iyya

Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba was standing praying. Rav Cahana came and stood behind him in prayer. When Rebbi Ḥiyya had finished, he sat down in order not to walk by him. Rav Cahana spent a long time praying. After he finished, he told him, is that your way to make your teacher suffer? He told him, I am a descendant of the House of Eli, of whom it is written: if the sin of the House of Eli would be atoned for by sacrifice and offering. By sacrifice and offering it cannot be atoned for, but it can be atoned for by prayer. He prayed for him, he reached old age while his fingernails remained red like those of a small child.

Rav Huna bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rav quotes it from the words of the Torah. As all that I am showing you, the shape of the building and the shape … of all its vessels, so you shall execute. So you shall execute in all generations. Moses is king and prophet. Aaron represents Urim and Tummim. Assemble for me seventy men from the Elders of Israel, that is the Synhedrion; ask your father and he will tell you, etc. Song, after them went Hoshaia and half the officers of Judea. Thanksgiving sacrifices, I put up two large thanksgiving sacrifices being in procession going to their right on the wall going to the dung gate. Rebbi Samuel bar Yudan said, what is written, walking? No, being in procession, only being taken by others.

How did the processions go? The elder Rebbi Ḥiyya and Rebbi Simeon ben Rebbi. One said, one opposite the other; the other said, one after the other; both are explaining the same verse: The second thanksgiving sacrifice went לְמוּל and I after it. He who said, one opposite the other, and he dwells opposite me. But he who said, one after the other, he should break off its head behind its neck. For him who said, one opposite the other, it turns out that every place was purified by one thanksgiving sacrifice; for him who said, one after the other, it turns out that every place was purified by two thanksgiving sacrifices. For him who said, one after the other, this is correct following what he had stated: “the inner one is being eaten, the outer one is being burned.” For him who said, one opposite the other, what is the inner one? The one closer to the Temple. Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It was eaten on the instruction of a prophet. Rebbi Zeˋira said, they state there: Since a prophet is there, for what do I need Urim and Tummim? It was found stated: Rebbi Jehudah says, Urim and Tummim are needed.

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: “Deep sorrow” is only for the dead, for it is written: Its gates are in deep sorrow and mourning. Ḥiyya bar Ada objected: Is it not written: the fishermen are in deep sorrow? Rebbi Ḥanina said, so is the baraita: there is no deep sorrow in impurity except for the dead. It was stated: “What is deep sorrow? From the moment of death until the moment of burial, the word of Rebbi. But the Sages say, the entire day.” It turns out that one describes leniencies and stringencies following Rebbi, leniencies and stringencies following the rabbis. What is the difference between them? If he died and was buried within the hour. Following the rabbis, he is forbidden the entire day; following Rebbi he is forbidden only that hour. If he died and was buried after three days. Following the rabbis, he is forbidden the entire day; following Rebbi he is forbidden up to three days. There came Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, and Rav Ḥisda, both of whom said that Rebbi agrees with the Sages that he is forbidden only during the first day, as it was stated: Rebbi said, you know that deep mourning in the night is not biblical, since they said, “the deep mourner immerses himself and eats his Passover sacrifice in the evening.” But they said, deep mourning [during daytime] is biblical. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Huna: Explain it that he was buried close to sundown [and one cannot infer anything.]

It is written: David had a desire and said, who would give me to drink from the cistern of Bethlehem, etc. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, he questioned practice. Three broke through. Why three? For no practice can be elucidated by less than three [opinions]. But David refused to drink. David did not want that the practice would be attached to his name. He poured it out for the Eternal, he fixed it as a tractate for all generations, “he breaches fences on his way.”

One verse says, he made a libation for the Eternal, but another verse says, he covered. He who says ויסך, supports Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba. He who says, he made a libation, supports Bar Qappara. Rebbi Huna in the name of Rebbi Yose: He had a problem with the rules of captives. Rebbi Simeon ben Rebbi said, he desired to build the Temple

“If one was obligated to swear to another,” etc. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, if he told him, let your father tell it to me, then I shall have no claim on you. But if he told him: Let you father tell it, then I shall accept it; he seeks a pretext to confess to him. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, even if he told him, let you father tell it to me, then I shall accept it. We never find that testimony be accepted from the mouth of a relative.

Rebbi Ḥiyya stated restrictively. How is this implemented? If he was working in his profession all the years of the sabbatical cycle but when the Sabbatical began he became active and traded in sabbatical produce. Even if he has another profession on the side he is disqualified. This is not what Rebbi Abba bar Zavda, Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Practice follows Rebbi Jehudah of our Mishnah. Rebbi Abba bar Zavda was praised for formulating the tradition in the name of a person younger than himself. Here also should it be so? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, there the government is not oppressive, here the government is oppressive.

Rav went to sell hides for the elder Rebbi Ḥiyya. He passed by a place where he found Rebbi Joḥanan sitting and asking: We have stated, “his stepson alone.” What is the situation of his stepson’s wife, his stepdaughter’s husband? A woman is like her husband and the husband is like his wife. Therefore, the situation of his stepson’s wife is that of his stepson, and the husband is like his wife.

Rav Ḥisda asked: May one receive witnesses not in the presence of one of the parties? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Sabbatai: One may receive witnesses not in the presence of the parties and even issue a decision, but if [the absent party] appeals, their appeal must be heard. If a person was summoned by the court three times and did not appear, Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said that one may receive witnesses not in the presence of the parties and issue a decision. As the following: Cahana died and had willed his estate to Rebbi Joshia. Rebbi Eleazar heard witnesses not in the presence [of the heirs] and handed the estate to Rebbi Joshia. Not only that, but the estate contained Torah scrolls. Rebbi Eleazar wrote to his heirs: Scrolls won by the Land of Israel cannot be taken outside. Rebbi Nissai in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: If they were written for export, they can be exported. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba asked before Rebbi Yasa: May one export? He asked him, do you ask me in a practical case? He answered, no. Rebbi Zeˋira was dissatisfied that he had not asked in a practical case, to know what he would have said.

HALAKHAH: “Both civil suits,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, to protect Israel’s money they said, “tell why you know that this person owes the other.” Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba asked before Rebbi Yasa: What does one do in practice? He answered, following Rebbi Joḥanan, as Rebbi Joḥanan said, to protect Israel’s money they said, “tell why you know that this person owes the other.” Ze‘ir bar Ḥinena in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina and Rav Jehudah, one said: You shall cross-examine, investigate, and inquire well. The other said, equity, equity you shall pursue. How is that? If you see that the verdict will be the truth, investigate it; otherwise, act in equity.

Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Aḥa, said in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: It is forbidden to judge money matters on Friday. Does not a Mishnah object: “Therefore one does not judge [criminal matters] on Sabbath eve or holiday eve”? Hence, one judges money matters! Also, Rebbi Ḥiyya stated thus: One judges money matters on Friday but not criminal matters. One is for practice, the other for action.

“The Synhedrion was like a semicircular threshing floor,” etc. It is written: Do not bend your destitute’s proceeding in his trial. In his trial you do not bend; you may bend in the ox’s trial. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: But only in those rules which are different for civil and criminal suits. How many are these? We have stated nine; Rebbi Ḥiyya stated eleven. Which rules are the last two? The castrate and one who never had children is qualified to judge civil suits but not criminal suits. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Also one who is less than twenty years of age or who does not have two pubic hairs is qualified to judge civil suits but not criminal suits. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said thirteen. Which rules are the last two? One judges two civil suits on one day but one does not try two criminal suits on one day. Rebbi Abin said, even adulterer and adulteress.

Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Gamda asked: What was the gatherer’s guilt? Because of tearing off or because of reaping? Let us hear from the following: The Children of Israel were in the desert when they found … This teaches that he was tearing wood off the ground.

Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Gamda asked: How was the gatherer put to death? By stoning. Let us hear from the following: “They knew that the gatherer should be executed but they did not know how he should be put to death.” It was found that Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: Take the blasphemer outside the camp. How was he put to death? By stoning.

Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Gamda asked: How was the gatherer put to death? By stoning. Let us hear from the following: “They knew that the gatherer should be executed but they did not know how he should be put to death.” It was found that Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: Take the blasphemer outside the camp. How was he put to death? By stoning.

Rav said, if testimony was contradictory in its essence, the testimony is not void. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if testimony is contradictory in itself, the testimony is void. In the opinion of everybody, if testimony was contradictory in aspects that belong after the fact, the testimony is not void. The strength of Rebbi Joḥanan is consistent with what Rebbi Abba bar Ḥiyya said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if it was agreed that he counted but one [witness] said, he counted from a wallet, and the other said, he counted from a bundle, that contradicts the essence of the testimony, and Rav will agree that the testimony be void. Where do they disagree? If there were two groups of witnesses, one says he counted from a wallet and the other says he counted from a bundle. That contradicts the essence of the testimony: the testimony is void, but according to Rav, the testimony is not void. One said, he counted into his bosom, but the other said, he counted into his money-belt: everybody agrees that this contradicts the essence of the testimony but the testimony is not void. If one [witness] said, he killed him with a sword, the other [witness] said, he killed him with a mace, that contradicts the essence of the testimony; Rav will agree that the testimony be void. Where do they disagree? If there were two groups of witnesses, one says he killed him with a sword and the other says, he killed him with a mace. That contradicts the essence of the testimony, the testimony is void, but according to Rav, the testimony is not void. One says, he turned to the North and one says, he ran away to the South, everybody agrees that the testimony was contradictory in aspects that belong after the fact, and the testimony is not void. The strength of Rav comes from what we have stated there: “Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Simeon say, since both agree that he is not alive they can be remarried.” He did not hear that Rebbi Eleazar said, Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Simeon concede in the case of witnesses. What is the difference between witnesses and the co-wife? They do not consider the co-wife’s words compared to those of her companion. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if Rebbi Eleazar said this, he said it because he had heard it from me. The Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “Both in investigations and cross-examinations, if they contradict one another their testimony is worthless.” What does Rav do with this? Rebbi Mana said, Rav will explain it as referring to single witness against single witness. Rebbi Abun said, even if you say groups and groups. There is a difference in criminal cases, as it is written: Justice, justice you shall pursue.

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

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

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.

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.”

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.”

Rebbi Ḥiyya said that Rebbi Yasa asked: We have stated: “The herald goes before him: ‘X ben Y is led to be stoned because he committed crime Z; U and V testified against him. Anybody who knows of his innocence shall come and argue.’ ” We inferred that he who hears from one who heard has to rend. Does he who hears from one who heard from one who heard have to rend?

Does one rend his garment nowadays? Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, Rebbi Ḥisqiah, Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: When blasphemers proliferated, they stopped rending. Does one rend for substitute names today? Let us hear from the following: Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish was travelling on the highway. He met a Samaritan who was repeatedly blaspheming, and he was rending. He dismounted from the donkey and gave him a blow on his heart saying to him: Samaritan! Does your mother have garments to supply me with? [His word] This implies that one rends for substitute names and rends his garments at the present time.

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

Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Zeˋira: If he handed over but did not make to pass through, is that the disagreement between Ḥizqiah and Rebbi Joḥanan? Fore they disagreed: If he slaughtered but did not sell, Ḥizqiah said he is liable, but Rebbi Joḥanan said, he is not liable.

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

“One who has sexual relations with a preliminarily married maiden.” Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: This is Rebbi Meïr’s. But for the rabbis even if she is a minor. What is Rebbi Meïr’s reason? “Lad” is written defectively in the paragraph. How do the rabbis explain “a lad”? Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Once in the paragraph it is written a young woman; this teaches that in the entire paragraph she is an adult. Rebbi Meïr objected to the rabbis: In the matter of the calumniator, a lad is written and she is an adult since a minor is not stoned? What do the rabbis do with this? Rebbi Abin said, explain it that he came to her as a male. Rebbi Jacob bar Abba asked before Rav: What is the law of him who comes to a minor? He said to him, by stoning. What is the law of him who comes to an adult? He said to him, I am reading an adolescent, not an adult. Read an adolescent, not a minor! Do you not agree with me that she has the right to a fine? He answered, because he mistreated her, that includes a minor for a fine. Read because he mistreated her, that includes an adult for a fine! Rav said, even though Rebbi Jacob bar Abba won the logical argument, practice is that he who comes to a minor is [punished] by stoning but she is free. Rebbi Abun in the name of (Rebbi) Samuel. Why? He understood it from the following: The man who had lain with her alone shall die. Do we not know that the girl has not committed a capital crime? Why does the verse say, do not do anything to the girl; the girl has not committed a capital crime? That includes him who has sexual relations with a [preliminarily married] underage girl; he is stoned and she is free.

It is written: If the thief was found in a tunnel, was smitten, and died, there is no blood-guilt. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: In the tunnel there is no blood-guilt, outside the tunnel there is blood guilt. Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai stated: Even outside the tunnel there is no blood-guilt, for a person’s property is beloved by him like his own soul. He sees him, that he comes to take his money away from him, stands up against him and kills him. Rav Huna said, if he took a wallet, turned to leave and went, if then one stood up against him and killed him the killer will not be killed. What is Rav Huna’s reason? For his temper is hot. Rav said, I would kill anybody who would come against me, except Ḥanania ben Shila, of whom I know that he would come only to take his meal from me. Rebbi Isaac said, if he has the temerity to do something like that, he cannot be Ḥanania ben Shila.

How far did the merit of the forefathers extend? Rebbi Tanḥuma said in the name of the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya, (Bar) [Rebbi] Naḥman said it in the name of Rebbi Berekhiah, Rebbi Ḥelbo in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Zavda, up to Joaḥaz. The Eternal was compassionate about them and had mercy for them etc., up to now. Up to that moment, the merit of the forefathers existed. Samuel said, up to Hosea’s [time]. But now, I shall uncover her scandalous behavior before the eyes of her lovers, and no man may save her from My hand. Man can only mean Abraham, as you say, but now return theman’s wife, for he is a prophet. Man can only mean Isaac, as you say, who is this man coming in the field towards us? Man can only mean Jacob, as you say, but Jacob was a simple man. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, up to Elijah: It was when the time of the afternoon service came that Elijah the prophet approached and said, O Eternal, God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, today it shall be proclaimed that You are God in Israel and I am Your servant etc. Rebbi Yudan said, up to Hezekias, to increase dominion and peace without end. Rebbi Aḥa said, the merit of the forefathers extends forever: For the Eternal is a Merciful Power, etc., up to and He shall not forget your forefather’s covenant. This teaches that the covenant was sealed with the tribes. Rebbi Yudan bar Ḥanan in the name of Rebbi Berekhiah: The Holy One, praise to Him, said to Israel: If you see that the merit of the fathers reels, and the merit of the mothers trembles, go and cling to grace.For mountains may reel, and hills tremble; for mountains may reel, this is the fathers’ merit, and hills tremble, this is the mothers’ merit. After that, but My Grace will not leave you and My Covenant of Peace will not reel, says the One Who has mercy on you, the Eternal.

And like planted nails. Why does he not say, “like fixed nails and planted trees”? They chose and selected the iron and improved the planting of iron rods. Another explanation, and like planted nails. Just as this nail, once it has been fixed, if you then remove it from its place, its place remains visible; so everybody against whom the rabbis stretched out their hand, even if afterwards they took him back, in the end he will take what is coming to him from their hands. Another explanation, and like planted nails; it is written watches. Since there are 24 watches, there should be 24 nails. How many nails should it have? Rebbi Joḥanan said five, corresponding to the five books of the Torah. Rebbi Ḥinena said seven, corresponding to your days are your steps. Rebbi Aḥa explained following Rebbi Ḥanina: nine. Rebbi put eleven on one [shoe] and thirteen on the other, for the number of watches. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, a crooked nail is not counted with the nails. Rebbi Abba bar Zavda asked before Rebbi Zeˋira: may one put all of them on one boot? He told him, it is permitted. May one put all of them on one sandal? He told him, it is permitted. It was stated: One does not scrape old boots or sandals but one may anoint them or dip them in water. Rebbi Crispus in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The students of the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya say that those of first rank said, one may scrape, those of second rank said, one may not scrape. They asked Rebbi, who told them, one does not scrape. Rebbi Zeˋira said, here goes one of the students of the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ashi said, we used to sit before Rav and were anointing and rinsing, but not scraping. It was stated: A person should wear new boots and sandals only if he walked in them during daytime. How far should he walk? The people from the house of Bar Qappara said, from the House of Study of Bar Qappara to the House of Study of Rebbi Hoshaia. The Sepphoreans say, from the Babylonian synagogue to Rebbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina’s house. The Tiberians say, from the Academy to Rebbi Hoshaia’s store. It was stated: Nobody should anoint his foot in a shoe or sandal but he may anoint his foot and step into his shoe or his sandal. One may anoint himself and roll on a tarpaulin without worry. One should not put it on a marble slab to roll himself in it, but Rabban Gamliel permits it. Another explanation, and like planted nails. If words about Torah are spelled out clearly by their authors, they are sweet to their listeners like well-ordered saplings. But if they come out confused, they are as bitter for their listeners as nails.

And like planted nails. Why does he not say, “like fixed nails and planted trees”? They chose and selected the iron and improved the planting of iron rods. Another explanation, and like planted nails. Just as this nail, once it has been fixed, if you then remove it from its place, its place remains visible; so everybody against whom the rabbis stretched out their hand, even if afterwards they took him back, in the end he will take what is coming to him from their hands. Another explanation, and like planted nails; it is written watches. Since there are 24 watches, there should be 24 nails. How many nails should it have? Rebbi Joḥanan said five, corresponding to the five books of the Torah. Rebbi Ḥinena said seven, corresponding to your days are your steps. Rebbi Aḥa explained following Rebbi Ḥanina: nine. Rebbi put eleven on one [shoe] and thirteen on the other, for the number of watches. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, a crooked nail is not counted with the nails. Rebbi Abba bar Zavda asked before Rebbi Zeˋira: may one put all of them on one boot? He told him, it is permitted. May one put all of them on one sandal? He told him, it is permitted. It was stated: One does not scrape old boots or sandals but one may anoint them or dip them in water. Rebbi Crispus in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The students of the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya say that those of first rank said, one may scrape, those of second rank said, one may not scrape. They asked Rebbi, who told them, one does not scrape. Rebbi Zeˋira said, here goes one of the students of the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ashi said, we used to sit before Rav and were anointing and rinsing, but not scraping. It was stated: A person should wear new boots and sandals only if he walked in them during daytime. How far should he walk? The people from the house of Bar Qappara said, from the House of Study of Bar Qappara to the House of Study of Rebbi Hoshaia. The Sepphoreans say, from the Babylonian synagogue to Rebbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina’s house. The Tiberians say, from the Academy to Rebbi Hoshaia’s store. It was stated: Nobody should anoint his foot in a shoe or sandal but he may anoint his foot and step into his shoe or his sandal. One may anoint himself and roll on a tarpaulin without worry. One should not put it on a marble slab to roll himself in it, but Rabban Gamliel permits it. Another explanation, and like planted nails. If words about Torah are spelled out clearly by their authors, they are sweet to their listeners like well-ordered saplings. But if they come out confused, they are as bitter for their listeners as nails.

And like planted nails. Why does he not say, “like fixed nails and planted trees”? They chose and selected the iron and improved the planting of iron rods. Another explanation, and like planted nails. Just as this nail, once it has been fixed, if you then remove it from its place, its place remains visible; so everybody against whom the rabbis stretched out their hand, even if afterwards they took him back, in the end he will take what is coming to him from their hands. Another explanation, and like planted nails; it is written watches. Since there are 24 watches, there should be 24 nails. How many nails should it have? Rebbi Joḥanan said five, corresponding to the five books of the Torah. Rebbi Ḥinena said seven, corresponding to your days are your steps. Rebbi Aḥa explained following Rebbi Ḥanina: nine. Rebbi put eleven on one [shoe] and thirteen on the other, for the number of watches. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, a crooked nail is not counted with the nails. Rebbi Abba bar Zavda asked before Rebbi Zeˋira: may one put all of them on one boot? He told him, it is permitted. May one put all of them on one sandal? He told him, it is permitted. It was stated: One does not scrape old boots or sandals but one may anoint them or dip them in water. Rebbi Crispus in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The students of the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya say that those of first rank said, one may scrape, those of second rank said, one may not scrape. They asked Rebbi, who told them, one does not scrape. Rebbi Zeˋira said, here goes one of the students of the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ashi said, we used to sit before Rav and were anointing and rinsing, but not scraping. It was stated: A person should wear new boots and sandals only if he walked in them during daytime. How far should he walk? The people from the house of Bar Qappara said, from the House of Study of Bar Qappara to the House of Study of Rebbi Hoshaia. The Sepphoreans say, from the Babylonian synagogue to Rebbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina’s house. The Tiberians say, from the Academy to Rebbi Hoshaia’s store. It was stated: Nobody should anoint his foot in a shoe or sandal but he may anoint his foot and step into his shoe or his sandal. One may anoint himself and roll on a tarpaulin without worry. One should not put it on a marble slab to roll himself in it, but Rabban Gamliel permits it. Another explanation, and like planted nails. If words about Torah are spelled out clearly by their authors, they are sweet to their listeners like well-ordered saplings. But if they come out confused, they are as bitter for their listeners as nails.

Doëg was a man great in Torah. Israel came and asked David, does the showbread supersede the Sabbath? He told them, its arrangement supersedes the Sabbath, but neither its kneading nor its forming supersedes the Sabbath. Doëg was there and said, who is the one who comes to instruct in my presence? They told him, it is David ben Jesse. He went immediately and counseled Saul, the king of Israel, to kill the priests of Nob, the city of priests. This is what is written: The king said to the runners who stood by him, surround and kill the priests of the Eternal for they also are involved with David, etc., up to they did not inform me. Who were they? Rebbi Samuel bat Rav Isaac said, they were Abner and Amasa. They told him, you have us indebted to you only for this belt and this כלינירין. Here they are torn for you. The king’s servants did not want to kill the priests of the Eternal. The king said to Doyeg. Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi said, it is written to Doyeg. They told him, you are caught like a fish; you committed a great sin. Turn you and smite the priests of the Eternal. Doëg the Edomite turned and smote the priests, etc. But did not Rebbi Ḥiyya state, “one does not appoint two High Priests together”? But this teaches that all of them were qualified for the High Priesthood. How was he removed? Rebbi Ḥanina and Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: One said, fire came from the Holiest of Holies and burned around him. But the other said, competent students came to him, they were learning but he was forgetting, to confirm what is written: The property swallowed by him he throws up; God removes it from his belly.

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.

HALAKHAH: “There are two kinds of oaths which are four kinds,” etc. Two which are four for liability and two which are four for no liability, or four for liability and four for no liability? Let us hear from the following: “There are two kinds of oaths which are four kinds,” etc. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah says so, “there are two kinds of oaths which are four kinds,” not because of liability? And similarly, “there are two kinds of export on the Sabbath which are four kinds,” because there is liability. Rebbi Abba said, there all are about liability, but here we come to state both liability and no liability. This implies four of liability and four of no liability. But did we not state, the doors of the Temple hall were two which are four? Can you say, liability and no liability? Should we state twelve cases of no liability? We come to state cases of no liability which correspond to cases of no liability. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, what is this “no liability” which we stated here? Permitted! Rebbi Yose said, the poor man and the rich man are one but the Sages counted them as two. Exporting or importing are two but the Sages counted them as one. Exporting on the Sabbath does not include importing; if one exports from a domain this does not include importing. If one who exports from one domain to the other, does this not include the one who imports? In addition, from what Rebbi Yasa said in the name if Rebbi Joḥanan: Somebody who imports half the size of a dried fig and exports half the size of a dried fig is liable. And from where that exporting is called work? Rebbi Samuel in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: “Moses ordered, they made a public proclamation in the camp,” etc. The people refrained from taking objects out from their houses to give them to the collectors, who also did not take out anything from them to import into the office. Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Aḥa understood it from the following: “do not bring out any load from your houses on the Sabbath day, and perform no work.”

Rebbi Ḥanina said before Rebbi Mana: Did you learn this from foreign worship? Then one should learn from foreign worship that for everything one needs one knowledge! He told him, foreign worship requires a fixed value [sacrifice] but the impurity of the Sanctuary and its sancta an increasing or decreasing one. One cannot infer about a fixed value [sacrifice] from an increasing and decreasing one, nor for an increasing or decreasing from a fixed value one. How did you understand to say that the verse speaks about impurity of Sanctuary sancta? It is said here an impure animal and it is said further on an impure animal. Since an impure animal mentioned there is about impurity of Sanctuary sancta, so an impure animal mentioned here is about impurity of Sanctuary sancta. Not only Sanctuary sancta; from where the impurity of the Sanctuary? “The verse says: his impurity is on him. How did you understand to explain it? About an impure person who ate pure [meat], or a pure person who ate impure [meat]? The verse says: his impurity is on him. Impurity of the body, not impurity of the meat. Rebbi says, he ate, his impurity is on him. Impurity of the body, not impurity of the meat. Rebbi Ḥiyya says, sancta are mentioned in the plural but impurity is mentioned in the singular. How can I uphold his impurity is on him? Impurity of the body, not impurity of the meat. Rebbi Meїr says, the verse only speaks of one from whom impurity separates. This excludes meat from which impurity does not separate.”

It is understandable if it did not come to his knowledge. If it did come to his knowledge? Was it not stated: “From where that those obligated for purification sacrifices and certain reparation sacrifices for whom the Day of Atonement had passed, are obligated to bring them after the Day of Atonement, but those obligated for suspended reparation offerings are no longer liable?” Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, whether it was known to him on it, or not known to him on it, did not the Day of Atonement already atone? Rebbi Simeon in the name of Levi [Sokhia], the Mishnah speaks of one who rebels against the day of Atonement. Why did he not say, if it was not known to him on the Day of Atonement? His words imply that even if it was not known to him on the Day of Atonement, the Day of Atonement atones.

Rebbi says, the Day of Atonement atones for all sins against the Torah except for him who tears away the yoke, or who breaks the Covenant, or who finds aspects in the Torah, where it atones if he repented but does not atone otherwise. Rebbi Zebida said: Rebbi Yasa asked: Does Rebbi think that the Day of Atonement atones without repentance? There came Rebbi Ashian, Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The Day of Atonement atones without repentance, and death cleanses without repentance. We have stated thus: The day of death equals repentance. Who stated this? Rebbi! Then what we stated, “death and the Day of Atonement atone with repentance,” does not follow Rebbi.

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.

Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked: Why did he not say, “an oath that I shall eat of the slaughter of X”? Is there not fat? If he slaughters deer. Is there not the hip sinew? About fowl. Is there not blood?

HALAKHAH: “If both of them disavowed simultaneously,” etc. If they dedicated a sacrifice and said, we are going to disavowe in court. This is what Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, his sacrifice for the Eternal for his vow of nazir; that his vow of nazir precede his sacrifice, not that his sacrifice precede his vow of nazir. If they were sworn to out of court, dedicated a sacrifice and said, we are going to renege in court, how do you treat this? As if his sin did precede his sacrifice or since the are liable only in court as if their sacrifice did precede their sin?

Rebbi Marinus was guarantor for his daughter-in-law. They went to court before Rebbi Ḥama the father of Bat Qappara and Rebbi Hoshaia. After he had admitted he said to him, I gave. They asked the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya; Rebbi Ḥiyya asked Rebbi: One who became liable in court cannot be trusted. What is the meaning of “he cannot be trusted”? Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If he pays on his own initiative, he is trusted when he says, I gave. But from the orders of others, he cannot be trusted. Rebbi Abun bar Cahana said, also for oaths it is the same. What is the meaning of “also for oaths it is the same”? Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If he swears on his own initiative, he is trusted when he says, I swore. But from the orders of others, he cannot be trusted.

Rebbi Marinus was guarantor for his daughter-in-law. They went to court before Rebbi Ḥama the father of Bat Qappara and Rebbi Hoshaia. After he had admitted he said to him, I gave. They asked the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya; Rebbi Ḥiyya asked Rebbi: One who became liable in court cannot be trusted. What is the meaning of “he cannot be trusted”? Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If he pays on his own initiative, he is trusted when he says, I gave. But from the orders of others, he cannot be trusted. Rebbi Abun bar Cahana said, also for oaths it is the same. What is the meaning of “also for oaths it is the same”? Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If he swears on his own initiative, he is trusted when he says, I swore. But from the orders of others, he cannot be trusted.

HALAKHAH: “You are holding for me a kor of grain;” etc. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Our Mishnah if he sued him for wheat and he admitted barley; but if he sued him for two kinds and he admitted one of them, everybody agrees that he is not liable. Rebbi Abbahu said about that of Rebbi Immi: Why did we state, “Rabban Gamliel declares him liable”? It comes to inform you of the power of Rabban Gamliel, how far he declares liable. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Not only if he claimed wheat and he admitted barley to him, but if he claimed two kinds and he admitted one of them, the words of the Sages are that he is not liable. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it is only if he claimed two kinds and he admitted one of them, but if he sued for wheat and he admitted barley according to everybody he is liable. Following Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: A person went to court before Rav: When he claimed from another wheat, barley, and spelt. Rav told him, wait until he charged you with anything he has to charge, and in the end you will swear one oath about everything. Rebbi Abbahu said, so argued Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish against Rebbi Joḥanan: In your opinion, since you say that if he claimed two kinds and he admitted one of them, according to the Sages he is not liable, did we not state “if he claimed vessels and real estate; if he admitted the vessels and denied the real estate, the real estate and denied the vessels”? For vessels about vessels he is liable, not so much more for vessels and real estate? He answered him, to transfer an oath to him by the following Mishnah, “since guaranteed property obligates non-guaranteed property to be sworn about.” This does not even disagree with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. But did we not state: “Somebody who sued for amphoras of oil and he admitted to vessels”? How do we hold? If he sued him for vessels and oil, and he admitted one of them, everybody agrees that this refers to the claim. But if he sued him for vessels and he did (not) admit oil, everybody agrees that what he admitted did not refer to the claim. Rebbi Ze`ira and Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Samuel: If he sued for vessels full of oil, one said vessels but not oil, the other said oil but not vessels. (Thrown) vessels but not oil. Oil but not vessels? Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Abin formulates it as oil buckets. Can one not ask him? If he was paralyzed.

HALAKHAH: “About the following one does not swear,” etc. If he transgressed and swore, Rebbi Joḥanan said he brings a sacrifice for the oath; Rebbi Eleazar says, he does not bring. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, so does Rebbi Johanan answer Rebbi Eleazar. No. If you pronounced about an oath about testimony which may apply to slaves, documents, and real estate, what can you say about oaths concerning deposits which do not apply to slaves, documents, and real estate? But an oath for testimony is not in court. Would the court admit an oath of a suspect person? Only when he transgressed and swore, you say that he brings a sacrifice for his oath; here also if he transgressed and swore, you say that he brings a sacrifice for his oath.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Ḥanina said, One says, a large candelabra, but the other says, a small candelabra; he is liable since we have stated: “One swears only on matters of measure, or weight, or count.” Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, explain it if it was a candelabra composed of sections. One says, a large belt; the other says, a small belt. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated something but we do not know what he stated. If you say “liable”, a Mishnah disagrees, as we have stated: “One swears only on matters of measure, or weight, or count.” If you say “not liable”, a Mishnah disagrees, as we have stated: “If one says the adult one and the other says the underage one, let the seller swear that he sold the underage one. If both say that they do not know, they shall split.”

HALAKHAH: “All who must swear by Torah standards,” etc. One understands from what is said, an oath before the Eternal shall be between them, would we not know that if he does not swear, he has to pay? Why does the verse say, its owner shall take it, and he does not have to pay? But from the moment the owner accepted his oath, he does not have to pay. Rebbi Ḥaggai asked before Rebbi Yose: Is this only following Rebbi Meїr or even following the rabbis? Did not Rebbi Assi say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi Meїr is the one who says that out of a negative one understands a positive? Its owner shall take it, and he does not have to pay, therefore if he does not swear, he has to pay. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: The unpaid and the paid trustees may stipulate to be like a borrower. Rebbi Ḥanina said, everybody agrees that in the language of the Torah out of a negative one understands a positive; where do they disagree? In everyday speech.

Rebbi Abin said, since the householder has many occupations they instituted that the journeyman should swear and collect. [Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, there they instituted that the journeyman should swear and collect;] similarly they instituted for the householder that if its deadline had elapsed, he cannot swear and collect. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, if there are witnesses that he claimed it in time, he swears and collects even after a year. Rebbi Yose said, he has only that single day. Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagreed. One said, if he claimed from him during daytime, he has only that day; if in the night he has only that night. But the other said, if he claimed from him and he said, I gave. But if he said, I shall give, the presumption is that he gave. We do not know who said what. Since Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: if he claimed from him during daytime, he has only that day; if in the night he has only that night, therefore Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina is the one who said, if he claimed from him and he said, I gave. But if he said, I shall give, the presumption is that he gave. Rebbi Mana said, sometimes he claims after its time and it is considered as in time. How is this? He claimed from him and he said to him, did I not say to you that I gave at that date? That date becomes as if it were yesterday; one gives him one measure.

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.

Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Rav: A document produced by the creditor in the creditor’s handwriting is invalid, for I am saying that he has practiced writing documents. This implies that in the hand of another it would be valid. Rebbi Abinna in the name of Samuel: It is always invalid unless it be in the creditors’s possession but in the debtor’s handwriting. What about this? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun said, explain it according to everybody about a testamentary gift.

HALAKHAH: “There are four kinds of keepers,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, there are four kinds of keepers and they become liable only through acquisition. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Also in matters of robbery they become liable only through acquisition. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun said, a baraita said so: “one who contracts with another for a field,” etc. Rebbi Ḥananiah said, Rebbi Abun, also in theft cases they become liable only through acquisition. Rebbi Ḥananiah in the name of Rebbi Phineas, our Mishnah said so: “If he was pulling it to lead it out but it died on the owner’s property, he is not liable. If he lifted it or had it led outside the owner’s property when it died, he is liable.” If he lifted it inside the owner’s property it is as if he had taken it out of the entire property of the owner. If he was pulling it and it left, only after it left the entire property of the owner. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If it was standing at his feeding trough. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked: If it was standing at his feeding trough then even if he did not pull it! But we must deal with the case that it was standing in the public domain. Does Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya follow the House of Shammai, since the House of Shammai say, “he shall be hit by less or more”? How do we hold? If it was standing in the public domain and he intended to rustle it when it died, according to everybody he became liable by that intention. If he did not start to pull it, according to everybody he is not liable. But we most hold that it was standing at a feeding trough on his property. As Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, following the House of Shammai. Rebbi Abun said, there he acquired without the knowledge of its owner; but here when he acquires with the knowledge of its owner.

HALAKHAH: “There are four kinds of keepers,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, there are four kinds of keepers and they become liable only through acquisition. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Also in matters of robbery they become liable only through acquisition. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun said, a baraita said so: “one who contracts with another for a field,” etc. Rebbi Ḥananiah said, Rebbi Abun, also in theft cases they become liable only through acquisition. Rebbi Ḥananiah in the name of Rebbi Phineas, our Mishnah said so: “If he was pulling it to lead it out but it died on the owner’s property, he is not liable. If he lifted it or had it led outside the owner’s property when it died, he is liable.” If he lifted it inside the owner’s property it is as if he had taken it out of the entire property of the owner. If he was pulling it and it left, only after it left the entire property of the owner. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If it was standing at his feeding trough. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked: If it was standing at his feeding trough then even if he did not pull it! But we must deal with the case that it was standing in the public domain. Does Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya follow the House of Shammai, since the House of Shammai say, “he shall be hit by less or more”? How do we hold? If it was standing in the public domain and he intended to rustle it when it died, according to everybody he became liable by that intention. If he did not start to pull it, according to everybody he is not liable. But we most hold that it was standing at a feeding trough on his property. As Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, following the House of Shammai. Rebbi Abun said, there he acquired without the knowledge of its owner; but here when he acquires with the knowledge of its owner.

HALAKHAH: “There are four kinds of keepers,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, there are four kinds of keepers and they become liable only through acquisition. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Also in matters of robbery they become liable only through acquisition. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun said, a baraita said so: “one who contracts with another for a field,” etc. Rebbi Ḥananiah said, Rebbi Abun, also in theft cases they become liable only through acquisition. Rebbi Ḥananiah in the name of Rebbi Phineas, our Mishnah said so: “If he was pulling it to lead it out but it died on the owner’s property, he is not liable. If he lifted it or had it led outside the owner’s property when it died, he is liable.” If he lifted it inside the owner’s property it is as if he had taken it out of the entire property of the owner. If he was pulling it and it left, only after it left the entire property of the owner. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If it was standing at his feeding trough. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked: If it was standing at his feeding trough then even if he did not pull it! But we must deal with the case that it was standing in the public domain. Does Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya follow the House of Shammai, since the House of Shammai say, “he shall be hit by less or more”? How do we hold? If it was standing in the public domain and he intended to rustle it when it died, according to everybody he became liable by that intention. If he did not start to pull it, according to everybody he is not liable. But we most hold that it was standing at a feeding trough on his property. As Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, following the House of Shammai. Rebbi Abun said, there he acquired without the knowledge of its owner; but here when he acquires with the knowledge of its owner.

“He said to the recipient of a fee,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, one who claims before his neighbor a claim of thief in a case of loss is liable. “Where is my lost object?” He told him, “it was stolen.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, one who claims before his neighbor a claim of thief is liable only after an oath. What is the reason? It is said here “grabbing” and it says there “grabbing.” Since “grabbing” mentioned there only applies after an oath, so also “grabbing” mentioned here only applies after an oath. Rebbi Joḥanan said, one who claims a claim of loss, swore to him, and afterwards claimed a claim of thief is not liable. Rebbi Joḥanan asked: May one be liable for a blurted oath in case of an oath regarding a claim of thief? The argument of Rebbi Joḥanan seems to be inverted. There he said, if he claimed a claim of loss, swore to him, and afterwards claimed a claim of thief is not liable. And here he says so? There it is obvious to him, here it is problematic for him. What is problematic for him? He saw and found it simple. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph said, one who claims before his neighbor a claim of thief is liable only after he denied in court. Where do we hold? If about him who already owes an oath to his neighbor, even if he was swearing out of court he is liable. But we must hold about him who saw them coming. They wanted to make him swear but he jumped in and swore. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: When it was standing at his feeding trough. Rebbi Ze`ira asked: how was it said? “If it was standing” or “even if it was standing”? If you say “even if it was standing,” it makes no difference. If you say “if it was standing,” then the argument of Rebbi Joḥanan is inverted. There, he said, if he claimed before him a claim of loss, had been swearing to him, selected a sacrifice, and then claimed a claim of duress, he is not liable. But here you are saying so? Rebbi La said, there is a difference since he absolved himself of confession by the oath. They objected to the opinion of Rebbi Ze`ira: “‘Where is my ox?’ He told him, ‘it was stolen.’ ‘I want you to swear;’ he answered ‘Amen’. Witnesses testify that he stole it: he has to pay double restitution. If he confessed himself he pays the value, and a fifth, and a reparation sacrifice.” But here when he moved it by claiming that it was lost. Afterwards he claimed a claim of thief and is not liable. Explain it that he swore to him but slaughtered it afterwards. The students of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Julianus say, explain it that he slaughtered it when it was lying down. Is there slaughter without sale? Following Symmachos who said, there can be slaughter and sale without theft. Samuel said, if there came no witnesses of the theft, but there came witnesses of the slaughter; he is liable.

“He said to the recipient of a fee,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, one who claims before his neighbor a claim of thief in a case of loss is liable. “Where is my lost object?” He told him, “it was stolen.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, one who claims before his neighbor a claim of thief is liable only after an oath. What is the reason? It is said here “grabbing” and it says there “grabbing.” Since “grabbing” mentioned there only applies after an oath, so also “grabbing” mentioned here only applies after an oath. Rebbi Joḥanan said, one who claims a claim of loss, swore to him, and afterwards claimed a claim of thief is not liable. Rebbi Joḥanan asked: May one be liable for a blurted oath in case of an oath regarding a claim of thief? The argument of Rebbi Joḥanan seems to be inverted. There he said, if he claimed a claim of loss, swore to him, and afterwards claimed a claim of thief is not liable. And here he says so? There it is obvious to him, here it is problematic for him. What is problematic for him? He saw and found it simple. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph said, one who claims before his neighbor a claim of thief is liable only after he denied in court. Where do we hold? If about him who already owes an oath to his neighbor, even if he was swearing out of court he is liable. But we must hold about him who saw them coming. They wanted to make him swear but he jumped in and swore. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: When it was standing at his feeding trough. Rebbi Ze`ira asked: how was it said? “If it was standing” or “even if it was standing”? If you say “even if it was standing,” it makes no difference. If you say “if it was standing,” then the argument of Rebbi Joḥanan is inverted. There, he said, if he claimed before him a claim of loss, had been swearing to him, selected a sacrifice, and then claimed a claim of duress, he is not liable. But here you are saying so? Rebbi La said, there is a difference since he absolved himself of confession by the oath. They objected to the opinion of Rebbi Ze`ira: “‘Where is my ox?’ He told him, ‘it was stolen.’ ‘I want you to swear;’ he answered ‘Amen’. Witnesses testify that he stole it: he has to pay double restitution. If he confessed himself he pays the value, and a fifth, and a reparation sacrifice.” But here when he moved it by claiming that it was lost. Afterwards he claimed a claim of thief and is not liable. Explain it that he swore to him but slaughtered it afterwards. The students of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Julianus say, explain it that he slaughtered it when it was lying down. Is there slaughter without sale? Following Symmachos who said, there can be slaughter and sale without theft. Samuel said, if there came no witnesses of the theft, but there came witnesses of the slaughter; he is liable.

“He said to the recipient of a fee,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, one who claims before his neighbor a claim of thief in a case of loss is liable. “Where is my lost object?” He told him, “it was stolen.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, one who claims before his neighbor a claim of thief is liable only after an oath. What is the reason? It is said here “grabbing” and it says there “grabbing.” Since “grabbing” mentioned there only applies after an oath, so also “grabbing” mentioned here only applies after an oath. Rebbi Joḥanan said, one who claims a claim of loss, swore to him, and afterwards claimed a claim of thief is not liable. Rebbi Joḥanan asked: May one be liable for a blurted oath in case of an oath regarding a claim of thief? The argument of Rebbi Joḥanan seems to be inverted. There he said, if he claimed a claim of loss, swore to him, and afterwards claimed a claim of thief is not liable. And here he says so? There it is obvious to him, here it is problematic for him. What is problematic for him? He saw and found it simple. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph said, one who claims before his neighbor a claim of thief is liable only after he denied in court. Where do we hold? If about him who already owes an oath to his neighbor, even if he was swearing out of court he is liable. But we must hold about him who saw them coming. They wanted to make him swear but he jumped in and swore. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: When it was standing at his feeding trough. Rebbi Ze`ira asked: how was it said? “If it was standing” or “even if it was standing”? If you say “even if it was standing,” it makes no difference. If you say “if it was standing,” then the argument of Rebbi Joḥanan is inverted. There, he said, if he claimed before him a claim of loss, had been swearing to him, selected a sacrifice, and then claimed a claim of duress, he is not liable. But here you are saying so? Rebbi La said, there is a difference since he absolved himself of confession by the oath. They objected to the opinion of Rebbi Ze`ira: “‘Where is my ox?’ He told him, ‘it was stolen.’ ‘I want you to swear;’ he answered ‘Amen’. Witnesses testify that he stole it: he has to pay double restitution. If he confessed himself he pays the value, and a fifth, and a reparation sacrifice.” But here when he moved it by claiming that it was lost. Afterwards he claimed a claim of thief and is not liable. Explain it that he swore to him but slaughtered it afterwards. The students of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Julianus say, explain it that he slaughtered it when it was lying down. Is there slaughter without sale? Following Symmachos who said, there can be slaughter and sale without theft. Samuel said, if there came no witnesses of the theft, but there came witnesses of the slaughter; he is liable.

It was stated: In a town where Gentiles and Jews live together, if the Gentiles contribute the overseers of charity collect from them and from Jews, and provide for Gentile and Jewish poor, visit Gentile and Jewish sick, console Gentile and Jewish mourners, and bury Gentile and Jewish dead. Also one takes in vessels from Gentiles and Jews for the sake of peaceful coexistence. The weavers asked Rebbi Immi, what about a Gentile wedding feast? He wanted to permit it to them from this: “for the sake of peaceful coexistence.” Rebbi Abba told him, did not Rebbi Ḥiyya state that a Gentile wedding feast is forbidden? Rebbi Immi said, if it had not been for Rebbi Abba we would have come to permit their pagan worship; praise be the Omnipresent Who distanced us from them.

HALAKHAH: “Outside a town with pagan worship,” etc. Therefore inside it is forbidden. Because in it there is one statue all of it should be forbidden? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish says, they taught this about a fair. What is the difference between inside and the surroundings? Inside where it profits from the toll it is forbidden. Outside it is permitted because it does not profit from the toll, but if outside it also profits from the toll it is forbidden. But was it not stated: “One goes to fairs and buys there slaves, slave girls, and animals.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, not only Jewish slaves but even Gentiles, because he brings them under the wings of the Shekhina. But was it not stated: If he bought there a garment, it should be burned, an animal should be castrated, coins should be brought to the Dead Sea? One understands that a garment should be burned, coins should be brought to the Dead Sea. An animal should be castrated? But was it not stated: One goes to fairs and buys there slaves, slave girls, and animals.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, not only Jewish slaves but even Gentiles, because he brings them under the wings of Heaven? Explain it, Israel, Israel. But was it not stated: If somebody sells his slave to Gentiles the proceeds are forbidden. Again explain it, Israel, Israel. One buys from an Israel who goes to a fair because he is like one salvaging from their hands. On his return it is forbidden since he profits from pagan worship. But from Gentiles it is permitted whether they are going or coming. Rebbi Abba the son of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If it was a hostelry it is permitted. Rebbi Ze‘ira asked: at a fair it is forbidden, in a hostelry it is permitted? Maybe Rebbi Joḥanan said this about merchandise. Rebbi Abba the son of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba came in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If it was a hostelry, merchandise is permitted, said Rebbi Joḥanan.

HALAKHAH: “Outside a town with pagan worship,” etc. Therefore inside it is forbidden. Because in it there is one statue all of it should be forbidden? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish says, they taught this about a fair. What is the difference between inside and the surroundings? Inside where it profits from the toll it is forbidden. Outside it is permitted because it does not profit from the toll, but if outside it also profits from the toll it is forbidden. But was it not stated: “One goes to fairs and buys there slaves, slave girls, and animals.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, not only Jewish slaves but even Gentiles, because he brings them under the wings of the Shekhina. But was it not stated: If he bought there a garment, it should be burned, an animal should be castrated, coins should be brought to the Dead Sea? One understands that a garment should be burned, coins should be brought to the Dead Sea. An animal should be castrated? But was it not stated: One goes to fairs and buys there slaves, slave girls, and animals.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, not only Jewish slaves but even Gentiles, because he brings them under the wings of Heaven? Explain it, Israel, Israel. But was it not stated: If somebody sells his slave to Gentiles the proceeds are forbidden. Again explain it, Israel, Israel. One buys from an Israel who goes to a fair because he is like one salvaging from their hands. On his return it is forbidden since he profits from pagan worship. But from Gentiles it is permitted whether they are going or coming. Rebbi Abba the son of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If it was a hostelry it is permitted. Rebbi Ze‘ira asked: at a fair it is forbidden, in a hostelry it is permitted? Maybe Rebbi Joḥanan said this about merchandise. Rebbi Abba the son of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba came in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If it was a hostelry, merchandise is permitted, said Rebbi Joḥanan.

Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba sent to buy sandals for himself at the fair of Tyre. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said to him, are you a buyer at fairs? He answered him, did you never buy a loaf of bread? He said to him, there is a difference, since Rebbi Joḥanan said, they did not forbid the necessities of life. Rebbi Simeon ben Joḥanan sent to ask Rebbi Simeon ben Josadaq, did you not check out the nature of the fair at Tyre? He told him, yes. He gave two pounds of peppers to an איסקרנדה. He went and found an inscription there, “I, King Diocletian, settled this fair at Tyre to the genius of my brother Heraklius, eight days.” Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman asked Rebbi Ḥanina: What is the nature of the fair at Gaza? He said to him, did you ever go to Tyre and see a Jew and a Gentile sharing a pot, and he does not worry that the Gentile pour something into the pot? This is difficult. He asked him; what did he answer him? But since Rebbi Ḥanina never said something that he had not heard, for that reason when he asked him this he responded with that. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun came, Abba bar bar Ḥana in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They forbade only the fair at Botnah, as it was stated thus: There are three fairs, the fair at Gaza, the fair at Acco, the fair at Botnah. The clearest of them is the fair at Botnah.

We have stated, “a white cock.” Rebbi Ḥiyya stated unspecified “a cock.” Our Mishnah needs the baraita of Rebbi Ḥiyya and the baraita of Rebbi Ḥiyya needs our Mishnah. If we had stated but Rebbi Ḥiyya had not stated, we would have said, only a white cock but an unspecified cock would be permitted even alone. Therefore the baraita of Rebbi Ḥiyya is needed. Or if Rebbi Ḥiyya had stated but we had not stated, we would have said, this is only for an unspecified cock, but a white cock even among chickens is forbidden. Therefore our Mishnah is necessary and the baraita of Rebbi Ḥiyya is necessary. “A chicken to sell,” one may sell him a white cock. “A white cock to sell,” we say by itself it is forbidden, among chickens it is permitted. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked: If one saw chickens grazing on a garbage heap and a white cock among them and said, whose is it? Is it as if he specified?

We have stated, “a white cock.” Rebbi Ḥiyya stated unspecified “a cock.” Our Mishnah needs the baraita of Rebbi Ḥiyya and the baraita of Rebbi Ḥiyya needs our Mishnah. If we had stated but Rebbi Ḥiyya had not stated, we would have said, only a white cock but an unspecified cock would be permitted even alone. Therefore the baraita of Rebbi Ḥiyya is needed. Or if Rebbi Ḥiyya had stated but we had not stated, we would have said, this is only for an unspecified cock, but a white cock even among chickens is forbidden. Therefore our Mishnah is necessary and the baraita of Rebbi Ḥiyya is necessary. “A chicken to sell,” one may sell him a white cock. “A white cock to sell,” we say by itself it is forbidden, among chickens it is permitted. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked: If one saw chickens grazing on a garbage heap and a white cock among them and said, whose is it? Is it as if he specified?

We have stated, “a white cock.” Rebbi Ḥiyya stated unspecified “a cock.” Our Mishnah needs the baraita of Rebbi Ḥiyya and the baraita of Rebbi Ḥiyya needs our Mishnah. If we had stated but Rebbi Ḥiyya had not stated, we would have said, only a white cock but an unspecified cock would be permitted even alone. Therefore the baraita of Rebbi Ḥiyya is needed. Or if Rebbi Ḥiyya had stated but we had not stated, we would have said, this is only for an unspecified cock, but a white cock even among chickens is forbidden. Therefore our Mishnah is necessary and the baraita of Rebbi Ḥiyya is necessary. “A chicken to sell,” one may sell him a white cock. “A white cock to sell,” we say by itself it is forbidden, among chickens it is permitted. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked: If one saw chickens grazing on a garbage heap and a white cock among them and said, whose is it? Is it as if he specified?

We have stated, “a white cock.” Rebbi Ḥiyya stated unspecified “a cock.” Our Mishnah needs the baraita of Rebbi Ḥiyya and the baraita of Rebbi Ḥiyya needs our Mishnah. If we had stated but Rebbi Ḥiyya had not stated, we would have said, only a white cock but an unspecified cock would be permitted even alone. Therefore the baraita of Rebbi Ḥiyya is needed. Or if Rebbi Ḥiyya had stated but we had not stated, we would have said, this is only for an unspecified cock, but a white cock even among chickens is forbidden. Therefore our Mishnah is necessary and the baraita of Rebbi Ḥiyya is necessary. “A chicken to sell,” one may sell him a white cock. “A white cock to sell,” we say by itself it is forbidden, among chickens it is permitted. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked: If one saw chickens grazing on a garbage heap and a white cock among them and said, whose is it? Is it as if he specified?

We have stated, “a white cock.” Rebbi Ḥiyya stated unspecified “a cock.” Our Mishnah needs the baraita of Rebbi Ḥiyya and the baraita of Rebbi Ḥiyya needs our Mishnah. If we had stated but Rebbi Ḥiyya had not stated, we would have said, only a white cock but an unspecified cock would be permitted even alone. Therefore the baraita of Rebbi Ḥiyya is needed. Or if Rebbi Ḥiyya had stated but we had not stated, we would have said, this is only for an unspecified cock, but a white cock even among chickens is forbidden. Therefore our Mishnah is necessary and the baraita of Rebbi Ḥiyya is necessary. “A chicken to sell,” one may sell him a white cock. “A white cock to sell,” we say by itself it is forbidden, among chickens it is permitted. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked: If one saw chickens grazing on a garbage heap and a white cock among them and said, whose is it? Is it as if he specified?

We have stated, “a white cock.” Rebbi Ḥiyya stated unspecified “a cock.” Our Mishnah needs the baraita of Rebbi Ḥiyya and the baraita of Rebbi Ḥiyya needs our Mishnah. If we had stated but Rebbi Ḥiyya had not stated, we would have said, only a white cock but an unspecified cock would be permitted even alone. Therefore the baraita of Rebbi Ḥiyya is needed. Or if Rebbi Ḥiyya had stated but we had not stated, we would have said, this is only for an unspecified cock, but a white cock even among chickens is forbidden. Therefore our Mishnah is necessary and the baraita of Rebbi Ḥiyya is necessary. “A chicken to sell,” one may sell him a white cock. “A white cock to sell,” we say by itself it is forbidden, among chickens it is permitted. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked: If one saw chickens grazing on a garbage heap and a white cock among them and said, whose is it? Is it as if he specified?

We have stated, “a white cock.” Rebbi Ḥiyya stated unspecified “a cock.” Our Mishnah needs the baraita of Rebbi Ḥiyya and the baraita of Rebbi Ḥiyya needs our Mishnah. If we had stated but Rebbi Ḥiyya had not stated, we would have said, only a white cock but an unspecified cock would be permitted even alone. Therefore the baraita of Rebbi Ḥiyya is needed. Or if Rebbi Ḥiyya had stated but we had not stated, we would have said, this is only for an unspecified cock, but a white cock even among chickens is forbidden. Therefore our Mishnah is necessary and the baraita of Rebbi Ḥiyya is necessary. “A chicken to sell,” one may sell him a white cock. “A white cock to sell,” we say by itself it is forbidden, among chickens it is permitted. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked: If one saw chickens grazing on a garbage heap and a white cock among them and said, whose is it? Is it as if he specified?

We have stated, “a white cock.” Rebbi Ḥiyya stated unspecified “a cock.” Our Mishnah needs the baraita of Rebbi Ḥiyya and the baraita of Rebbi Ḥiyya needs our Mishnah. If we had stated but Rebbi Ḥiyya had not stated, we would have said, only a white cock but an unspecified cock would be permitted even alone. Therefore the baraita of Rebbi Ḥiyya is needed. Or if Rebbi Ḥiyya had stated but we had not stated, we would have said, this is only for an unspecified cock, but a white cock even among chickens is forbidden. Therefore our Mishnah is necessary and the baraita of Rebbi Ḥiyya is necessary. “A chicken to sell,” one may sell him a white cock. “A white cock to sell,” we say by itself it is forbidden, among chickens it is permitted. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked: If one saw chickens grazing on a garbage heap and a white cock among them and said, whose is it? Is it as if he specified?

“Ben Bathyra permits horses.” Ben Bathyra said this only about a male horse because it kills its owner in war. Some say, because it runs after females, and some say, because it stands still to urinate. What is between them? A gelding. He who says because it runs after females, it does not run. He who says because it stands still to urinate, this one also stands still to urinate. [Rebbi Aḥa in the name of] Rebbi Tanḥum bar Ḥiyya: If it gets old he binds it to the grindstone. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Huna: Ben Bathyra and Rebbi Nathan both said the same, as it was stated: “If he carried out domestic animals, wild animals, or birds, whether alive or dead, he is liable. Rebbi Nathan says, dead he is liable, alive he is not liable.” The rabbis hold that he is liable for a purification sacrifice and they answer him so? They answer following his own argument. Following your argument, since you are saying because of rabbinic Sabbath prohibition, also we hold that if it gets old he binds it to the grindstone. Rebbi says, I am saying that it is forbidden for two reasons, as a weapon and as a large animal. It was stated so: A large wild animal is like a (small) [large] domestic animal. Who stated this? Rebbi. The words of the Sages: Rebbi Bisna, Rebbi Ḥanan bar Abba in the name of Rav: A wild animal is like a (large) [small] domestic animal.

HALAKHAH: “One does not sell to them anything connected to the ground,” etc. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked: Is there also a disagreement about large cattle? May one sell for the purpose of slaughter? It was found stated: Also large cattle is in dispute; Rebbi Jehudah says, he may sell for the purpose of slaughtering.

HALAKHAH: “One does not lease houses to them,” etc. Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina, Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: לֹא תְחָנֵּֽם do credit them with charm; לֹא תְחָנֵּֽם do not give them free gifts; לֹא תְחָנֵּֽם do not give them encampment in the Land. But did we not state, “Rebbi Yose says, also in the Land of Israel one leases houses to them”? A house is not a source of blessing; a field is a source of blessing. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun instructed that it is forbidden to let them lease a grave in the Land of Israel because of “do not give them encampment in the Land.”

לֹא תְחָנֵּֽם do not credit them with charm. But was it not stated: It happened that Rabban Gamliel while walking on the Temple Mount saw a beautiful Gentile woman and recited a blessing over her. Does Rabban Gamliel usually look at women? It was a curved road, like a pswros, he looked at her because he could not avoid her. But did not Rebbi Ze‘ura in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina, Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan say: לֹא תְחָנֵּֽם do not credit them with charm? What did he say? He did not say ἀβάσκαντα but “praised be He Who has beautiful creatures in His world,” because even if one saw a beautiful donkey, a beautiful camel, a beautiful horse, one says “praised be He Who has such beautiful creatures in His world.”

Rabbi Simon had vineyard planters on King’s Mountain. He asked Rebbi Joḥanan who told him, let them lie fallow and do not lease them to a Gentile. He asked Rebbi Joshua [ben Levi], may one lease them to a Gentile? Rebbi Joshua [ben Levi] permitted it at a place where no Jews could be found as for example Syria. About Syria we can understand from the following: Rebbi Ḥaggai went to Homs. Those of Bar Ashtor came and asked him: Since we cannot find Jews we lease to Gentiles;l do we have to tithe through them? He sent and asked Rebbi Ze‘ira. Rebbi Ze‘ira asked Rebbi Immi (and said to him, rabbi, does one have to tithe?) He told him, one does not have to tithe because of them. From this you (Rebbi Simeon) [understand] to lease following Rebbi Yose. In addition, from what Rebbi Ḥanina (Rebbi Abbahu) the son of Rebbi Abbahu said, my father had a case. He sent and asked Rebbi Ḥiyya, Rebbi Yasa, Rebbi Immi, and they instructed him to lease following Rebbi Yose. Therefore one does not tithe through them.

HALAKHAH: “Also in a case where they said to lease,” etc. Therefore, at a place where one is used to sell, he may sell even a dwelling and lease a dwelling. Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Tanḥum bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose: Even a small room as in the tannery of Sidon. Not only all of it, but even one room. “If there were two, one inside the other, the inner one is liable, the outer one is not liable.” If there was one and it was subdivided into two, two and combined into one? Rebbi Abin in the name of the rabbis there: This implies that if there was a field adjacent to a road it is forbidden to lease it to Gentiles because it is known by the name of the Jew and they plough there on Sabbaths and holidays.

Rebbi Hoshaia said, why do we not explain it according to everybody, as Rav Huna said in the name of Rav: They weighed for me my (sheqels) [wages], thirty pieces of silver. These are the thirty commandments which the descendants of Noah will take upon themselves in the future. But the rabbis say, there are the 30 just persons which the world never will be lacking, as Rebbi Naḥman said in the name of Rebbi Mana, the world cannot be with less than 30 just men like our father Abraham. What is the reason? Abraham will certainly be, the numerical value of יהיה is 30. Sometimes the majority are in Babylonia and the minority in the Land of Israel; sometimes the majority are in the Land of Israel and the minority in Babylonia. It is a good sign for the world if most of them are in the Land. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Julianus in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: In the future the descendants of Noah will take all commandments upon themselves. What is the reason? Then I shall transform Gentiles’ purified lips. But at the end they will renege on it. What is the reason? Let us break their chains, and throw from us their ropes! That is the commandment of phylacteries; that is the commandment of ṣiṣit.

The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Zavda: Anything inside of the lips one heals on the Sabbath. Rebbi Ze‘ira objected, did we not state: “A person having a tooth ache should not suck vinegar with them”? Is this not inside from the lips? Rebbi Ze‘ira did not say so, but Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Zavda: Anything inside a body cavity one heals on the Sabbath. Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rebbi Abba bar Zuṭra, Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of Rebbi: One treats the bone of the skull on the Sabbath. Rebbi Ḥiyya the Mede, Rebbi Jona, Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rebbi Abba bar Zuṭra, Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of Rebbi: One treats glands of the throat on the Sabbath. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One treats an infected eye on the Sabbath. There, they say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Tops of hands and feet are a danger. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Red color is dangerous. Rebbi Abin said, one removes the sting of a scorpion on the Sabbath. Rav said, wine for exterior treatment of the eye is permitted, inside the eye it is forbidden. Samuel said, tasteless spit is forbidden for the eye on the Sabbath From this you infer for lichen. The rabbis of Caesarea said, ranula is dangerous. Rebbi Ḥizqiah (said) [from Acco] in the name of the rabbis of Caesarea: spider sickness is dangerous. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: gangrene is dangerous. Rebbi Jeremiah said, one can put sour dough on it on Passover. A boil is permitted. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah says this: “A small needle to remove a thorn.” Otherwise, what is the difference between a thorn and a boil? Darkening of the eye, they asked Rebbi Jeremiah. He told them, is not Rebbi Abba available for you? They asked Rebbi Abba who permitted it to them. He told them, also I am permitting it.

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.”

Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: All poisons cause scab but the poison of a snake kills. Rebbi Ḥiyya said, one is not asked about uncovered [drinks]. Rebbi Jeremiah asked before Rebbi Ze`ira; as master of the ruling he asked him.

Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: All poisons cause scab but the poison of a snake kills. Rebbi Ḥiyya said, one is not asked about uncovered [drinks]. Rebbi Jeremiah asked before Rebbi Ze`ira; as master of the ruling he asked him.

Rav said, ḥbyt is forbidden, ḥmpg is permitted. A piece of fish without distinguishing mark, meat, wine, and dark blue color, are forbidden with a single seal; assa foetida, fish sauce, bread, and cheese, are permitted with a single seal. Rebbi Yudan said, the reason of Rav is that anything which is forbidden in itself is forbidden with a single seal, if because of admixture it is permitted with a single seal. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Simeon bar Abba, Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina; Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan; Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Everything is permitted with a single seal except wine.

“Meat brought into a pagan Temple is permitted.” Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan said, to exclude the statement of Rebbi Eliezer, since Rebbi Eliezer says that the thoughts of a Non-Jew are about pagan worship.

“Those who go in ugliness.” Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, θόρυβος. One brings a large idol to a small idol. Some state תרפות. He who says תרפות, idols. He who says תרבות, θόρυβος.

Rebbi Joḥanan went to meet Rebbi Yudan the Prince at Acco. They came and asked him, how does one purify jugs? He said, from the following I taught them, since after the Gentile filled it with fish fluid or fish sauce the Jew fills it with wine. Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if he puts them into the fire not so much more? Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if he strips off the tarring not so much more? Do they stand this? If they stand it, they stand.

HALAKHAH: “Fish sauce, cheese,” etc.“Wine in muries, Rebbi permits but Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon forbids.” Therefore, if somebody transgressed and put it in, Rebbi forbids it to laymen but Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon permits it to laymen.” Rebbi Mana bar Tanḥum asked: Following him who permits for laymen, why is muries of Gentiles forbidden? Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya ber Abba, it is forbidden as being cooked by Gentiles. But did not [Rebbi Yose] state: “From a professional it is permitted, from a non-professional it is forbidden.” From a professional it is permitted, is that not if it is not cooked? Similarly, from a non-professional it is forbidden even if cooked. What about it? If it is to remove contamination it is forbidden because of pagan worship. This implies that usufruct of pagan worship is forbidden, usufruct of heave is permitted. Rebbi Joḥanan bar Madia said, following him who said from a professional it is permitted, only if he knows him.

Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: At first they were saying, one curdles neither with the stomach content of the carcass nor with the stomach contents of the Gentile. They changed to say, one curdles with the stomach content of the carcass but not with the stomach contents of the Gentile. Rebbi Abba bar Zavda, Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac asked: Does this negate the declaration of Rebbi Eliezer, since Rebbi Eliezer said, the thoughts of the Non-Jew are about pagan worship? Rebbi (Assi) [Yasa] came in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Originally, they said, one does curdle [neither] with carcass stomach contents nor with Gentile’s stomach contents. They changed to say, one does curdle with carcass stomach contents and with Gentile’s stomach contents. The language of a baraita supports Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: Stomach contents of a Gentile or a carcass is forbidden following the original teaching. (The stomach contents of a torn animal which suckled from a qualified one are permitted following the later teaching; the stomach contents of a qualified animal which suckled from a torn one are forbidden following the later teaching.) [The stomach contents of a qualified animal which suckled from a torn one are forbidden following the former teaching, and the stomach contents of a torn animal which suckled from a qualified one are permitted following the later teaching.] And even if the House of Shammai would argue like the House of Hillel in the first teaching, an egg is a growth of its body; the contents of the stomach come from the outside. It parallels what Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It happened to the son[s] of (Rebbi) Jehudah ben Shamua that wolves tore more than 300 of their flock. The case came before the Sages who permitted their stomach contents. They said, an egg is a growth of its body; the contents of the stomach come from the outside.

Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: At first they were saying, one curdles neither with the stomach content of the carcass nor with the stomach contents of the Gentile. They changed to say, one curdles with the stomach content of the carcass but not with the stomach contents of the Gentile. Rebbi Abba bar Zavda, Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac asked: Does this negate the declaration of Rebbi Eliezer, since Rebbi Eliezer said, the thoughts of the Non-Jew are about pagan worship? Rebbi (Assi) [Yasa] came in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Originally, they said, one does curdle [neither] with carcass stomach contents nor with Gentile’s stomach contents. They changed to say, one does curdle with carcass stomach contents and with Gentile’s stomach contents. The language of a baraita supports Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: Stomach contents of a Gentile or a carcass is forbidden following the original teaching. (The stomach contents of a torn animal which suckled from a qualified one are permitted following the later teaching; the stomach contents of a qualified animal which suckled from a torn one are forbidden following the later teaching.) [The stomach contents of a qualified animal which suckled from a torn one are forbidden following the former teaching, and the stomach contents of a torn animal which suckled from a qualified one are permitted following the later teaching.] And even if the House of Shammai would argue like the House of Hillel in the first teaching, an egg is a growth of its body; the contents of the stomach come from the outside. It parallels what Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It happened to the son[s] of (Rebbi) Jehudah ben Shamua that wolves tore more than 300 of their flock. The case came before the Sages who permitted their stomach contents. They said, an egg is a growth of its body; the contents of the stomach come from the outside.

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.

They said before the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya: Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai stated thus: Food you shall buy from them with money and eat, etc. As water is not changed from its natural state, so anything which was not changed from its natural state. They objected: Are there not their dry beans, פנקריסין and קובטיות, roasted grain, and hot water permitted? One understands all of these because they can be soaked and return to their former state. But roasted grain? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav: Any food which can be eaten alone raw is not in the category of Gentile cooking. (With bread it is in the category of Gentile cooking.) How does Rebbi Ḥiyya explain food you shall buy from them? You shall buy with food. If you fed him you bought him. If he causes you trouble buy him with food or otherwise trade (ply him) with him money. They said, that is what Rebbi Jonathan did. When a superior came to [his] town, he sent him an honor gift, that if a suit involving an orphan or a widow came he would have a way to mollify him.

They said before the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya: Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai stated thus: Food you shall buy from them with money and eat, etc. As water is not changed from its natural state, so anything which was not changed from its natural state. They objected: Are there not their dry beans, פנקריסין and קובטיות, roasted grain, and hot water permitted? One understands all of these because they can be soaked and return to their former state. But roasted grain? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav: Any food which can be eaten alone raw is not in the category of Gentile cooking. (With bread it is in the category of Gentile cooking.) How does Rebbi Ḥiyya explain food you shall buy from them? You shall buy with food. If you fed him you bought him. If he causes you trouble buy him with food or otherwise trade (ply him) with him money. They said, that is what Rebbi Jonathan did. When a superior came to [his] town, he sent him an honor gift, that if a suit involving an orphan or a widow came he would have a way to mollify him.

Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Tanḥum bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina, but some say in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: They were climbing up King’s Mountain and were killed about it. Isaac bar Samuel bar Martha went down to Nisibis. He met Simlai the Southerner who sat and expounded: Rebbi and his court permitted the oil. Samuel said, true! Rav did not accept on himself to eat. Samuel told him, eat! Otherwise I shall declare you a rebellious Elder. He answered him, when I still was there I knew who complained about it, Simlai the Southerner. He told him, he said it in the name of himself, not in the name of Rebbi Jehudah the Prince. He bothered him and he ate.

What is the status of their lupines? Rebbi forbids, Ganiba permits. Rebbi said, I am an Elder and he is an Elder. It came to my mind to forbid; it was his opinion to permit. Rebbi Mana bar Tanḥum went to Tyre and permitted their lupines. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba went to Tyre and found that Rebbi Mana had permitted their lupines. He returned to Rebbi Joḥanan who asked him, what case came to your hands? He told him, I found that Rebbi Mana had permitted their lupines. He asked him, did you not hit him? He answered, he is an important personality and knows how to sweeten the waters of the Great Sea. He told him, no, my son. He knows how to compute the waters; when the waters come together to acclaim their Creator they sweeten themselves. Rebbi Isaac bar Eleazar said, he starts to speak his disgrace and tells his praise! Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, it is a difficult computation; Rebbi Zakkai of Alexandria knows it. He said, if you want, you may learn it from him.

HALAKHAH: “The following are permitted for usufruct,” etc. Rebbi Eleazar said, about a dish in which usually one does not add wine or vinegar. Therefore if it is certain that he added, it is forbidden even for usufruct. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If a Jew and a Gentile put a pot on the fire, the Jew puts it down and the Gentile stirs. Who puts it back? One would say that the Jew puts it back. Rebbi Benjamin bar Levai said, only if it is cooked like Ben-Drosai’s food. Rebbi Yose asked, if it is cooked like Ben-Drosai’s food, why does the Jew have to put it back? Even the Gentile may put it back.

“The pitted are forbidden.” Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is a variety and they put vinegar on them to be able to remove their pits.

HALAKHAH: “All statues are prohibited,” etc. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, because they are worshipped in the great fortification of Rome twice in a Sabbatical period. Then at a place where they are worshipped they should be forbidden, at a place where they are not worshipped they should be permitted. Rebbi Yose said, since they became forbidden at one place, their kind becomes forbidden anywhere.

An idol which was broken, Rebbi Joḥanan said it is forbidden, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said it is permitted. Where do we hold? If in the future he would return it to its vessel, everybody agrees it is forbidden. If in the future he will not return it to its vessel, everybody agrees that it is permitted. But we hold if it is not indicated. Rebbi Joḥanan said, not indicated is as if he would return it to its vessel; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, not indicated is as if he would not return it to its vessel. Rebbi Yudan the father of Rebbi Mattaniah said, if they were lying on their spot it is if he would return it to its vessel. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish objected to Rebbi [Joḥanan]: Is it not written, therefore the priests of Dagon and all visitors to Dagon’s temple will not step on Dagon’s threshold? He told him, this teaches that they honored the threshold more than Dagon. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, the peoples of the world made one threshold; Israel made many thresholds; what is the reason? I shall visit on [any] who skips over the threshold [on that day].

Where do we hold? If it is certain that they are worshipped, even the contemptible ones are forbidden. If it is certain that they are not worshipped, even the honored ones are permitted. But we must deal with the indeterminate case. Rebbi Crispus said, those cups belong to the contemptible category, for Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba had a pitcher and the (worth) [fortune] of Rome was pictured on it. He came to ask Rebbi Joḥanan who told him, since water swims on top of it, it is a contemptible one. A drinking cup is contemptible since one immerses it in water. In the days of Rebbi Joḥanan they started painting on walls and he did not protest against it. [In the days of Rebbi Abun they started depicting by mosaics and he did not protest against it.]

Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, even his fine flour becomes forbidden and another person’s is permitted. Is this following him who said, whether it was his or another person’s, it is forbidden; did he say that they do not disagree about something which is not alive and Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya comes to tell you that the baraita refers to living things? If they disagree about something which is not alive; therefore a living thing is forbidden. Then something which is not alive should be forbidden a fortiori. This is that you should not say as you say there, anything living while it cannot become forbidden for a private person it becomes forbidden for Heaven, so similarly anything which is not yours even though it cannot become forbidden for a private person it becomes forbidden for Heaven

Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, even his fine flour becomes forbidden and another person’s is permitted. Is this following him who said, whether it was his or another person’s, it is forbidden; did he say that they do not disagree about something which is not alive and Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya comes to tell you that the baraita refers to living things? If they disagree about something which is not alive; therefore a living thing is forbidden. Then something which is not alive should be forbidden a fortiori. This is that you should not say as you say there, anything living while it cannot become forbidden for a private person it becomes forbidden for Heaven, so similarly anything which is not yours even though it cannot become forbidden for a private person it becomes forbidden for Heaven