not come even following Rebbi Aqiba? Knowing and forgetting about impurity of the Sanctuary is the same as knowing and forgetting about impurity of sancta. He told him, does not Rebbi Ismael have forgetting impurity and forgetting the Sanctuary, and we want to follow Rebbi Aqiba? Sometimes there is forgetting impurity and forgetting the Sanctuary but he is liable for only one sacrifice. How is this? If one became impure, realized it, then forgot about impurity, entered the Sanctuary, and left; then he became aware. Here is forgetting impurity and forgetting the Sanctuary but he is liable for only one sacrifice. Sometimes there are many forgettings of impurity and many forgettings of the Sanctuary but he is liable for only one [sacrifice]. How [is this]? If one became impure and realized it, then forgot and while being oblivious of impurity entered the Sanctuary and left; then he became aware. He said, there is no sacrifice due for this impurity. Again he became impure and realized it, then forgot and while being oblivious of impurity entered the Sanctuary and left even several times; in the end he became aware. Here are many forgettings of impurity and forgettings of the Sanctuary but he is liable for only one [sacrifice].

Rebbi Mana said it without attribution; Rebbi Abin in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: We did state two principles which do not compare. “There are two kinds of oaths which are four kinds”; one has to bring four sacrifices. “There are two kinds of appearances of skin disease which are four kinds”; one has to bring two sacrifices. Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Abin explained it otherwise: “There are two kinds of oaths which are four kinds” was said by Rebbi Aqiba; “there are two kinds of appearances of skin disease which are four kinds” by Rebbi Ismael. Rebbi Ḥaggai asked before Rebbi Yose: why do I need to follow Rebbi Ismael? Does it not come even following Rebbi Aqiba? Knowing and forgetting about impurity of the Sanctuary is the same as knowing and forgetting about impurity of sancta. He told him, does not Rebbi Ismael have forgetting impurity and forgetting the Sanctuary, and we want to follow Rebbi Aqiba? Sometimes there is forgetting impurity and forgetting the Sanctuary but he is liable for only one sacrifice. How is this? If one became impure, realized it, then forgot about impurity, entered the Sanctuary, and left; then he became aware. Here is forgetting impurity and forgetting the Sanctuary but he is liable for only one sacrifice. Sometimes there are many forgettings of impurity and many forgettings of the Sanctuary but he is liable for only one [sacrifice]. How [is this]? If one became impure and realized it, then forgot and while being oblivious of impurity entered the Sanctuary and left; then he became aware. He said, there is no sacrifice due for this impurity. Again he became impure and realized it, then forgot and while being oblivious of impurity entered the Sanctuary and left even several times; in the end he became aware. Here are many forgettings of impurity and forgettings of the Sanctuary but he is liable for only one [sacrifice].

From where that they can be joined one to the other? Rebbi Mana said, the Sages counted them as two and counted them as four. Just as two can be joined one to the other so also four can be joined one to the other. Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Abin: If it can be joined to what is not of its kind, so much more of its own kind. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun said, it is not written “they will be” but “it will be”. This teaches that they cannot be joined one to the other. Ḥizqiah stated: It is not written “skin diseases” but “skin disease”. This teaches that they cannot be joined one to the other.” “He said to him, they could have said ‘starting with eggshell and stronger it is impure’ but should not have said, ‘there are two kinds of appearances of skin disease which are four kinds.’ He answered him, it teaches that they are not one superior to the other.” Could they not be one superior to the other? If you say so, you would have said the darkened one is impure, the very darkened is impure. But the Torah said, behold, the diseased spot darkened. The darkened one is impure but the very much darkened is pure. It follows what Rebbi Ḥanina said, it is comparable to two kings and their two lieutenants. One king is greater then the other king, one lieutenant is greater than the other lieutenant. But the first one’s lieutenant is not greater than the other king. Samuel said, it is comparable to two kings and two of their ambassadors. One king is greater then the other king, one ambassador is greater than the other ambassador. But the first one’s ambassador is not greater than the other king. Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of Rav (Aḥa) [Ada] bar Aḥawa: A king, and his army commander, and the Arghabeṭa and the Head of the Captivity. Rebbi Eleasar ben Rebbi Yose said before Rebbi Yose: The Mishnah implies that one is no greater than the other. If s´et whose very darkened spot is pure has a second color, the shiny spot, whose very darkened spot is impure, certainly will have a second color. He answered him, look at what you are saying. It has a second degree; should it not also have a third? What causes you to say that the very white spot, whose very darkened spot is impure, is the s´et? The kind of s´et is like eggshell. “שְׂאֵ֤ת, this is s´et. בַהֶ֔רֶת, this is the shiny spot. סַפַּ֨חַת֙ is secondary to the shiny spot. [The diseased spot’s] look is deepened, secondary to s´et. What is the etymology of s´et? Elevated. As the shadow looks elevated compared to the sunny spot. What is the etymology of deepened? It is deep, as the sunny spot looks depressed compared to the shadow. What is the etymology of סַפַּ֨חַת֙? Adjunct. As it is said, adjoin me please to one of the priesthoods, etc.” Rebbi Eleazar said, these are the words of Rebbi Ismael and Rebbi Aqiba. But the words of the Sages are that s´et and the shiny spot are one. Sappaḥat is secondary to either one. The Mishnah says so: “Mispaḥat is turned into s´et or strong mispaḥat.”

HALAKHAH: “In any case where there is knowledge at the start,” etc. From where that we require knowledge at the start and at the end but forgetting in between? The verse says, it was forgotten, it was forgotten two times; this implies that he had knowledge at the start and at the end but forgetting in between. So far for Rebbi Aqiba; following Rebbi Ismael? For Rebbi Ismael [argues] like Rebbi. As Rebbi said, it was forgotten by him, this implies that he knows. “But he knew,” there is knowledge two times. Hence Rebbi Ismael [argues] like Rebbi, and Rebbi like Rebbi Ismael. This comes even according to Rebbi Aqiba; it is the same for knowledge and forgetting about the impurity of the Sanctuary as for knowledge and forgetting about the impurity of sancta. But some want to understand it from the following: He knew and felt guilty. Was it not already said, he became impure and felt guilty? But if it does not refer to knowledge at the beginning, let it refer to knowledge at the end.

HALAKHAH: “In any case where there is knowledge at the start,” etc. From where that we require knowledge at the start and at the end but forgetting in between? The verse says, it was forgotten, it was forgotten two times; this implies that he had knowledge at the start and at the end but forgetting in between. So far for Rebbi Aqiba; following Rebbi Ismael? For Rebbi Ismael [argues] like Rebbi. As Rebbi said, it was forgotten by him, this implies that he knows. “But he knew,” there is knowledge two times. Hence Rebbi Ismael [argues] like Rebbi, and Rebbi like Rebbi Ismael. This comes even according to Rebbi Aqiba; it is the same for knowledge and forgetting about the impurity of the Sanctuary as for knowledge and forgetting about the impurity of sancta. But some want to understand it from the following: He knew and felt guilty. Was it not already said, he became impure and felt guilty? But if it does not refer to knowledge at the beginning, let it refer to knowledge at the end.

HALAKHAH: “In any case where there is knowledge at the start,” etc. From where that we require knowledge at the start and at the end but forgetting in between? The verse says, it was forgotten, it was forgotten two times; this implies that he had knowledge at the start and at the end but forgetting in between. So far for Rebbi Aqiba; following Rebbi Ismael? For Rebbi Ismael [argues] like Rebbi. As Rebbi said, it was forgotten by him, this implies that he knows. “But he knew,” there is knowledge two times. Hence Rebbi Ismael [argues] like Rebbi, and Rebbi like Rebbi Ismael. This comes even according to Rebbi Aqiba; it is the same for knowledge and forgetting about the impurity of the Sanctuary as for knowledge and forgetting about the impurity of sancta. But some want to understand it from the following: He knew and felt guilty. Was it not already said, he became impure and felt guilty? But if it does not refer to knowledge at the beginning, let it refer to knowledge at the end.

HALAKHAH: “In any case where there is knowledge at the start,” etc. From where that we require knowledge at the start and at the end but forgetting in between? The verse says, it was forgotten, it was forgotten two times; this implies that he had knowledge at the start and at the end but forgetting in between. So far for Rebbi Aqiba; following Rebbi Ismael? For Rebbi Ismael [argues] like Rebbi. As Rebbi said, it was forgotten by him, this implies that he knows. “But he knew,” there is knowledge two times. Hence Rebbi Ismael [argues] like Rebbi, and Rebbi like Rebbi Ismael. This comes even according to Rebbi Aqiba; it is the same for knowledge and forgetting about the impurity of the Sanctuary as for knowledge and forgetting about the impurity of sancta. But some want to understand it from the following: He knew and felt guilty. Was it not already said, he became impure and felt guilty? But if it does not refer to knowledge at the beginning, let it refer to knowledge at the end.

Rebbi Matthew ben Ḥarash asked Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah in the Academy, did you hear the four types of Atonement which Rebbi Ismael explained? He answered him, there are three in addition to repentance. One verse says, return, naughty children, etc. But another verse says, for on that day, He shall pardon you, etc. And another verse says, I shall visit their crime with the rod, etc. And another verse says, the iniquity of this people shall not be atoned for until you die. How is this? If somebody violates a positive commandment and repents, before he moves from there it will be forgiven to him. About this one it says, return, naughty children, etc. If one transgresses a prohibition and immediately repents, repentance suspends judgment, and the Day of Atonement pardons. About this one it says, for onthat day, He shall pardon you. If one intentionally transgressed [sins punishable by] extirpations or death penalties, repentance and the Day of Atonement atone half, and sufferings atone half. About this one it says, I shall visit their crime with the rod, and their iniquities with plagues. But by whom the Name of Heaven was desecrated, there is no power in repentance to suspend judgment, nor in the Day of Atonement to pardon, nor in sufferings to scour; but repentance and the Day of Atonement suspend, and death scours with sufferings. About this one it says, the iniquity of this people shall not be atoned for until you die. From this we learn that death scours.

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

HALAKHAH: “The kinds of awareness of impurity,” etc. Rebbi Jeremiah asked: It is obvious about the last awareness, until he knows that he is liable to bring a sacrifice for it. Is the same true for the first awareness? Let us hear from the following: Two paths, one impure and one pure. He walked on one of them, entered the Sanctuary, left, sprinkled repeatedly, immersed himself, walked on the second one, and entered the Sanctuary; he is liable and he knows that he is liable to bring a sacrifice for it. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, this is Rebbi Ismael’s who said that he is liable for forgetting impurity and forgetting the Sanctuary. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, we thought that one could say that Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said this if he was certain that he was impure, he had forgotten the impurity and entered the Sanctuary. But not if it was in doubt whether he was impure or pure, he was oblivious of the Sanctuary and entered the Sanctuary. Since Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, this is Rebbi Ismael’s who said that he is liable for forgetting impurity and forgetting the Sanctuary: this implies even if it was in doubt whether he was impure or pure. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is everybody’s opinion since a doubt of awareness is awareness. Since at a time when he does not know whether he was impure or pure you say it is certain knowledge, if he knows for certain that he is impure but does not know whether he is liable for a sacrifice then certainly this should be awareness.

HALAKHAH: “The kinds of awareness of impurity,” etc. Rebbi Jeremiah asked: It is obvious about the last awareness, until he knows that he is liable to bring a sacrifice for it. Is the same true for the first awareness? Let us hear from the following: Two paths, one impure and one pure. He walked on one of them, entered the Sanctuary, left, sprinkled repeatedly, immersed himself, walked on the second one, and entered the Sanctuary; he is liable and he knows that he is liable to bring a sacrifice for it. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, this is Rebbi Ismael’s who said that he is liable for forgetting impurity and forgetting the Sanctuary. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, we thought that one could say that Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said this if he was certain that he was impure, he had forgotten the impurity and entered the Sanctuary. But not if it was in doubt whether he was impure or pure, he was oblivious of the Sanctuary and entered the Sanctuary. Since Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, this is Rebbi Ismael’s who said that he is liable for forgetting impurity and forgetting the Sanctuary: this implies even if it was in doubt whether he was impure or pure. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is everybody’s opinion since a doubt of awareness is awareness. Since at a time when he does not know whether he was impure or pure you say it is certain knowledge, if he knows for certain that he is impure but does not know whether he is liable for a sacrifice then certainly this should be awareness.

MISHNAH: Rebbi Eliezer says, the crawling animal and he became oblivious, he is liable for forgetting the crawling animal but is not liable for forgetting the Sanctuary. Rebbi Aqiba says, and he became oblivious while he was impure, he is liable for forgetting impurity but is not liable for forgetting the Sanctuary. Rebbi Ismael says, and he became oblivious, and he became oblivious, two times to make him liable for forgetting impurity and forgetting the Sanctuary.

HALAKHAH: “There are two kinds of oaths which are four kinds,” etc. One understands “that I shall eat, or that I shall not eat.” “That I ate, or that I did not eat”? Where do we stand? If it is known that he ate and he swore that he did not eat, it is a false oath. But if he was of the opinion that he ate and swore that he did not eat? Rebbi Abba, Rav Jehudah in the name of Rav: If he is inadvertent for its sacrifice or intentional for its sacrifice. But “I was of the opinion that this is not an oath” is permitted. But it must be that he was intentional in the deed but in error about the sacrifice. Did not Rebbi Abbahu say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Intentional about fat and in error about the sacrifice, one warns him, he is flogged and has to bring a sacrifice. This is impossible, as Rebbi La said in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: So did Rebbi Ismael answer Rebbi Aqiba: Do we find a situation where one is liable if intentional because of a false oath and in oblivion because of blurting? Should not Rebbi Aqiba retort, we find a situation where one is liable if intentional because of a false oath and he brings a sacrifice? But we deal here with the case that he was sure that he ate, and he swore, and it turned out that he had not eaten. Not about him who said that this is not an oath? There, if he says this is not an oath; but here if he knows that this is an oath but he errs because of something else.

MISHNAH: Whether matters of himself, or matters of others, or material matters, or immaterial matters. How is this? An oath that I shall give to X, or that I shall not give, that I gave, or that I did not give, that I shall sleep, or that I shall not sleep, that I slept, or that I did not sleep, that I shall throw a pebble into the sea, or that I shall not throw, that I threw, or that I did not throw. Rebbi Ismael said, he is liable only for the future, for it is said to cause evil or cause good. Rebbi Aqiba said to him, if it is so then this refers only to matters of causing evil or good; from where matters which do not refer to causing evil or good? He answered him, from the additional text of the verse. He answered, just as the additional text of the verse is for this, the additional text of the verse is for the other.

HALAKHAH: He wants to teach himself a pretext. “Whether matters of himself,” etc. Rebbi Abba in the name of Samuel: “An oath that X gave a mina to Y,” and it turns out that he did not give, since it was not in his power for the future, it is not in his power for the past. Rebbi Yose objected, about phylacteries there is nothing about the future but there is about the past! He told him, phylacteries came from another source. To cause evil or cause good; just as doing good is optional so doing bad is optional; this excludes anything involving a prohibition or anything involving a permission. Anything which one will blurt out, excluding a minor. A person in an oath, excluding a person not acting at his own will. And it will be forgotten by him, he will be oblivious of the oath. Or could I think that the object was forgotten by him? The verse says, in an oath and it was forgotten by him; he is liable for forgetting the oath; he is not liable for forgetting the object. Could one not add forgetting the object to forgetting the oath so that he should be liable? What is the difference between this and forgetting impurity and forgetting the Sanctuary so that he should be liable twice following Rebbi Ismael, who said forgetting impurity and forgetting the Sanctuary? There it is written it was forgotten by him, it was forgotten by him twice. Here it is written it was forgotten by him once. I could think that one who swears to the detriment of others should be liable: the verse says, to cause evil or cause good; just as doing good is optional so doing bad is optional. I shall exclude one who swears to the detriment of another that he should not be liable. For example, if one swears that he will not provide food for another. He saw him in convulsions and gave to him.

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.

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.

Rebbi Jehudah said, I heard that if the judge wants to let both of them sit, he may tell them to sit down. What is forbidden is that not one be standing and the other sitting; one says everything he has to say, but to the other one says, make your statement short. Rebbi Ismael says, one says to him, either you dress as he is dressed or pay him to be dressed as you are.

From where following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Ismael stated: The congregation shall judge between the beater, etc. The congregation be neither relatives of the murderer nor relatives of the murdered. Rebbi Yose said, otherwise you would say that the court is engaged in vendetta. This implies that the judges may not be related to the accused. And from where that the witnesses may not be related to the accused? The Torah said, kill on the testimony of witnesses, kill on the sentence of those who vote. Since judges may not be related to the accused, neither may witnesses be related to the accused. From where that witnesses may not be relatives of one another? Think of it, if they be found perjured, would they not be killed by each other’s testimony?

From where following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Ismael stated: The congregation shall judge between the beater, etc. The congregation be neither relatives of the murderer nor relatives of the murdered. Rebbi Yose said, otherwise you would say that the court is engaged in vendetta. This implies that the judges may not be related to the accused. And from where that the witnesses may not be related to the accused? The Torah said, kill on the testimony of witnesses, kill on the sentence of those who vote. Since judges may not be related to the accused, neither may witnesses be related to the accused. From where that witnesses may not be relatives of one another? Think of it, if they be found perjured, would they not be killed by each other’s testimony?

From where two witnesses? And he is a witness, this makes two. Following Rebbi Ismael, who said, any place where the Torah mentions a witness without further determination it implies two witnesses; unless the verse informs you that a single witness is meant. It was found stated in the name of Rebbi Ismael: “Two witnesses.” Can a single witness be found guilty of a blurted oath? Since it is possible to say that one person could team up with him, then he would be subject to the oath of testimony, you could find him liable for an oath of testimony. How could you find him guilty of a blurted oath?

From where two witnesses? And he is a witness, this makes two. Following Rebbi Ismael, who said, any place where the Torah mentions a witness without further determination it implies two witnesses; unless the verse informs you that a single witness is meant. It was found stated in the name of Rebbi Ismael: “Two witnesses.” Can a single witness be found guilty of a blurted oath? Since it is possible to say that one person could team up with him, then he would be subject to the oath of testimony, you could find him liable for an oath of testimony. How could you find him guilty of a blurted oath?

Rebbi Ismael stated: He has to bear his punishment, a sacrifice. From where that one needs a court? “Telling, telling”. Since telling mentioned there is before a court, also telling here is before a court.

Some want to understand it from here: An ox, or a donkey, or a sheep. Since these are particular in that they are subject to breaking, kidnapping, and dying, this excludes real estate which is not subject to breaking, kidnapping, and dying. I shall exclude real estate but shall not exclude slaves. Since these are particular in that they are subject to a fine, this excludes slaves which are not subject to a fine. I shall exclude slaves but shall not exclude documents since they are subject to fines. Since these are particular in that they are subject to overcharging, this excludes documents which are not subject to overcharging. From here they say, if somebody sells documents to the spice trader, it is subject to claims of overcharging. Rebbi Ismael explained: Or a person, if he would swear, a general statement. To cause evil or cause good, a detail. Anything which a person will blurt out, a repeat 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 about monetary claims, [originating] from himself, which can be collected by court order, having monetary value, which is a fixed value, and are movables, and one is not liable for punishment and fines. Monetary claims, excluding one who said to another, give me the 200 denar which you promised me but never gave. [Originating] from himself, excluding one who said to another, you cursed me and shamed me, who is not liable. Which can be collected by court order, excluding one who said to another, you raped or seduced X’s daughter. It has monetary value, excluding documents. Which is a fixed value, excluding slaves. Movables, excluding real estate. One is not liable for punishment, excluding one who said to another, you set fire to my grain stack on the Sabbath; who is not liable. One is not liable for fines, excluding double, quadruple, or quintuple restitution which are fines.

May one claim extraordinary things? One may, following what Rebbi Joḥanan said, a person may be rich on the market place and poor in his house; rich in his house and poor in the market place. There is one who poses as richand has nothing, poses as poor and has great wealth. Rebbi Abba told: Bar Ziza’s sharecropper deposited a pound of gold with somebody. Bar Ziza and Bar Ziza’s sharecropper died; the case came before Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose. Would one not say that all that Bar Ziza’s sharecropper had was Bar Ziza’s property? It should be given to Bar Ziza’s sons. Bar Ziza’s sons came. He said, the adult ones should take half and when the underage grow up they should take half. Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose died; the case came before the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya who said, that argument means nothing since there are people who do not advertise themselves. It should be given to the sharecropper’s sons. The trustee told him, I already disbursed half of it. He told him, what you gave, you gave by court order and what you will give, you will give by court order. May the sharecropper’s sons say to Bar Ziza’s sons, give us what you took? They can tell them, what was done was done by court order. May the underage ones say to the adult, let us share with you? May they tell them, we found a find? Rebbi Isaac said, the case between the adult and underage ones is only comparable to a gift given to them.

May one claim extraordinary things? One may, following what Rebbi Joḥanan said, a person may be rich on the market place and poor in his house; rich in his house and poor in the market place. There is one who poses as richand has nothing, poses as poor and has great wealth. Rebbi Abba told: Bar Ziza’s sharecropper deposited a pound of gold with somebody. Bar Ziza and Bar Ziza’s sharecropper died; the case came before Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose. Would one not say that all that Bar Ziza’s sharecropper had was Bar Ziza’s property? It should be given to Bar Ziza’s sons. Bar Ziza’s sons came. He said, the adult ones should take half and when the underage grow up they should take half. Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose died; the case came before the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya who said, that argument means nothing since there are people who do not advertise themselves. It should be given to the sharecropper’s sons. The trustee told him, I already disbursed half of it. He told him, what you gave, you gave by court order and what you will give, you will give by court order. May the sharecropper’s sons say to Bar Ziza’s sons, give us what you took? They can tell them, what was done was done by court order. May the underage ones say to the adult, let us share with you? May they tell them, we found a find? Rebbi Isaac said, the case between the adult and underage ones is only comparable to a gift given to them.

It is written, if a man give to his neighbor a donkey, or an ox, or a sheep etc. An oath before the Eternal shall be between the two of them. Stolen, if it was stolen stealing from him. Lost, and if, to include the lost one. So far following Rebbi Aqiba. Following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Ismael stated: Since you say that he pays for theft which is close to duress, for loss which is not close to duress not so much more?

It is written, if a man give to his neighbor a donkey, or an ox, or a sheep etc. An oath before the Eternal shall be between the two of them. Stolen, if it was stolen stealing from him. Lost, and if, to include the lost one. So far following Rebbi Aqiba. Following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Ismael stated: Since you say that he pays for theft which is close to duress, for loss which is not close to duress not so much more?

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.

Rebbi Joḥanan asked: May the oath of a deviant woman be liable for a blurted oath? Where do we hold? If she is in error in sin and oath she is not deviant. If she is intentional in sin and error there is no sacrifice. Rav follows Rebbi Aqiba. If Rebbi Ismael would argue like Rebbi Meïr it would follow, since Rebbi Meïr said: “Amen that I was not defiled, Amen that I shall not be defiled.” But you may question this.

MISHNAH: Within three days before Gentile holidays one is forbidden to trade with them, to lend them and to borrow from them, to give them loans and to ask them for loans, to pay debts to them and to accept payment from them. Rebbi Jehudah says, one may accept payment from them because this hurts him. They told him, even though it hurts him now he will enjoy it later. Rebbi Ismael says, three days before and three days afterwards are forbidden but the Sages say, before their holidays it is forbidden, after their holidays it is permitted.

The colleagues say, the reason of Rebbi Ismael is because of the holiday’s son. Rebbi Abba said, because he knows that it is forbidden to you to trade with him, he reduces the enjoyment of his holiday. What is the difference between them? To sell them things which do not keep. In the opinion of the colleagues it is forbidden. In the opinion of Rebbi Abba it is allowed. Rebbi Yudan said, a verse supports what the colleagues said. On the twenty-fourth day of the seventh month the sons of Israel assembled in fasting, and crying, and in sackcloth, and dirt on them. Why does it not say, on the twenty-third? Because of the holiday’s son. If you want to say because that was on a Sabbath, you cannot do this, because then the Great Fast would have been on a Sunday. And what about this? Does not Rebbi Onias make light of him who would move it from its place? Rebbi Joḥanan ben Madia said, I computed it and it was not on a Sabbath.

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

It happened that Eleazar ben Dama was bitten by a snake and Jacob from Kefar-Sama came to heal him (,and told him, I shall speak to you) in the name of Jesus ben Pandera. Rebbi Ismael said to him, Ben Dama you are not allowed. He told him, I shall bring a proof that he can heal me. He could not bring proof before he died. Rebbi Ismael said to him, you are blessed, ben Dama, that you left this world in peace and did not tear down the fences of the Sages, (to confirm) as it is written, he who tears down a fence will be bitten by a snake. But did not a snake bite him? But that it will not bite him in the Future World. What could he have said? Which a person should do and live by them.

It happened that Eleazar ben Dama was bitten by a snake and Jacob from Kefar-Sama came to heal him (,and told him, I shall speak to you) in the name of Jesus ben Pandera. Rebbi Ismael said to him, Ben Dama you are not allowed. He told him, I shall bring a proof that he can heal me. He could not bring proof before he died. Rebbi Ismael said to him, you are blessed, ben Dama, that you left this world in peace and did not tear down the fences of the Sages, (to confirm) as it is written, he who tears down a fence will be bitten by a snake. But did not a snake bite him? But that it will not bite him in the Future World. What could he have said? Which a person should do and live by them.

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

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

MISHNAH: Rebbi Jehudah said, Rebbi Ismael asked Rebbi Joshua when they were walking on a road, why did they forbid Gentiles’ cheeses? He told him, because they make them with stomach of cadaver. He answered him, is not the stomach of an elevation offering more serious than the stomach of a cadaver and they said, a Cohen who is not repulsed may burn it raw; they did not agree to this but said one has no usufruct but does not commit larceny. He gave a second argument and said, because they curd it with stomach content of calves for pagan worship. He retorted, then why did they not forbid it for usufruct? He deflected him to an other subject and said to him, my brother Ismael, how do you read, for your (m.) friends are better than wine, or for your (f.) friends are better than wine? He told him, for your (f.) friendship is better. He answered, it is not so since the next verse implies it, by the scent of your (m.) good oils.

MISHNAH: Rebbi Jehudah said, Rebbi Ismael asked Rebbi Joshua when they were walking on a road, why did they forbid Gentiles’ cheeses? He told him, because they make them with stomach of cadaver. He answered him, is not the stomach of an elevation offering more serious than the stomach of a cadaver and they said, a Cohen who is not repulsed may burn it raw; they did not agree to this but said one has no usufruct but does not commit larceny. He gave a second argument and said, because they curd it with stomach content of calves for pagan worship. He retorted, then why did they not forbid it for usufruct? He deflected him to an other subject and said to him, my brother Ismael, how do you read, for your (m.) friends are better than wine, or for your (f.) friends are better than wine? He told him, for your (f.) friendship is better. He answered, it is not so since the next verse implies it, by the scent of your (m.) good oils.

HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Jehudah said, Rebbi Ismael asked Rebbi Joshua,” etc. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Because [most] calves there are slaughtered in the name of pagan worship. Rebbi Joḥanan heard this and said, my teacher taught us well, since if one slaughters for pagan worship even its excrement is forbidden. Rebbi Joḥanan asked, if one found a ring in it? Rebbi Yose said, a ring is recognizable; excrement is part of its body.

Rebbi Ismael stated: In the Torah there are forbidden matters and permitted matters. There are easy parts and severe parts. But in the words of the Sopherim all are severe, since we have stated: “He who says that there are no phylacteries, to transgress the words of the Torah, is not prosecutable. Five compartments to add to the words of the Sopherim is punishable.” Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of Rebbi Idi in the name of Rebbi Tanḥum bar Ḥiyya: The words of the Sages carry more weight than those of the prophets since it is written, do not preach, they preach. And it is written,I shall preach to you for wine and liquor. The relation of prophet and scholar can be compared to the case of a king who sent two seals to a province. About one of them he wrote, if he does not show you my seal and σημαντήριον, do not believe him. About the other he wrote, even if he does not show you my seal and σημαντήριον, believe him. So about a prophet is written, he gives you a sign or miracle. But here it is written, according to the teachings that they will teach you.

Why did he not tell him? Because they prohibited it recently and Rebbi Ismael was young.