isolated

Everyone can become impure from negaim, except for a non-Jew and a resident alien. All are qualified to inspect negaim, but only a priest may declare them unclean or clean. He is told, "Say: 'unclean,'" and he repeats "unclean," or "Say: 'clean,'" and he repeats "clean." Two negaim may not be inspected simultaneously whether in one man or in two men; rather he inspects one first and isolates him, certifies him as unclean or pronounces him clean, and then he inspects the second. One who is isolated may not be isolated again nor may one who is certified unclean be certified unclean again. One who is certified unclean may not be isolated nor may one who is isolated be certified unclean. But in the beginning, or at the end of a week, he may isolate on account of the one nega and isolate him on account of another one; he may certify him unclean on account of one sign and also certify him unclean on account of another sign; he may isolated the one sign and declare the other clean, or certify the one unclean and declare the other clean.

Everyone can become impure from negaim, except for a non-Jew and a resident alien. All are qualified to inspect negaim, but only a priest may declare them unclean or clean. He is told, "Say: 'unclean,'" and he repeats "unclean," or "Say: 'clean,'" and he repeats "clean." Two negaim may not be inspected simultaneously whether in one man or in two men; rather he inspects one first and isolates him, certifies him as unclean or pronounces him clean, and then he inspects the second. One who is isolated may not be isolated again nor may one who is certified unclean be certified unclean again. One who is certified unclean may not be isolated nor may one who is isolated be certified unclean. But in the beginning, or at the end of a week, he may isolate on account of the one nega and isolate him on account of another one; he may certify him unclean on account of one sign and also certify him unclean on account of another sign; he may isolated the one sign and declare the other clean, or certify the one unclean and declare the other clean.

Everyone can become impure from negaim, except for a non-Jew and a resident alien. All are qualified to inspect negaim, but only a priest may declare them unclean or clean. He is told, "Say: 'unclean,'" and he repeats "unclean," or "Say: 'clean,'" and he repeats "clean." Two negaim may not be inspected simultaneously whether in one man or in two men; rather he inspects one first and isolates him, certifies him as unclean or pronounces him clean, and then he inspects the second. One who is isolated may not be isolated again nor may one who is certified unclean be certified unclean again. One who is certified unclean may not be isolated nor may one who is isolated be certified unclean. But in the beginning, or at the end of a week, he may isolate on account of the one nega and isolate him on account of another one; he may certify him unclean on account of one sign and also certify him unclean on account of another sign; he may isolated the one sign and declare the other clean, or certify the one unclean and declare the other clean.

Everyone can become impure from negaim, except for a non-Jew and a resident alien. All are qualified to inspect negaim, but only a priest may declare them unclean or clean. He is told, "Say: 'unclean,'" and he repeats "unclean," or "Say: 'clean,'" and he repeats "clean." Two negaim may not be inspected simultaneously whether in one man or in two men; rather he inspects one first and isolates him, certifies him as unclean or pronounces him clean, and then he inspects the second. One who is isolated may not be isolated again nor may one who is certified unclean be certified unclean again. One who is certified unclean may not be isolated nor may one who is isolated be certified unclean. But in the beginning, or at the end of a week, he may isolate on account of the one nega and isolate him on account of another one; he may certify him unclean on account of one sign and also certify him unclean on account of another sign; he may isolated the one sign and declare the other clean, or certify the one unclean and declare the other clean.

Everyone can become impure from negaim, except for a non-Jew and a resident alien. All are qualified to inspect negaim, but only a priest may declare them unclean or clean. He is told, "Say: 'unclean,'" and he repeats "unclean," or "Say: 'clean,'" and he repeats "clean." Two negaim may not be inspected simultaneously whether in one man or in two men; rather he inspects one first and isolates him, certifies him as unclean or pronounces him clean, and then he inspects the second. One who is isolated may not be isolated again nor may one who is certified unclean be certified unclean again. One who is certified unclean may not be isolated nor may one who is isolated be certified unclean. But in the beginning, or at the end of a week, he may isolate on account of the one nega and isolate him on account of another one; he may certify him unclean on account of one sign and also certify him unclean on account of another sign; he may isolated the one sign and declare the other clean, or certify the one unclean and declare the other clean.

A bright spot the size of a split bean spread to the extent of a split bean, and in the spreading there appeared quick flesh or white hair, while the original spot disappeared: Rabbi Akiva says: it is unclean. But the sages say: it must be inspected as a new one. A bright spot the size of half a split bean with nothing in it, and then there appeared a bright spot the size of half a split bean and with one hair, this is to be isolated. A bright spot the size of half a split bean with one hair and then there appeared another spot of the size of a half a split bean with one hair, this is to be isolated. A bright spot the size of half a split bean with two hairs and another spot of the size of half a split bean appeared with one hair, this is to be isolated.

A bright spot the size of a split bean spread to the extent of a split bean, and in the spreading there appeared quick flesh or white hair, while the original spot disappeared: Rabbi Akiva says: it is unclean. But the sages say: it must be inspected as a new one. A bright spot the size of half a split bean with nothing in it, and then there appeared a bright spot the size of half a split bean and with one hair, this is to be isolated. A bright spot the size of half a split bean with one hair and then there appeared another spot of the size of a half a split bean with one hair, this is to be isolated. A bright spot the size of half a split bean with two hairs and another spot of the size of half a split bean appeared with one hair, this is to be isolated.

A bright spot the size of a split bean spread to the extent of a split bean, and in the spreading there appeared quick flesh or white hair, while the original spot disappeared: Rabbi Akiva says: it is unclean. But the sages say: it must be inspected as a new one. A bright spot the size of half a split bean with nothing in it, and then there appeared a bright spot the size of half a split bean and with one hair, this is to be isolated. A bright spot the size of half a split bean with one hair and then there appeared another spot of the size of a half a split bean with one hair, this is to be isolated. A bright spot the size of half a split bean with two hairs and another spot of the size of half a split bean appeared with one hair, this is to be isolated.

Any doubtful nega is regarded as clean, except this case and one other. Which is that? If he had a bright spot of the size of a split bean and he was isolated, and by the end of the week it was as big as a sela, and it is doubtful whether it is the original one or whether another came in its place, he must be regarded as unclean.

If a bright spot was the size of a split bean and quick flesh the size of a lentil encompassed it, and outside the quick flesh there was another bright spot, the inner one must be isolated and the outer one must be certified unclean. Rabbi Yose says: the quick flesh is not a sign of uncleanness for the outer one, since the inner bright spot is within it. If it decreased or disappeared: Rabban Gamaliel says: if its destruction was on its inner side it is a sign of spreading of the inner bright spot while the outer one is clean, but if its destruction was on its outer side, the outer one is clean while the inner one must be isolated. Rabbi Akiva says: in either case it is clean.

If a bright spot was the size of a split bean and quick flesh the size of a lentil encompassed it, and outside the quick flesh there was another bright spot, the inner one must be isolated and the outer one must be certified unclean. Rabbi Yose says: the quick flesh is not a sign of uncleanness for the outer one, since the inner bright spot is within it. If it decreased or disappeared: Rabban Gamaliel says: if its destruction was on its inner side it is a sign of spreading of the inner bright spot while the outer one is clean, but if its destruction was on its outer side, the outer one is clean while the inner one must be isolated. Rabbi Akiva says: in either case it is clean.

A bright spot in which there were no signs of uncleanness: At the beginning, or at the end of the first week, he is isolated; At the end of the second week or after it had been pronounced clean, he is pronounced clean. If while the priest was about to isolate him or to pronounce him clean, signs of uncleanness appeared in it, he certifies him as unclean. A bright spot in which there are signs of uncleanness, he certifies him as unclean. If while the priest was about to certify it as unclean the signs of uncleanness disappeared: If at the beginning, or at the end of the first week, he isolates him; But if at the end of the second week or after the spot had been pronounced clean, he is pronounced clean.

One who plucks out signs of uncleanness or burns quick flesh transgresses a negative commandment. And as regards cleanness: If they were plucked out before he came to the priest, he is clean; But if after he had been certified as unclean, he remains unclean. Rabbi Akiva said: I asked Rabban Gamaliel and Rabbi Joshua while they were on the way to Narbata, "What is the ruling if the plucking occurred while he was isolated?" They said to me, "We did not hear anything [about this case], but we have heard that if they were plucked before he came to the priest he is clean, and if after he had been certified as unclean he remains unclean." I began to bring them proofs: whether the man stands before the priest or whether he is isolated, he is clean unless the priest had pronounced him unclean. When does he attain cleanness [after he has been certified unclean]? Rabbi Eliezer says: after another nega arises in him and he has attained cleanness after it. But the sages says: only after another nega has spread over his whole body or after his bright spot has been reduced to less than the size of a split bean.

One who plucks out signs of uncleanness or burns quick flesh transgresses a negative commandment. And as regards cleanness: If they were plucked out before he came to the priest, he is clean; But if after he had been certified as unclean, he remains unclean. Rabbi Akiva said: I asked Rabban Gamaliel and Rabbi Joshua while they were on the way to Narbata, "What is the ruling if the plucking occurred while he was isolated?" They said to me, "We did not hear anything [about this case], but we have heard that if they were plucked before he came to the priest he is clean, and if after he had been certified as unclean he remains unclean." I began to bring them proofs: whether the man stands before the priest or whether he is isolated, he is clean unless the priest had pronounced him unclean. When does he attain cleanness [after he has been certified unclean]? Rabbi Eliezer says: after another nega arises in him and he has attained cleanness after it. But the sages says: only after another nega has spread over his whole body or after his bright spot has been reduced to less than the size of a split bean.

One who came [in front of the priest] with all his body white is isolated. If white hair grew, he is certified unclean. If both hairs or one of them turned black, If both or one of them became short, If a boil adjoined both or one of them, If a boil surrounded both or one of them, Or if a boil, the quick flesh of a boil, a burn, the quick flesh of a burn, or white scurf divided them [he is pure]. If quick flesh or white hair arose, he is unclean; But if neither quick flesh nor white hair arose he is clean. In all these cases if the ends of his limbs reappeared he remains as he was before. If the nega broke out, covering a part of him, he is unclean. If it broke out covering all of them, he is clean.

If it broke out covering all of his skin all at once: If this originated in a condition of cleanness, he is unclean; But if it originated in a condition of uncleanness, he is clean. One who becomes clean after having been isolated is exempt from the uncovering his head and rending his clothes, from shaving his hair and from bringing the birds. If he becomes clean after he had been certified unclean, he is liable to all these. Both convey uncleanness by entering.

They asked R. Eliezer: "[What is the ruling concerning] one who had a bright spot the size of a sela form on the inside of his hand and it covered up the scar of a boil?" He replied: "He should be isolated." They said to him: "Why? Since it is neither capable of growing white hair nor can it effectively spread nor does quick flesh cause it to be unclean?" He replied, "It is possible that it will contract and then spread again." They said to him, "But what about when its only the size of a split bean?' He said to them: I have not heard anything. Rabbi Judah ben Batera said to him, "Can I teach something about this?" He replied, "If you would thereby confirm the ruling of the sages, go ahead." He said, "Lest another boil would arise outside it and spread into it. He replied: "You are a great scholar for you have confirmed the words of the sages."

[A nega] that remained unchanged during the first week must be washed and isolated. One that remains unchanged during the second week must be burned. One that spread during the first or the second week must be burned. If it becomes dimmer in the beginning: Rabbi Ishmael says: it should be washed and isolated. But the sages say: he is not required [to do so]. If the nega became dimmer during the first week it must be washed and isolated. If it became dimmer during the second week it must be torn out, and that which is torn out must be burnt, and it is necessary for a patch to be put on. Rabbi Nehemiah says: a patch is not necessary.

[A nega] that remained unchanged during the first week must be washed and isolated. One that remains unchanged during the second week must be burned. One that spread during the first or the second week must be burned. If it becomes dimmer in the beginning: Rabbi Ishmael says: it should be washed and isolated. But the sages say: he is not required [to do so]. If the nega became dimmer during the first week it must be washed and isolated. If it became dimmer during the second week it must be torn out, and that which is torn out must be burnt, and it is necessary for a patch to be put on. Rabbi Nehemiah says: a patch is not necessary.

[A nega] that remained unchanged during the first week must be washed and isolated. One that remains unchanged during the second week must be burned. One that spread during the first or the second week must be burned. If it becomes dimmer in the beginning: Rabbi Ishmael says: it should be washed and isolated. But the sages say: he is not required [to do so]. If the nega became dimmer during the first week it must be washed and isolated. If it became dimmer during the second week it must be torn out, and that which is torn out must be burnt, and it is necessary for a patch to be put on. Rabbi Nehemiah says: a patch is not necessary.

If the nega reappears on the garment, the patch is protected. If it reappears on the patch the garment must be burned. One who makes a patch from a garment that was isolated and then pronounced pure, and then the nega reappeared on the garment, the patch must be burned. If it reappeared on the patch, the first garment must be burned, and the patch serves the second garment while the two signs are under observation.

If a garment that had been isolated was mixed up with others, all are clean. If it was cut up and made into shreds, it is clean, and benefit may be derived from it. But if a garment that had been certified unclean was mixed up with others, all are unclean. If it was cut up and made into shreds it also remains unclean and it is forbidden to have any benefit from it.

A house that has been isolated conveys uncleanness from its inside; And one that has been certified unclean, both from its inside and from its outside. Both convey uncleanness if one enters in.

If one who builds in cleanliness with stones from a house that was isolated and the nega returned to the [former] house, the stones must be taken out. If it returned to the stones, the first house must be torn down, and the stones serve the second house while the signs are under observation.

It should mention the olive tree but not the vineyard. If it would mention olive tree but not vineyard, I would say that the olive tree, which is not subject to the rule of isolated berries, is subject to peah, but that vines, which are subject to the rule of isolated berries, are not subject to peah. Lo, the mention of the vineyard is needed. Or if it would mention vineyard but not olive tree, I would say that vines which are subject to the rule of isolated berries are subject to peah, but that the olive tree which is not subject to the rule of isolated berries is not subject to peah. Lo, the mention of the olive tree and of the vineyard is needed.

It should mention the olive tree but not the vineyard. If it would mention olive tree but not vineyard, I would say that the olive tree, which is not subject to the rule of isolated berries, is subject to peah, but that vines, which are subject to the rule of isolated berries, are not subject to peah. Lo, the mention of the vineyard is needed. Or if it would mention vineyard but not olive tree, I would say that vines which are subject to the rule of isolated berries are subject to peah, but that the olive tree which is not subject to the rule of isolated berries is not subject to peah. Lo, the mention of the olive tree and of the vineyard is needed.

It should mention the olive tree but not the vineyard. If it would mention olive tree but not vineyard, I would say that the olive tree, which is not subject to the rule of isolated berries, is subject to peah, but that vines, which are subject to the rule of isolated berries, are not subject to peah. Lo, the mention of the vineyard is needed. Or if it would mention vineyard but not olive tree, I would say that vines which are subject to the rule of isolated berries are subject to peah, but that the olive tree which is not subject to the rule of isolated berries is not subject to peah. Lo, the mention of the olive tree and of the vineyard is needed.

It should mention the olive tree but not the vineyard. If it would mention olive tree but not vineyard, I would say that the olive tree, which is not subject to the rule of isolated berries, is subject to peah, but that vines, which are subject to the rule of isolated berries, are not subject to peah. Lo, the mention of the vineyard is needed. Or if it would mention vineyard but not olive tree, I would say that vines which are subject to the rule of isolated berries are subject to peah, but that the olive tree which is not subject to the rule of isolated berries is not subject to peah. Lo, the mention of the olive tree and of the vineyard is needed.

From the olive tree one may infer peah for all trees. From the vineyard one should infer the rule of isolated berries for all trees. (Just as from the olive tree one infers peah for all trees so one should infer the rule of isolated berries for all trees from the vineyard.) Rebbi Abun said, any property that is common to both yields an inference but any property that is [not] common to both yields no inference.

From the olive tree one may infer peah for all trees. From the vineyard one should infer the rule of isolated berries for all trees. (Just as from the olive tree one infers peah for all trees so one should infer the rule of isolated berries for all trees from the vineyard.) Rebbi Abun said, any property that is common to both yields an inference but any property that is [not] common to both yields no inference.

It is fine according to the opinion of Rebbi Ismael. Since Rebbi Ismael established: Everything that was in a set and left the set to be applied to a new rule, is removed from the set and forms a new one; it is necessary that peah should be mentioned for the vineyard. But for the rabbis who say, it remains in its set and keeps its special status, why is peah mentioned for the vineyard? Rebbi Abin said, if only the vineyard were singled out, the question would be valid. But now that vineyard and olive tree are singled out, if it would mention olive tree but not vineyard, I would say that the olive tree, which is not subject to the rule of isolated berries, is subject to peah, but that vines, which are subject to the rule of isolated berries, are not subject to peah.

It is fine according to the opinion of Rebbi Ismael. Since Rebbi Ismael established: Everything that was in a set and left the set to be applied to a new rule, is removed from the set and forms a new one; it is necessary that peah should be mentioned for the vineyard. But for the rabbis who say, it remains in its set and keeps its special status, why is peah mentioned for the vineyard? Rebbi Abin said, if only the vineyard were singled out, the question would be valid. But now that vineyard and olive tree are singled out, if it would mention olive tree but not vineyard, I would say that the olive tree, which is not subject to the rule of isolated berries, is subject to peah, but that vines, which are subject to the rule of isolated berries, are not subject to peah.

MISHNAH: What are dropped berries? Anything that drops during vintage. If he was gathering grapes, cut off the bunch, it got mixed up in the leaves, fell to the ground and scattered, that belongs to the proprietor. He who puts a basket under the vine while he is gathering grapes robs the poor, and about him it was said (Prov. 22:28, 23:10): “Do not displace an eternal boundary.” What is a gleaning of grapes? Anything that has no shoulder and no dropping. If it has either shoulder or dropping it belongs to the proprietor, in case of doubt it belongs to the poor. A gleaning on a cut branch, if it can be cut off together with a bunch it belongs to the proprietor, otherwise to the poor. An isolated berry, Rebbi Jehudah says, it is considered a bunch, but the sages say, a gleaning.

Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked before Rebbi Joḥanan: What is the status of additional heave? He said to him, I am stating that as an isolated opinion. Do you mean for obligation or for freeing? If you say for obligation, that is understandable. If you say for freeing, if even Rebbi Jehudah, who permits from the non-earmarked, frees it, then the rabbis, who do not agree [to take] from the non-earmarked, certainly must so hold. Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish came: The additional heave is subject to tithes. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah said so. Rebbi Zeïra said to Rebbi Assi, which Mishnah? He did not answer him. He said to him, maybe that which we stated: “If he gave heave and it turned out to be one in sixty-one, this is heave and he does not have to give more.” Did we not state on this: “If he added, it is subject to tithes”?

It was stated: One marks a fourth-year vineyard with lumps of earth because it is temporary, one of ‘orlah with potsherds because it has to last longer; graves with whitewash because it has to last still longer. Rebbi Ḥalaphta ben Shaul stated: If [the ‘orlah trees] were isolated, one hangs amphora handles on them.

And Rebbi Jeremiah said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, who is the Tanna of the leavened matter of Samaritans? Rebbi Eliezer! And Rebbi Yose said to Rebbi Ḥanina Eyntanaya: Do you remember that you and Rebbi Jeremiah said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, who is the Tanna of the leavened matter of Samaritans? Rebbi Eliezer! But we do not say so, since Rebbi Hila said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, they treated leavened matter of Samaritans following Rebbi Eliezer. In addition from the following: Rebbi Ḥanina said, my father Rebbi Abbahu had a case; he sent to Rebbi Ḥiyya, Rebbi Assi, and Rebbi Ammi, and they instructed him according to Rebbi Eliezer. Would they instruct according to an isolated opinion? But it is that they treated leavened matter of Samaritans following Rebbi Eliezer.

Rebbi Aḥa bar Isaac went bathing with Abba bar Mamal at the Three Graces. He saw a man sprinkling on himself. He told him, in this way it is forbidden on the Sabbath since he increases vapor and sweeps the floor. Rebbi Abbahu said, others were sprinkling and it fell on him. He answered, but Rebbi Levontin went bathing with Rebbi Jonah. He saw a man sprinkling on himself. He told him, we do not have to be concerned about an isolated opinion.

In Rebbi Eliezer’s opinion, should he not give it its name and then take it down? It will be forbidden to move it. Then should he not take it down and then give it its name? Maybe he would forget and eat it. Should he not take it down, then give it its name, and with another piece put it in an isolated corner, following what we did state there, “one may move impure heave together with pure one or with profane food”? It cannot be compared; there impure for the needs of pure, but here profane for the needs of impure. The colleagues asked, could he not throw it onto the garbage heap and then dedicate it? May a person dedicate what is not his? Then could he not dedicate it and throw it on the garbage heap? Can a person declare ownerless something that is not his?

HALAKHAH: Simeon bar Abba said, there came a case before Rebbi Joḥanan and he instructed following Rebbi Yose. Rebbi Eleazar was sorry about this; he said, does one disregard the anonymous {Mishnah} and follow an isolated opinion? He found that Rebbi Ḥiyya stated this in the name of Rebbi Meïr. When he understood that Rebbi Ḥiyya stated this in the name of Rebbi Meïr., he said, the old man understands his chapters well. Rebbi Mana asked before Rebbi Yudan: Did not Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Abbahu say in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, every place where Rebbi taught a disagreement and afterwards taught it anonymously, practice follows the anonymous statement. He said to him, and if not Rebbi, maybe somebody else. How is this? If it is found that Rebbi taught a disagreement and afterwards taught it anonymously, then practice follows the anonymous statement. In a case where Rebbi did not teach a disagreement but others taught it in disagreement and Rebbi taught it anonymously, certainly practice has to follow the anonymous text. There come Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Simeon bar Abba, in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, every place where Rebbi taught a disagreement and afterwards taught it anonymously, practice follows the anonymous statement. Why does he instruct here following the isolated opinion? Rebbi Samuel bar Ina in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: That is, if no disagreement is stated together with the anonymous opinion. But if a disagreement is stated together with the anonymous opinion, practice does not follow the anonymous opinion. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: that is if an individual disagrees with an individual. But in the case of an individual following the {anonymous} Sages, practice does not follow the anonymous text.

HALAKHAH: Simeon bar Abba said, there came a case before Rebbi Joḥanan and he instructed following Rebbi Yose. Rebbi Eleazar was sorry about this; he said, does one disregard the anonymous {Mishnah} and follow an isolated opinion? He found that Rebbi Ḥiyya stated this in the name of Rebbi Meïr. When he understood that Rebbi Ḥiyya stated this in the name of Rebbi Meïr., he said, the old man understands his chapters well. Rebbi Mana asked before Rebbi Yudan: Did not Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Abbahu say in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, every place where Rebbi taught a disagreement and afterwards taught it anonymously, practice follows the anonymous statement. He said to him, and if not Rebbi, maybe somebody else. How is this? If it is found that Rebbi taught a disagreement and afterwards taught it anonymously, then practice follows the anonymous statement. In a case where Rebbi did not teach a disagreement but others taught it in disagreement and Rebbi taught it anonymously, certainly practice has to follow the anonymous text. There come Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Simeon bar Abba, in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, every place where Rebbi taught a disagreement and afterwards taught it anonymously, practice follows the anonymous statement. Why does he instruct here following the isolated opinion? Rebbi Samuel bar Ina in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: That is, if no disagreement is stated together with the anonymous opinion. But if a disagreement is stated together with the anonymous opinion, practice does not follow the anonymous opinion. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: that is if an individual disagrees with an individual. But in the case of an individual following the {anonymous} Sages, practice does not follow the anonymous text.

HALAKHAH: It is written: The glory of the Eternal dwelt on Mount Sinai; the cloud covered it for six days; He called to Moses on the Seventh Day. Moses ascended. The Seventh after the Ten Commandments, the start of the Forty. Moses said to them, I shall be occupied on the Mountain for 40 days. When the fortieth day came and he did not come, immediately the people saw that Moses tarried in descending from the Mountain. When noontime came and he did not come, immediately the people congregated on Aaron and said to him, rise and make us gods which shall go before us, etc. The Eternal said to Moses, descend, for your people corrupted, etc. And Joshua heard the sound of the people in its dealings; he said to Moses, there is sound of war in the camp. Moses said, a man who in the future will rule over 600’000 does not know to distinguish between sound and sound? He said, there is no sound of shouts of strength nor sound of sounds of weakness, a sound of shouts I am hearing. Rebbi Yasa said, a sound of acclaim of foreign worship I am hearing. Rebbi Yudan in the name of Rebbi Yasa: There is no generation in which there is not an ounce of the sin of the Calf. It was when he approached the camp that he saw the Calf and fifes. Rebbi Ḥilkiah in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: From here that a person should not argue from guesses. Moses made an argument de minore ad majus. Since for the pesaḥ sacrifice, which is an isolated obligation, it is said no uncircumcised may eat from it, the Torah in which all commandments are contained not so much more? Moses got angry and he threw the tablets from his hand and broke them below the Mountain. Rebbi Ismael stated, the Holy One, praise to Him, told him to break them, [as it is said,] I shall write on the tablets the words which were on the first tablets luckily you broke. He said to him, you did well that you broke. Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: The tablets were six hand-breadths long and three wide. Moses held two hand-breadth, the Holy One, praise to Him two hand-breadth, and two hand-breadths of space were between them. When Israel sinned in that way, the Holy One wanted to seize them from Moses’s hand, but Moses’s hand had the better of it and seized them from Him. That is what the verse praises him at the end and says, and all the strong hand, peace shall be on the hand which had the better on mine. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Abbai: the tablets wanted to fly off but Moses held them, [as is written,] I grabbed the two tablets. It was stated in the name of Rebbi Nehemiah, the writing itself flew off. Rebbi Ezra in the name of Rebbi Jehudah ben Rebbi Simon: The tablets were a load of forty seah but the writing was carrying them. When the writing flew off they were too heavy for Moses’s hands, they fell, and broke.

Simeon bar Abba said, there came a case before Rebbi Joḥanan and he instructed following Rebbi Yose. Rebbi Eleazar was sorry about this; he said, does one disregard the anonymous {Mishnah} and follow an isolated opinion? He found that Rebbi Ḥiyya stated this in the name of Rebbi Meïr. When he understood that Rebbi Ḥiyya stated this in the name of Rebbi Meïr, he said, the old man understands his chapters well. Rebbi Mana asked before Rebbi Yudan: Did not Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Abbahu say in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, every place where Rebbi taught a disagreement and afterwards taught it anonymously, practice follows the anonymous statement. He said to him, and if not Rebbi, maybe somebody else. How is this? If it is found that Rebbi taught a disagreement and afterwards taught it anonymously, then practice follows the anonymous statement. In a case where Rebbi did not teach a disagreement but others taught it in disagreement and Rebbi taught it anonymously, certainly practice has to follow the anonymous text. There come Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, every place where Rebbi taught a disagreement and afterwards taught it anonymously, practice follows the anonymous statement. Why does he instruct here following the isolated opinion? Rebbi Samuel bar Ina in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: That is, if no disagreement is stated together with the anonymous opinion. But if a disagreement is stated together with the anonymous opinion, practice does not follow the anonymous opinion.

Simeon bar Abba said, there came a case before Rebbi Joḥanan and he instructed following Rebbi Yose. Rebbi Eleazar was sorry about this; he said, does one disregard the anonymous {Mishnah} and follow an isolated opinion? He found that Rebbi Ḥiyya stated this in the name of Rebbi Meïr. When he understood that Rebbi Ḥiyya stated this in the name of Rebbi Meïr, he said, the old man understands his chapters well. Rebbi Mana asked before Rebbi Yudan: Did not Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Abbahu say in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, every place where Rebbi taught a disagreement and afterwards taught it anonymously, practice follows the anonymous statement. He said to him, and if not Rebbi, maybe somebody else. How is this? If it is found that Rebbi taught a disagreement and afterwards taught it anonymously, then practice follows the anonymous statement. In a case where Rebbi did not teach a disagreement but others taught it in disagreement and Rebbi taught it anonymously, certainly practice has to follow the anonymous text. There come Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, every place where Rebbi taught a disagreement and afterwards taught it anonymously, practice follows the anonymous statement. Why does he instruct here following the isolated opinion? Rebbi Samuel bar Ina in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: That is, if no disagreement is stated together with the anonymous opinion. But if a disagreement is stated together with the anonymous opinion, practice does not follow the anonymous opinion.

Rebbi Meїr is suspicious about bills of divorce. Rebbi Jehudah is suspicious about a child. Rebbi Yose is suspicious about bills of divorce and a child. Could you say that Rebbi Meїr is not suspicious about bills of divorce, as we have stated: “Those that had received qiddushin can be married.” Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of Rebbi Gedula: The one who repudiates does not have to wait three months; the one who leaves by a bill of divorce needs to wait three months. This supports Rebbi Me‘ir since Rebbi Meїr is suspicious about bills of divorce. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Jeremiah: A woman who has been raped does not have to wait three months. This supports Rebbi Yose, since Rebbi Yose is suspicious about bills of divorce and a child. It was stated: The proselyte, the captive, and the slave woman who were redeemed, or converted, or freed, have to wait three months, the words of Rebbi Judah. Rebbi Yose says, they do not have to wait. Their blood, Rebbi Jehudah says, makes impure 24 hours retroactively; Rebbi Yose says, from its moment onwards. Rebbi said, the words of Rebbi Judah are reasonable for the blood, and the words of Rebbi Yose for the child. Rebbi Ḥanina ben Rebbi Abbahu said, my father had a case and he asked Rebbi Ḥiyya, Rebbi Yasa, and Rebbi Immi, and they instructed him following Rebbi Yose for the child. For if it were not so, what could we say? Between Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Yose, practice does not follow Rebbi Yose? But because Rebbi said, “they are reasonable”. Did not Rebbi Abba say in the name of Rebbi Ze‘ira, every time Rebbi taught “they are reasonable”, the disagreement is unresolved except in the case of the fig cake where each party to the controversy accepts the opposition’s argument. Rebbi Yose said, I stated a difficulty before Rebbi Ḥanina ben Rebbi Abbahu: Even if it is certain that they had sex? He said to him, is a normal Gentile not like one who had sex? Simeon bar Abba said, there came a case before Rebbi Joḥanan and he instructed following Rebbi Yose. Rebbi Eleazar was sorry about this; he said, one disregards the anonymous [Mishnah] and follows an isolated opinion! He found that Rebbi Ḥiyya stated it in the name of Rebbi Meїr. He understood that following Rebbi Simeon, he found that Rebbi Ḥiyya stated it in the name of Rebbi Meїr. He said, the old man certainly understands the chapters about bills of divorce.

Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun stated in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: “If he was found standing on his bed and the knife was sticking in his heart, one did not break its neck. Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai stated, one did break its neck.” But that of Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai is of those which are so-and-so. As Rebbi Joḥanan said, all those [statements] of Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai which are so-and-so are isolated opinions and one cannot rely on them.

“The meaning of etan is “hard”, “Hard is your seat, make your nest in the rock.” “Even if it is not hard it is qualified.” Similarly, if there is no brook? Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai stated, “they shall bring down, and they shall bring down,” even if there is no brook. But that of Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai is of those which are so-and-so. As Rebbi Joḥanan said, all those [statements] of Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai which are so-and-so are isolated opinions and one cannot rely on them.

HALAKHAH: “If she inherited after she was definitively married,” etc. We did state: She may sell or give away and it is valid. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: She should not sell or give away, but if she sold or gave away it is valid. ”Rebbi Ḥanina ben Aqiba said, that is not what Rabban Gamliel gave as answer, but the following was his argument: No, if you have an argument about a preliminarily married one, where he has rights neither to what she finds, nor to her handiwork, nor to dissolve her vows, what can you say about a definitively married one where he has rights to what she finds, to her handiwork, and to dissolve her vows? Let the proof be the case of one who [inherited] before the definitive marriage and then was definitively married, in which case he has rights to what she finds, to her handiwork, and to dissolve her vows, and you admit to us that she should not sell or give away. He said to them, I agree that she should not sell or give away, but if she sold or gave away it is valid..” There came a case before Rebbi Immi. He said, is not Rabban Gamliel’s an isolated opinion? One cannot rely on it. A baraita supports him and disagrees with him: ”Our teachers took up the case again, voted, and instructed about property which she inherited before the definitive marriage and then was definitively married, that she should not sell or give away, and if she sold or gave away it is invalid.” It disagrees that the sale is invalid. It agrees that our teachers took up the case again, instructed, and voted. Before they voted, they did not disagree with him.

So far when they fell in one after the other. What can one say if they fell together? Let us hear from the following: “When is leavened matter of Samaritans permitted after Passover? Of private persons after three weekly bakings, of city bakers after three days, of rural ones after three baking loads.” Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says, even when they said of private persons after three weekly bakings, if he was an important personality or he married off his son, if he baked three loads in one week one after the other it is permitted. Even when they said of (rural) [city] bakers after three days, if he was under pressure and baked three loads one after the other, it is permitted. It was stated: Rebbi Simeon says, even when they said of rural bakers after three baking loads, it is forbidden at least three days since in the morning he prepares sourdough for the entire day.” Does the second dough not become sour from forbidden and permitted? And Rebbi Jeremiah said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, who is the Tanna of “the leavened matter of the Samaritans”? Rebbi Eliezer! And Rebbi Yose said to Rebbi Ḥanina Eyntanaya: Do you remember that you and Rebbi Jeremiah were instructing in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, who is the Tanna of “the leavened matter of the Samaritans”? Rebbi Eliezer! But here we do not instruct so but Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, they treated leavened matter of the Samaritans following Rebbi Eliezer. In addition from the following:: Rebbi Ḥananiah bar Rebbi Abbahu said, my father had a case; he sent to Rebbi Ḥiyya, and Rebbi Immi, and Rebbi Yasa, and they instructed him following Rebbi Eliezer. How? Would they instruct following an isolated opinion? No, since they treated leavened matter of the Samaritans following Rebbi Eliezer.

“Rebbi Eliezer says, the timing of any woman who misses three periods is exact.” But we stated on this: They said to him, the Sages said this only for the old woman. But did we not state: “Rebbi Eliezer said, it happened with a girl in Aitlo that she missed for three periods and then had a period. When the case came before the Sages, they said that her timing was exact.” They said to him, you were underage, and an underage boy cannot testify. Once did Rebbi decide to follow Rebbi Eliezer and he regretted it. Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose: Come and see, when he instructed following the leniencies of Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Yose, he did not regret it, but in this case he regretted? He said to him, there we deal with isolated opinions. You can say, we add his opinion to that of Rebbi Meïr to form a plurality against Rebbi Yose, and we add his opinion to that of Rebbi Yose to form a plurality against Rebbi Meïr; can you say here that we add his opinion to that of Rebbi Eliezer to form a plurality against the Sages? And in addition, it was stated on this: “It was an emergency decision.”

Rabbah b. Bar Ḥana said: Why have the words of the Torah been likened unto fire, as it is said (Jer., 23.29): "Is not My word like as fire?" In order to indicate that just as fire does not burn when isolated, so will the words of the Torah not be preserved when studied by oneself, alone. It is in keeping herewith that R. Jose b. Ḥanina said: What is the meaning of the verse (ibid., 50.36): "A sword is upon the boasters, and they shall become fools"? It means: a sword upon the necks of the enemies of the learned who are occupied in the study of the Torah each one by himself. Nay, more, they become dull, as it is said: "And they shall become fools." The same idea may be derived from the following verse (Is., 19.13): "The princes of Zoan are become fools."

Should you say that I will make a void in your kingdom, they are “scattered abroad among the peoples”. Should you say: There is some profit in them, I reply, “they are dispersed” [nifredu], like an isolated bough [peridah] that does not bear fruit. Should you say that they occupy one province, I reply, “they are in all the provinces of your kingdom”.