izqiah

HALAKHAH: “What are the institutions of the returnees from Babylonia,” etc. So is the Mishnah: A town square which is crossed by a public road is as if from the returnees from Babylonia. A man used a Torah scroll for his preliminary marriage to a woman. Rebbi Sabbatai and Rebbi Ḥasida brought the matter before Rebbi Yose who said, she is not married. Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, you read the letter and there is written in it “not only”. Rebbi Mana said, I asked before Rebbi Ḥizqiah, what means “not only”? Did he marry with a Torah scroll which is private property? He said to us, she is not married. That comes to tell you, even if he used the public Torah scroll to marry, that is “not only”. But that means, even if he used a privately owned Torah scroll to marry, that is “she is not married.”

May one appoint Elders for a fixed time? Let us hear from the following: Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba went to Rebbi Eleazar and asked him to intervene with the Patriarch Rebbi Jehudah, that the latter should write him a letter of recommendation for seeking a livelihood in a foreign country. He intervened, and [the Patriarch] wrote for him: Here we are sending you as our representative a great personality with all our powers until he shall return to us. Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Dositheus, Rebbi Abba bar Zamina in the name of the old Rebbi Dositheus: He wrote him the following. Here we are sending you a great personality who will not be ashamed to say “1 did not learn this”.

They asked before Rebbi Zeїra: a Cohen to an Israel, Rebbi forbids. What does Rebbi Yose say? Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Aḥa said, so he responded to them: In the opinion of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina, why is a Cohen to an Israel forbidden, not because it looks badly? Also Rebbi Joḥanan holds that from an Israel to an Israel it is forbidden because it looks badly. In addition, because of the following, as it was stated: “Cohanim and Levites who help at the threshing floor have no right either to heave or to tithe, and if the farmer gave, it is desecrated, as it is said (Lev. 22:15): ‘They should not desecrate the sanctified things of the Children of Israel,’ but they desecrate them! In addition, they said that their heave is no heave, their tithes are no tithes, their dedications are no dedications, and about them the verse says (Micha 3:11): ‘Their heads judge for bribes, [their priests are for hire].’ The Omnipresent brings over them three catastrophies; that is what is written (Micha 3:12): ‘Therefore, because of you Zion will be ploughed over as a field, Jerusalem will be desolate, and the Temple Mount a wooded hill.’

HALAKHAH: “If one of the bloods was sprinkled for her,” etc. He dissolves for her because of her hair. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: It is a decision of Scripture: “He dissolved her vows,” he dissolves what is on her. Whenever he dissolves her vow, he dissolves what is on her. Rebbi Eleazar said, it follows Rebbi Simeon. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is everybody’s opinion, after she was transferred from the prohibition to the positive commandment. The rabbis say, “afterwards, the nazir shall drink wine,” after all these actions. Rebbi Simeon says, even after a single action. Ḥizqiah said, the Mishnah supports Rebbi (Bevai). “When has this been said? If she shaves in purity. But if she shaves in impurity, he may dissolve since he can say, I cannot stand an unseemly wife.” Therefore, shaving in purity does not make her unseemly. Who holds that shaving does not make unseemly? Rebbi Simeon. Rebbi Yose bar Abun said, even Rebbi thinks so: “Rebbi says, he may dissolve even if she shaves [in purity], since he can say, I cannot stand a shorn wife.” Should he not say, I cannot stand an unseemly and shorn wife? Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi (Jehudah) said that only for the purification sacrifice, since a purification sacrifice would be invalid if not in her name. That means, as long as it is alive it is surrendered to Heaven only by slaughter.

There, we have stated: “If somebody collects coins and says, ‘these are for my Temple tax,’ the House of Shammai say, the excess should be given as a donation, but the House of Hillel say, the excess is profane. ‘That I shall be able to pay my Temple tax,’ they agree that the excess is profane. ‘These [monies] are for my purification offering’, they agree that the excess is profane.” Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: When do they disagree? If he collects little by little. But if he says “these,” everybody agrees that the excess should be given as a donation. Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Bevai in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: When do they disagree? If he collects little by little. But if he says “these,” everybody agrees that the excess is profane. Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, the Mishnah supports Rebbi Bevai: “Rebbi Simeon says, what is the difference between Temple tax and purification sacrifices? Only that the Temple tax is a fixed amount.” Where do we hold? If he says, “that I shall use it for the Temple tax,” everybody agrees that the excess should be given as a donation. If he says, “that I shall use it for my purification offering,” everybody agrees that the excess is profane. But we are considering one who says “these.” Since the Temple tax has a fixed rate from the Torah, the excess is profane. Since purification offerings do not have a fixed rate from the Torah, the excess should be given as a donation. How does Rebbi Yose handle this? He explains it if he collects little by little, following the House of Hillel.

There, we have stated: “If somebody collects coins and says, ‘these are for my Temple tax,’ the House of Shammai say, the excess should be given as a donation, but the House of Hillel say, the excess is profane. ‘That I shall be able to pay my Temple tax,’ they agree that the excess is profane. ‘These [monies] are for my purification offering’, they agree that the excess is profane.” Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: When do they disagree? If he collects little by little. But if he says “these,” everybody agrees that the excess should be given as a donation. Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Bevai in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: When do they disagree? If he collects little by little. But if he says “these,” everybody agrees that the excess is profane. Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, the Mishnah supports Rebbi Bevai: “Rebbi Simeon says, what is the difference between Temple tax and purification sacrifices? Only that the Temple tax is a fixed amount.” Where do we hold? If he says, “that I shall use it for the Temple tax,” everybody agrees that the excess should be given as a donation. If he says, “that I shall use it for my purification offering,” everybody agrees that the excess is profane. But we are considering one who says “these.” Since the Temple tax has a fixed rate from the Torah, the excess is profane. Since purification offerings do not have a fixed rate from the Torah, the excess should be given as a donation. How does Rebbi Yose handle this? He explains it if he collects little by little, following the House of Hillel.

There, we have stated: “Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah says, He made error equal to intent for substitution, but not for sacrifices.” Ḥizqiah said, in error: a prohibition, the one who substitutes: a prohibition. If he wants to say “profane” but said “an elevation sacrifice”, it is sanctified. If he wants to say “an elevation sacrifice” but said “profane”, it is not sanctified. It follows that Rebbi Joḥanan, interpreting Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah, parallels Rebbi Jeremiah’s explanation regarding the House of Shammai on sacrifices. In Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion, may one understand that “He made error equal to intent for substitution, but not for sacrifices,” if somebody dedicates a firstling? Can it be dedicated? Did not Rebbi Ḥiyya, Rebbi Aḥa, and Rebbi Yasa say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If somebody dedicated a firstling and it was brought to the altar, it is not sanctified even for its money’s worth. If somebody dedicated a blemished animal for the altar, even as a substitute it is not sanctified. But if somebody dedicated an animal with a temporary blemish. Is that consistent with whipping? Rebbi Yudan, Rebbi Mattaniah’s father, said, explain it if he gave unblemished animals for the upkeep of the Temple.

Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ḥuna; Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Aḥa, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Everybody agrees that nobody can ask about his substitution. Where do they disagree? About his dedication; for the House of Shammai say, since a person cannot ask about his substitution, he cannot ask about his dedication, but the House of Hillel say, a person can ask about his dedication but not about his substitution.

Rebbi Mana said, lighting fire was mentioned unnecessarily; prostrating oneself was mentioned by necessity to explain about itself since it is not work. This follows what Ḥizqiah stated: “He who sacrifices to powers shall be banned.” Sacrificing was mentioned separately to teach about everything, prostrating oneself to explain about itself since it is not work. Rebbi Jeremiah said, lighting fire was mentioned by necessity, to teach that courts should not sit on the Sabbath. What is the reason? It says here, “in all your settlements” and it says there, “these should be rules of law for your generations, in all your settlements.” Since “settlements” mentioned there refers to courts, “settlements” referred to here also refers to courts. Rebbi Samuel bar Eudaimon said, even if you say that it was mentioned by necessity, it is as if it were mentioned unnecessarily, and anything mentioned unnecessarily teaches.

HALAKHAH: “One is guilty for wine separately, for grapes separately,” etc. It is written: “Also grapes, fresh or dried, he shall not eat.” One understands, since it said “grapes”, do we not know that they are fresh? Why does the verse say, “grapes, fresh or dried”? To declare guilty for either one separately. This parallels what Ḥizqiah stated: Since at a place where He did not treat the waste of fruits like fruits, He treated fresh and dried equally, here, where He treated the waste of fruits like fruits, would it not be logical that we treat fresh and dried equally? The verse said, “fresh or dried”, to declare guilty for either one separately. This parallels what Rebbi Hila said: “One may not impound the movable and the fixed part of a flour-mill. “One understands, since it said “the fixed part”, do we not know that the entire mill is understood? Why does the verse say, “the movable and the fixed part”? To declare guilty for either part separately.

Rebbi Ḥizqiah stated: All I forbade to you at other places I permitted to you here. Since everywhere 100 is a prohibition, more than 100 is permitted, but here even 100 is permitted.

Rebbi Nihumi the son of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said: My father did not walk under the arch of Caesarea. Rebbi Ammi walked. Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Cohen and Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa went walking in the streets of Caesarea. They came to the arch and Rebbi Cohen left. They reached a place of purity and he returned to them. He asked them: “What were you discussing?” Rebbi Ḥizqiah said to Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa: “Do not tell him anything!” We do not know whether it was because he was angry that he left since one defiles oneself for words of Torah or whether it was because he was haughty.

Rebbi Nihumi the son of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said: My father did not walk under the arch of Caesarea. Rebbi Ammi walked. Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Cohen and Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa went walking in the streets of Caesarea. They came to the arch and Rebbi Cohen left. They reached a place of purity and he returned to them. He asked them: “What were you discussing?” Rebbi Ḥizqiah said to Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa: “Do not tell him anything!” We do not know whether it was because he was angry that he left since one defiles oneself for words of Torah or whether it was because he was haughty.

Rebbi Yannai said: A Cohen defiles himself in order to see the King. When King Diocletian visited here, Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba was seen stepping over graves at Tyre in order to see him. Rebbi Ḥizqiah and Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: There is an obligation to see great persons of government, so that when the kingdom of the dynasty of David will return one will know how to distinguish one government from the other.

HALAKHAH: “The nazir shaves for the following impurities,” etc. An old man asked Rebbi Joḥanan: If the volume of an olive from a corpse makes impure, then certainly all of it also? He said to him, to include the stillbirth which did not reach the volume of an olive. He continued to ask: If a limb of a corpse makes impure, then certainly all of it also? He said to him, to include the stillbirth whose limbs did not yet jell. Rebbi Yose said, was that old man wise? His questions were not wise since after he asked the first question, it was not necessary to ask the second. If he wanted to ask both, he should have asked the second and after that the first. The students of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥalaphta asked the second but did not ask the first because it was obvious for them that if he did not reach the volume of an olive it is certain that his limbs did not yet jell. Rebbi Mana bar Ḥizqiah said, do you remember when Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa was here, were not both questions by that old man [asked] about Ahilut that the nazir shaves for them? In addition, from what Rebbi Joḥanan said, I thought that the stillbirths were not Torah. But since he makes his mother sit days of purity, it is implied that [the rules of] stillbirths are Torah.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, layers of a tree which cover four-by-four [handbreadths]: the nazir shaves. Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Joḥanan said, if one of his hands is on the other side and one hand is in the layer, the nazir does not shave. Rebbi Yose asked: If it separates from impurity it also should separate from purity; if it does not separate from impurity, it should not separate from purity. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if the corpse is in the bedroom and the nazir under the bed, the nazir shaves. Certainly if the corpse is under the bed and the nazir in the bedroom, does the nazir not shave? Rebbi Joḥanan said, if the corpse and the nazir are under the bed frame, under the belly of a camel, under the width of a gate, under the gutters, the nazir does not shave, nor for anything which is there for protection. Ḥizqiah heard it and said, they purified the dead! Rebbi Joḥanan said, if the corpse is in the anteroom and the nazir in the dining hall, the nazir shaves; certainly if the corpse is in the dining hall and the nazir in the anteroom, the nazir shaves. Rebbi Mana asked, if it is a tent to separate it should be a tent to draw along; if it is not a tent to draw along, the impurity should disappear! Rebbi Joḥanan said, if the impurity is under the outer half of the wall, the nazir shaves. Rebbi Joshia said, if impurity is hidden in the ground of the house, the nazir shaves. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joshia: The nazir does not shave for most of the skeleton or most of the bones.

What is “the good order”? Rebbi Sabbatai in the name of Ḥizqiah: Because of the good order of Jewish women, lest they frequently be divorced. Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac asked Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: It is valid, and you say so? If it were invalid, then [the explanation] would be acceptable. Rebbi Abun said, for the good order of the scribe, that his livelihood be guaranteed.

HALAKHAH: “If a slave was kidnapped and ransomed,” etc. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Ḥizqiah: It would be logical that even as a slave he should not have to serve. And why did they say, he has to serve? That a slave should not run away to the kidnappers. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, a baraita implies this: “His master pays his ransom and frees him.” They said that only about his master, not anybody else. Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Yasa: It would be logical that even as a free person he should have to serve. Why did they say that he does not have to serve? Not to damage the reputations of free persons. Rebbi Yose said, but it is so: “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, in any case he shall serve; just as Israel are obligated to ransom free persons so they are obligated to ransom slaves.” The first Tanna is of the opinion that they are obligated to ransom free persons but they are not obligated to ransom slaves. Rebbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Practice follows Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel.

Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: So it is: If he sold to a first person and she signed, to a second and a third and she signed, she can collect from the last. If it is insufficient, she collects from the one before the last. If this is insufficient, she collects from the one before the penultimate. On this, Rav said: For property which she brought him in her ketubah. But property which she brought to him as paraphernalia, she collects from any she wants.

Rebbi Ḥanina said, practice follows Rabban Gamliel: if she said “take for me, it should be mine in your hand.” A man sent a bill of divorce to his wife. She told [the agent]: “It should be mine in your hand.” The casecame before Rav, who said, if he wants to retract he cannot retract. Does he disagree? There is a difference between “it should be in your hand” and “it should be mine in your hand.” Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, I know the beginning and the end. A woman appointed an agent to accept her bill of divorce from the husband’s agents. The case came before Rav, who said, if he wants to retract he cannot retract. Rav’s opinion has switched! There, Rav Huna said in the name of Rav: A woman cannot appoint an agent to accept her bill of divorce from her husband’s agent, and here, he says so? I say, he was standing behind the door and heard her voice.

It was stated: Also the sick person. Rebbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: Practice follows Rebbi Simeon from Shezur about the dangerously ill. What is the difference between a dangerously ill and a sick person? A sick person is a normal case; any who gets sick suddenly is dangerously ill. In a normal case, the relatives visit him immediately; unrelated persons visit him after three days. If he falls ill suddenly, everybody visits him immediately. An example: Rebbi Ḥuna, Rebbi Phineas, and Rebbi Ḥizqiah went to visit Rebbi Yose after three days. He said to them: Do you want to sustain the baraita in my case?

Rebbi Abin in the name of Ḥizqiah: The second scribe earns money.

Rav Jeremiah in the name of Rav: Jews who forced in the manner of Gentiles make invalid, even if he says, I shall not feed nor provide. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: Gentiles who forced in the manner of Jews are valid, even if he says, I shall not feed nor provide. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah says this: “Gentiles may tell him, whip him, and tell him, do what the Jews tell you to do.” Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Issy: If somebody says: “I shall not feed nor provide”, one forces him to divorce. Rebbi Jeremiah asked before Rebbi Abbahu: Does one force? He said to him, do you still have doubts? If one forces because of a foul smell, so much more because of sustenance! Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Yasa came in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If somebody says: “I shall not feed and I shall not provide”, one tells him: Either feed and provide, or divorce.

HALAKHAH: “Large animals are taken possession of by handing over,” etc. Rebbi Huna said, the halter gives possession only for property of the proselyte. Rav Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Abba: Rebbi Eleazar asked, if there were ten camels tied one to another and he handed him the halter of one of them. Did he take possession of all of them or only of the one of which he handed him [the halter]? Rav Ḥisda said: “Draw this animal to take possession of it, he took possession. To take possession of its offspring, he did not take possession. To take possession of it together with its offspring, he took possession.” If somebody said to another person, draw this animal close to take possession of its load, would he not take possession? Rebbi Yose said, that is, if the animal was not pregnant. But if it was pregnant, they considered it as if carrying a load.

From where that non-guaranteed property may be acquired together with guaranteed property, by money, document, or by possession? Rebbi Yose in the name of Ḥizqiah; Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Ḥanina Tortaya in the name of Ḥizqiah, it is written (2Chr. 21:3): “Their father gave them many gifts, silver and gold and delicacies, with fortified cities in Jehudah.” So far real estate and movables were at the same place. If real estate was at one place and movables elsewhere? Rebbi Abin bar Ḥiyya said, let us hear from the following: Rebbi Eliezer said to them, it happened that a man from Meron was dwelling in Jerusalem, who was rich in movables. He wanted to distribute them, to give them as gifts. They said to him, you cannot do that except if you acquire real estate. What did he do? He went and bought a rock near Jerusalem and said: The Northern part I give to X with a hundred amphoras of wine, the Southern part I give to Y with a hundred amphoras of oil. The matter came before the Sages and they upheld his words. Rebbi Ḥananiah said before Rebbi Mana: But was he not bedridden? For in general a person might give property rights only in writing, and here even orally. In general, a person might give only if real estate and movables are at the same place; here, however, the real estate was at one place and the movables elsewhere. He said to him: But is there a difference for Rebbi Eliezer? Is not the sick person for Rebbi Eliezer like the sick person for the rabbis? He said to him: The sick person for Rebbi Eliezer is like the healthy person for the rabbis.

From where that non-guaranteed property may be acquired together with guaranteed property, by money, document, or by possession? Rebbi Yose in the name of Ḥizqiah; Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Ḥanina Tortaya in the name of Ḥizqiah, it is written (2Chr. 21:3): “Their father gave them many gifts, silver and gold and delicacies, with fortified cities in Jehudah.” So far real estate and movables were at the same place. If real estate was at one place and movables elsewhere? Rebbi Abin bar Ḥiyya said, let us hear from the following: Rebbi Eliezer said to them, it happened that a man from Meron was dwelling in Jerusalem, who was rich in movables. He wanted to distribute them, to give them as gifts. They said to him, you cannot do that except if you acquire real estate. What did he do? He went and bought a rock near Jerusalem and said: The Northern part I give to X with a hundred amphoras of wine, the Southern part I give to Y with a hundred amphoras of oil. The matter came before the Sages and they upheld his words. Rebbi Ḥananiah said before Rebbi Mana: But was he not bedridden? For in general a person might give property rights only in writing, and here even orally. In general, a person might give only if real estate and movables are at the same place; here, however, the real estate was at one place and the movables elsewhere. He said to him: But is there a difference for Rebbi Eliezer? Is not the sick person for Rebbi Eliezer like the sick person for the rabbis? He said to him: The sick person for Rebbi Eliezer is like the healthy person for the rabbis.

Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: One has a cow and one a donkey. They exchanged one for the other. The donkey’s owner took the cow. When the cow’s owner came to take the donkey and found that it had died, the donkey’s owner has to bring proof that his donkey was alive at the moment he took the cow. For the burden of proof is on the claimant except for barter. And anybody who does not agree to this does not know anything about civil law. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, I do not agree. Rebbi Abba said to Rebbi Ze‘ira: A Mishnah disagrees with Samuel. “If she had bodily defects, as long as she is in her father’s house, the father has to prove.” Not the husband has to prove to regain the [money given] for preliminary marriage from the father. The students of Rebbi Jonah said, explain it if little money was involved. An example: Rebbi Ḥuna, Rebbi Phineas, and Rebbi Ḥizqiah went to visit Rebbi Yosef to learn from him. They said to him, the Mishnah supports Samuel: “Once she entered the husband’s domain, the husband has to prove.” Would not the father have to prove, to extract the ketubah from the husband’s possession? He answered them, does not Samuel agree that if the cow’s owner took possession of the donkey, he has to prove that it was defective before it came into his possession? And this one, when he took her in it is as if he drew close.

There, we have stated: “If they started, one does not interrupt.” What is the start of bathing? Rebbi Zeriqan in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: When he opened his belt. Rav said, when he took off his shoe. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi used to hear the lesson of his grandson every Friday. Once he forgot and went bathing in the public baths of Tiberias; he was leaning on Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba’s shoulder. He remembered and left the public bath. He said, so it was: Rebbi Eleazar bar Yose said, he had taken off [his clothes]. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said to him, did our teacher not teach us, “if they started, one does not interrupt”? He said to him, Ḥiyya my son, is that unimportant in your eyes? For anyone who hears the lesson from his grandson is as if he heard it from Mount Sinai. What is the reason? “ You shall make them known to you sons and grandsons,” etc., “the day when you stood before the Eternal, your God, at Horeb.” Like the day when you stood before the Eternal, your God, at Horeb. Rebbi Ḥizqiah bar Jeremiah, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If you can link the tradition back to Moses, link it. Otherwise take either the very first or the very last [source]. Giddul said, anybody who quotes somebody should consider it as if the author of the quote stood before him. What is the reason? “Only in image a man wanders.” “Many a man professes good will, but where will you find one you can trust?” That is Rebbi Ze‘ira, as Rebbi Ze‘ira said, we do take the traditions of Rav Sheshet into account since he is blind. And Rebbi Ze‘ira said to Rebbi Yasa, does the Rabbi know Bar Pedaiah, that you quote in his name? He said to him, Rav Ada bar Aḥawa said it in his name.

[They asked Rebbi Eliezer,] how far does honoring father and mother go? He said to them, you are asking me? Go and ask Dama ben Netinah. Dama ben Netinah was the head of the city council. Once his mother was slapping him in front of the entire council and a slipper fell from her hand, and he handed it back to her so that she should feel no inconvenience. Rebbi Ḥizqiah said: He was a Gentile from Ascalon and the head of the city council. He never sat on the stone on which his father used to sit and when his father died, he worshipped the stone. Once the jaspis of Benjamin was lost. They inquired, who would have one of similar quality? They were informed that Dama ben Netinah did. They went to him and agreed on 100 denars. He went to the upper floor to bring it and found his father sleeping. Some say that the key to the chest was in his father’s fingers; some say his father’s foot was resting on the chest. He descended to them and told them: I could not bring it to you. They thought, maybe he wants more money, and raised the price to two hundred, then to a thousand. When his father woke up from his sleep, he went up and brought it to them. They wanted to give him according to the amount last mentioned, but he refused. He said: Do I sell my father’s honor for money? I will not have any advantage from honoring my father. What reward did the Holy One, praise to Him, give him? Rebbi Yose bar Abun said: The following night, his cow gave birth to a red heifer and Israel gave him its weight in gold and took it. Rebbi Sabbatai said (Job 37:23), it is written: “Justice and much charity He will not suppress.” The Holy One, praise to Him, will not wait to give the reward for good deeds to the Gentiles.

It was stated: “Concerning all of these, if he gave a name to their heave of the tithe or Second Tithe, what he did is done.” Rebbi Eleazar said, with the exception of the remainders of flour sacrifices. Rebbi Jeremiah said, the rest is in dispute. Rebbi Yose asked, what dispute? Where are we standing, if according to Rebbi Meïr, both for Second Tithe and for the remainders of flour sacrifices, he did not do anything. If according to Rebbi Jehudah, what he did is done. Rebbi Mana said, I went to Caesarea and heard Rebbi Ḥizqiah who was sitting there, stating: “If [a priest] preliminarily marries by means of his share in the holiest sacrifices or simple holy sacrifices, she is not married.” Rebbi Eleazar said, that is everybody’s opinion. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is in dispute. I said to him, from whom did you hear this, and he said, from Rebbi Jeremiah. I said, this explains the matter! Rebbi Jeremiah, who heard that Rebbi Eleazar said, it is everybody’s opinion, he says it is in dispute. Rebbi Yose, who did not hear that, asked which dispute? If according to Rebbi Meïr, both for tithe and for the remainders of flour sacrifices, he did not do anything; if according to Rebbi Jehudah, what he did is done.

When Rebbi Meïr expired, Rebbi Jehudah decided and said, Rebbi Meïr’s students shall not enter here. Symmachos squeezed by and entered. He said, “Most holy sacrifices for preliminary marriage,” how could a woman enter the Temple courtyard? He said to him, if he contracts preliminary marriage through an agent. By what does he contract preliminary marriage? Rebbi Eleazar said, by its body. Rebbi Joḥanan said, by the goodwill created. Or we might say that they do not disagree. When Rebbi Eleazar said, by its body, [he meant] by the expected goodwill from it. Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Bevai in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: One may contract preliminary marriage with a peruṭah from Second Tithe.

They asked before Rebbi Zeïra: a Cohen to an Israel, Rebbi forbids. What does Rebbi Yose say? He did not respond. Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Aḥa said, so he said to them: In the opinion of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina, why is a Cohen to an Israel forbidden, not because it looks badly? Also Rebbi Joḥanan holds that from an Israel to an Israel it is forbidden because it looks badly. In addition, because of the following, as it was stated: “Cohanim and Levites who help at the threshing floor have no right either to heave or to tithe, and if the farmer gave, it is desecrated, as it is said (Lev. 22:15): ‘They should not desecrate the sanctified things of the Children of Israel,’ but they do desecrate them! In addition, they said that their heave is no heave, their tithes are no tithes, their dedications are no dedications, and about them the verse says (Micha 3:11): ‘Their heads judge for bribes, their priests instruct for hire, etc.’ The Omnipresent brings over them three catastrophes; that is what is written (Micha 3:12): ‘Therefore, because of you Zion will be ploughed over as a field, Jerusalem will be desolate, and the Temple Mount a wooded hill.’

Ḥizqiah said, if he redeemed them they revert to their sanctity. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if he redeemed them they are redeemed. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “These have no redemption.” He explains thus: After they were cut they do not need redemption. Rebbi Yose said, what Ḥizqiah said refers to the case that he himself redeemed them. But if another person redeemed them, the sanctity is removed from them. The argument of Rebbi Yose is switched: There, he says that if [another] redeemed them, the sanctity is removed from them, but here, he says that if she was married to another man the qiddušin [of the first] were not removed! All that is questionable for him is if he gave her two peruṭot, one for the moment and one for after he divorced her; what is the situation?

Ḥizqiah said, if he redeemed them they revert to their sanctity. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if he redeemed them they are redeemed. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “These have no redemption.” He explains thus: After they were cut they do not need redemption. Rebbi Yose said, what Ḥizqiah said refers to the case that he himself redeemed them. But if another person redeemed them, the sanctity is removed from them. The argument of Rebbi Yose is switched: There, he says that if [another] redeemed them, the sanctity is removed from them, but here, he says that if she was married to another man the qiddušin [of the first] were not removed! All that is questionable for him is if he gave her two peruṭot, one for the moment and one for after he divorced her; what is the situation?

It was stated: “If a Gentile or a slave had intercourse with a Jewish woman, the child is a bastard; Rebbi Simeon ben Jehudah says in the name of Rebbi Simeon, the child is not a bastard, for a bastard is only from a woman forbidden to him by an incest prohibition for which the penalty is extirpation.” Both of them explained the same verse, “nobody may take his father’s wife, etc.” Rebbi Meïr explains: Since his father’s wife is special in that he cannot have preliminary marriage with her, but she could have preliminary marriage with others, and the child is a bastard, so in all cases in which she cannot have preliminary marriage with him, the child is a bastard. Rebbi Simeon ben Jehudah explains: Since his father’s wife is special in that she cannot have preliminary marriage with him, but she could have preliminary marriage with others, and the child is a bastard; this excludes the Gentile and the slave who cannot contract preliminary marriage with her or with others. Rebbi Samuel bar Abba questions that first Tanna: The sister-in-law who whored cannot have preliminary marriage with him or with others, but the child is qualified! Rebbi Yannai in the name of Rebbi: If a Gentile or a slave had intercourse with a Jewish woman, the child is a bastard. Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both say, the child is a bastard. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Simeon bar Abba, Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, in the name of Rebbi (Yannai ben) Rebbi: The child is neither qualified nor disqualified but dirtied. Rebbi Jonathan went with Rebbi Jehudah Neśia to the hot springs of Gadara. There, he instructed: The child is qualified. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, this child improves as time goes by. Rebbi declared the child dirtied, his grandson declared him qualified. Rebbi Abba bar Zavda instructed in the name of all rabbis: The child is qualified. Rebbi Bevai said before Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: The child is qualified. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, if it is from that, one does not learn from a declaration. Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, I know the story from beginning to end. Rebbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina went up to the hot springs of Gadara. He visited his father who said to him: Be careful, because there are those who are disqualified, lest you injure them.

“Proselytes,” meaning “everyone who separated himself from the impurities of the peoples of the earth to join them.” Freedmen, as in “and all the Gibeonites, etc.” Bastards. Rebbi Simeon said, it is written: “And the following came up from Salt Hill, Ploughing Hill”. From Salt Hill, that is Babylon. Ploughing Hill refers to silenced ones and foundlings. Kerub means the bastards; the young are those who go after their eyes; Addon, for they were saying, there is no judgment and no Master. Rebbi Ḥizqiah changed the wording: These are those who went after their eyes and said, there is no judgment and no judge. And Immer, who rebelled against God by their evil deeds. Rebbi Abbun in the name of Rebbi Phineas: They publicized themselves like the seam of a garment. Rebbi Levi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: They would have been worthy of being turned into a salt hill, but Divine justice was silent for them. Ploughing Hill.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody says, this my son is a bastard, he cannot be believed,” etc. There, we have stated: “If somebody said, this is my son, he is to be believed.” Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: To give him, but not to take from him. Rebbi Yose said, is that not the Mishnah: “Even if both of them say about the fetus in her belly that he is a bastard, they cannot be believed”? Maybe it was said following Rebbi Jehudah, for Rebbi Jehudah said, they can be believed; Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: To give him, but not to take from him. Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, still it is a baraita: “For he has to recognize the firstborn, the son of the hated one.” If they maintained that he was his son but at the moment of his death he said that he was not his son, he cannot be believed. That he was not his son but at the moment of his death he said that he was his son, he is believed. Some Tannaïm state on the first case that he is believed. Rebbi Ḥisqiah, Rebbi Zeriqan in the name of Rebbi Huna: If they maintained that he was from his slave girl, he is believed. If he was standing next to the customs collectors and said, he is my son, but later he said, he is my slave, he is believed. He is my slave, but later he said, he is my son, he is not believed. Some Tannaïm state, he is believed. Rebbi Mana said, because of those Samaritans who use their sons as slaves.

Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Cohen in the name of Rav. It is forbidden to dwell in a city which has neither a medical man, nor a public bath, nor a court lashing and jailing. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, also it is forbidden to dwell in a city which has no vegetable garden. Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Cohen in the name of Rav: Every person will have to justify himself for everything his eye saw and which he did not eat. Rebbi Eleazar took note of this statement and saved coins from which he ate every kind once a year.

Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Cohen in the name of Rav. It is forbidden to dwell in a city which has neither a medical man, nor a public bath, nor a court lashing and jailing. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, also it is forbidden to dwell in a city which has no vegetable garden. Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Cohen in the name of Rav: Every person will have to justify himself for everything his eye saw and which he did not eat. Rebbi Eleazar took note of this statement and saved coins from which he ate every kind once a year.

Ḥizqiah said, only if he turned it over to acquire. The word of Ḥizqiah implies that movables can be acquired by turning them over. But could they be acquired by dragging? Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, this is reasonable for pillars and hard hides. But soft hides one does not acquire unless one lifts them up.

Ḥizqiah said, only if he turned it over to acquire. The word of Ḥizqiah implies that movables can be acquired by turning them over. But could they be acquired by dragging? Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, this is reasonable for pillars and hard hides. But soft hides one does not acquire unless one lifts them up.

HALAKHAH: “The bull of an Israel which gored a bull of a non-Jew,” etc. Rav said, “He saw and permitted Gentiles,” He permitted the Gentiles’ money. Ḥizqiah said, “He appeared from Mont Paran,” He appeared in front of the Gentiles; Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, He made them poor. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan said, following their laws. Rebbi La said, this was not said referring to this topic, but to what Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: If a Gentile’s bull gored another Gentile’s bull, even though they accepted to be judged by the laws of Israel, he is liable for full damages whether tame or notorious. On that it was said that Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, following their laws.

HALAKHAH: “He who sets a fire,” etc. Ḥizqiah said, if he handed him a glowing coal. But if he handed him an open flame he is liable. Rebbi Joḥanan said, coal and flame are the same. It is difficult according to Ḥizqiah, for if somebody saw another person’s glowing coal rolling by and did not extinguish it, is he not free from liability? They said, explain it if he handed him an ownerless glowing coal, or also an ownerless flame, and one cannot infer anything.

HALAKHAH: “He who sets a fire,” etc. Ḥizqiah said, if he handed him a glowing coal. But if he handed him an open flame he is liable. Rebbi Joḥanan said, coal and flame are the same. It is difficult according to Ḥizqiah, for if somebody saw another person’s glowing coal rolling by and did not extinguish it, is he not free from liability? They said, explain it if he handed him an ownerless glowing coal, or also an ownerless flame, and one cannot infer anything.

“One was convicted of theft on the testimony of two witnesses,” etc. So far if the witnesses for theft and those for slaughter came together. If witnesses for theft appeared but were not accepted and after that came witnesses for slaughter. One tells them “witnesses for theft already had appeared but were not accepted, but on the strength of your testimony we shall accept them.” If the witnesses for slaughter turn out to be perjured, they pay because of the witnesses for theft. Rebbi Ḥizqiah does not say so but: So far if the witnesses for theft and those for slaughter came together. If witnesses for slaughter appeared but were not accepted and after that came witnesses for theft. One tells them “witnesses for slaughter already had appeared but were not accepted, but on the strength of your testimony we shall accept them.” If the witnesses for theft turn out to be perjured, they pay because of the witnesses for slaughter.

Ḥilfai said, if he swore to him before Passover, then after Passover he pays him for fully useable leavened matter. Rebbi Mana said, I went to Caesarea and asked Rebbi Ḥizqiah, who quoted this in the name of Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, is there anybody who disagrees with Ḥilfai so that he would not have to pay for fully useable leavened matter? Everybody agrees about leavened matter that he has to pay for fully useable leavened matter.

HALAKHAH: “If he gave the money to Yehoiarib,” etc. Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, they disagree about two weeks, Rebbi Yose said about one week. He who said about two weeks, “if he gave the money to Yehoiarib on Yedaiah’s watch and the reparation offering to Yedaiah on Yehoiarib’s watch, he has fulfilled his obligation. Rebbi said, following Rebbi Jehudah’s words if the men from Yehoiarib offered the reparation offering there was no atonement; but the money should be transferred from the men of Yedaiah to the men of Yehoiarib; the men from Yehoiarib then shall offer the reparation offering for atonement.” This implies that one removes the money given to men of a watch not during their week. He who said that they disagree about one week, if he gave the money to Yehoiarib on Yedaiah’s watch and the reparation offering to Yedaiah on Yehoiarib’s watch, means that he did not fulfill his obligation, etc. This implies that one does not remove a sacrifice which men of a watch received during their week. But if the watch of the men of Yehoiarib dragged their feet, then the baraita implies that they dragged their feet after the men of Yehoiarib received the reparation offering after days, and there is no atonement. But one has to transfer the money from the men of Yedaiah to the men of Yehoiarib, the men of Yedaiah shall offer the reparation offering, and there will be atonement. This implies that if men of a watch received a sacrifice during their week but were lazy and did not offer it, one removes it from their hand.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody saw a find” etc. Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish said [in the name of] Abba Cohen bar Delaiah: A person acquires a find within four cubits from himself. Rebbi Joḥanan said, only if it fell into his hand. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: “If he took some of the peah and threw it on the rest, he has nothing of it.” He answered: Explain it if the did not say that his four cubits should acquire it for him. But does it not say afterwards: “If he fell on it or spread his talith on it, one removes him from it?” That is the same, if he did not say that his four cubits should acquire it for him. But did not Rebbi Ḥiyya state: “If two were pushing one another because of a sheaf and another poor person came and grabbed it from before them, he is entitled to it.” It is the same; he did not say that his four cubits should acquire it for him. But did we not state: “If somebody saw a find and fell upon it when another person grabbed it, the one who grabbed it acquired it.” It is the same, he did not say that his four cubits should acquire it for him. But did we not state: “If it landed close to her it is a bill of divorce, close to him it is no bill of divorce, half and half she is divorced and not divorced.” Ḥizqiah said, the Mishnah speaks of the scribe’s fee. They objected: Is it not written: “I in my poverty did prepare”? How is that? If it was in his possession, he was rich. If it was not in his possession, how can a person dedicate what is not his? It must be that it was within four cubits from him. Rebbi Abin said, what means “in my poverty?” That there is no wealth before Him Who commanded and the world came into existence! Another explanation: he fasted and donated the price of his meal to Heaven.

Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: One had a cow and one a donkey. They exchanged one for the other. The donkey’s owner took the cow. When the cow’s owner came to take the donkey and found that it had a fracture, the donkey’s owner had to bring proof that his donkey was well at the moment he took the cow. Anybody who does not agree to this does not know anything about civil law. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, I do not agree, I do not know anything about civil law. There, we have stated: “If she had bodily defects, as long as she was in her father’s house,” etc. Rebbi Ḥuna, Rebbi Phineas, and Rebbi Ḥizqiah went to visit Rebbi Yose to sharpen wits. They quoted the statement and he told them, look at the next statement: “Once she entered the husband’s domain, the husband has to prove.” Would not the father have to prove? But you are saying that the husband has to prove; here also, the owner has to prove.

HALAKHAH: “How much time does one have to return it,” etc. Ḥizqiah said, to add it for Jerusalem, he adds it as good coin. If he uses it to redeem in the countryside, he redeems with the underweight coin. But did we not state: “He chooses the better one of the two and exchanges it for them”? Why can he not take the worse [coin] and treat it [as a good one]. He said, there is a difference here because it already was shown to be Second Tithe.

HALAKHAH: “One may increase rental fees,” etc. It was stated: “If somebody sells a field to another and stipulates, on condition that I shall work it as a sharecropper, on condition that I shall be part owner, on condition that the tithes shall be mine, on condition that if you sell it, you will sell it only to me, that anytime I want I may pay you back and take it; this is permitted.” “If he owed him money and wrote his field over to him as a sale, any time the seller eats the yield it is permitted; any time the buyer eats the yield, it is forbidden. Rebbi Jehudah says, in any case it is permitted. Rebbi Jehudah said, that is what Boethos ben Zenon did following the Sages. They said to him, is that a proof? The seller was eating the yield.” Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Eleazar, and Rebbi Hoshaia said, Rebbi Jehudah learned from the houses of walled cities. As it was stated: The year mentioned in the Torah regarding walled cities is like interest but it is not interest. Another Tanna stated: This is interest but the Torah permitted it. He who said, it is like interest but it is not interest, Rebbi Meïr. He who said, this is interest but the Torah permitted it, Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Idi said, when I came from the Diaspora, I found that a case was before Rebbi Immi of “it is like interest but it is not interest.” Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, they only said that “this is interest but the Torah permitted it.” There, the Torah permitted it, therefore not in any other case. Nevertheless, Rebbi Immi did not consider it, for he said: a house dwells with its inhabitants.

In the House of Rebbi Yannai they said, up to three steps it is like a chair. Rebbi La said in the name of the House of Rebbi Yannai, this was said referring to impurity. Rebbi Ḥizqiah said in the name of the House of Rebbi Yannai, this was said referring to rights of possession. Rebbi Yose in the name of the House of Rebbi Yannai, this was said referring to the Sabbath.

Samuel asked Rav Huna: if one wrote a gift in the language of a sale? He answered, he made it ride on two racing horses; Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, they only said that one brings two white horses and makes it ride on both. One goes in one direction and the other in another; it turns out that he caught nothing.

One who said, my property should be given to X, if X died to Y, if Y died to Z. The one who was mentioned earlier receives the property earlier. If the second died during the first’s lifetime, the first one has the usufruct; when he dies the property reverts to heirs of the bequeather. If the third died during the second’s lifetime, the first one has the usufruct; when he dies the property reverts to heirs of the bequeather. If both the second and the third die during the first’s lifetime, the first has the usufruct and acquired the real estate, the words of Rebbi. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, he only has the usufruct. Ḥizqiah said, practice follows Rebbi. Rebbi Yannai said, Rebbi agrees that he cannot dispose of it by a death-bed will. Rebbi Joḥanan said, not even as a gift from a healthy person. As in the following: A woman wrote her properties over to a certain man. She needed money and sold it to her husband. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Madia brought the case before Rebbi Yose. Did not Rebbi Yannai say, Rebbi agrees that he cannot dispose of it by a death-bed will? Rebbi Joḥanan said to him, is that not the gift of a healthy person? Since the husband of this woman is obligated to provide for her food, is that not like a death-bed will? So far, he is obligated to provide for her bread and legumes. Maybe eggs? Maybe chicken? Since it was stated that the first has the usufruct and acquired the real estate, that means that she may sell the property even in order to eat delicacies. Rebbi Aḥa bar Jacob said, it was stated there that her burial is part of her upkeep. If she did not have a burial site, since it was stated that the first has the usufruct and acquired the real estate, it means that he may sell the real estate and acquire a burial site.

Ḥizqiah said, only for leniency. If the witnesses’ handwriting was small and the text large, one follows the large. If the witnesses’ handwriting was large and the text small, one follows the small. Rebbi Isaac says: If his name was, e. g., Yose ben Yannai one estimates as if it were Melekh ben Melekh.

Rebbi Abbahu asked. According to Rebbi, should not civil suits be heard by five; should sentence not be passed by 23? It was found stated by (Rebbi) Ḥizqiah: Since the Torah said, kill by a vote of the majority, kill by the testimony of witnesses. Since witnesses must be two, a majority also must be two. No court can be even-numbered; one adds another one. This makes five.

Rebbi Zeˋira said, it says here “criminal” and it says there “criminal”, the prophet said it criminally. Since about “criminal” used there, the verse speaks about a false prophet, also about “criminal” used here, the verse speaks about a false prophet. Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, it says here “spoke” and it says there, that the prophet would speak in the Eternal’s name. Since about “spoke” used there, the verse speaks about a false prophet, also about “spoke” used here, the verse speaks about a false prophet.

Rebbi Ḥizqiah was walking on a road when he met a Samaritan who asked him, Rabbi, are you not the head of the Jews? He answered him, yes. He said to him, look what is written: You certainly shall put a king over yourself. It does not say “I shall put”, but “you shall put”, you appoint him over yourself.

Rebbi Jeremiah had a suit against a certain person. They accepted testimony not in the presence of Rebbi Jeremiah, and decided against Rebbi Jeremiah. He was sitting despondent; is it possible that one accepts witnesses not in the presence of the parties? Rebbi Hina, Rebbi Phineas, and Rebbi Ḥizqiah from Ḥuqoq did not go to the lecture on that day, but Rebbi Huna pushed, went in, and found Rebbi Jeremiah despondent; is it possible that one accepts witnesses not in the presence of the parties even if they are present with them in the same city? He told him, this is seen to be the rabbis’ opinion.

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.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, the first time one listens to him whether or not his arguments are substantial. After that, if his arguments are substantial one listens to him, otherwise one does not listen to him. They said, only if his later arguments are substantial. Ḥizqiah asked: If he was led out to be executed when he became paralyzed, do we say that had he not become paralyzed, he would have argued for his acquittal? Rebbi Joḥanan heard this and said, this is a donkey’s question. But it must be: If he was led out to be executed and said, I have to argue for my acquittal: when he became paralyzed, do we say that had he not become paralyzed, he would have argued for his acquittal? He said, that is a statement.

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 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.

From where the warning about the necromancer? Do not turn to the necromancers. From where extirpation? A person who would turn to necromancers and mediums, etc. Punishment from where? A man or woman, impersonating a necromancer or a medium, shall be put to death. Why is the medium not mentioned in Keritut? Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Because they are taken together in one prohibition, do not turn to the necromancers, etc. Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Because it is a prohibition implied by a positive commandment. Rebbi Zeˋira said before Rebbi Yasa: No person except you thought of stating the medium in this way in Keritut. He told him, because as the verse formulated it so the Mishnah formulates it, a necromancer or a medium.

From where does he have this? If was found stated by Ḥizqiah: And if the daughter of a Cohen man start to whore. Why does the verse say man? To include one who copulates with his daughter from a rape among the burned.

HALAKHAH: “If one intended to hit someone on his hips,” etc. Ḥizqiah asked: If one threw a deadly stone which killed one person and broke another’s vessels, did the verse give the law for one but not for the other? Ḥizqiah asked: If one threw a stone which was not deadly but which killed one person and broke another’s vessels, did the verse give the law for one but not for the other?

HALAKHAH: “If one intended to hit someone on his hips,” etc. Ḥizqiah asked: If one threw a deadly stone which killed one person and broke another’s vessels, did the verse give the law for one but not for the other? Ḥizqiah asked: If one threw a stone which was not deadly but which killed one person and broke another’s vessels, did the verse give the law for one but not for the other?

It was stated: Rebbi Neḥemiah says, one understands it from what was said My Spirit shall not judge man forever. Rebbi Jehudah says, My Spirit shall not judge him, for I shall not give My Spirit into them when I shall give My Spirit into people. Rebbi Simeon says, My Spirit shall not judge him, for I shall not give My Spirit into them when I shall distribute the rewards of the just. Others say, My Spirit shall not judge him, I shall not bring it back into its sheath. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, mainly their scalding was parboiling. What is the reason? At the time when they were scalded they shrank; in its heat they disappear from their place. What is in its heat? In their boiling. Rebbi Joḥanan said, every single drop which the Holy One, praise to Him, rained on them, He brought to a boil in Hell and rained it on them. That is what is written, in its heat they disappear from their place. Jehudah ben Rebbi Ḥizqiah and Rebbi said, the Holy One, praise to Him, judges the evildoers in Hell for twelve months. First He brings the itch on them; then He brings them into fire and they say woe, woe; after that He brings them into snow and they say wai, wai. What is the reason? He brought me up from the noisy pit, from miry mud. What is from יָוֶן mud? From a place where one says woe. Why could they not receive their punishment and then take part in the World to Come? Because the scoffer will not hear rebuke.

Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: When in the Future World the proselytes come, Antoninus comes at the head of all of them. How do you understand this? Since they saw him walking with a slight shoe on the Day of Atonement, what do you infer since even God-fearing people go outside thus. There is information that Antoninus did not become a proselyte, and there is information that Antoninus did become a proselyte. Antoninus came to Rebbi and asked him, can you see me eating from the Leviathan in the World to Come? He said, yes. He told him, from the Passover lamb you would not let me eat, but from Leviathan you make me eat in the World to Come? He answered, what can we do for you since about the Passover lamb it is written that no uncircumcised man may eat from it. This implies that Antoninus did not become a proselyte. When he heard this, he went and became a proselyte. He came to Rebbi and said to him, look at my circumcision. He answered him, at mine I never looked, and at yours I should look? This implies that Antoninus became a proselyte. Why is he called our holy teacher? Because he never in his life looked at his circumcision. And why is his name Naḥum the holiest of holies? Because he never in his life looked at the figure on a coin. Antoninus came to Rebbi; he said to him, pray for me. He said to him, may He save you from the cold, as it is written, who can withstand His cold? He said, is that not a superfluous prayer? You cover yourself with an outer garment and the cold will go away. He said to him, may He save you from the hot wind that comes into the world. He said, that is a prayer; may your prayer be heard, as it is written, nothing is hidden from His heat.

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.”

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

An androgynus who saw whitish [effluent] and entered the Sanctuary is not liable. If he saw red [effluent] and entered the Sanctuary, he is not liable. If he saw simultaneously whitish and red and entered the Sanctuary, he is liable. There is a Tanna who states: he is not liable. Rebbi Joḥanan said, this is Rebbi Simeon, as it was stated: “Two paths, one pure and one impure. He walked on one of them, entered the Sanctuary on the first one, sprinkled repeatedly, immersed himself, on the second one and entered; he is liable. Rebbi Simeon declares him not liable in this case. Rebbi Simeon ben Jehudah in the name of Rebbi Simeon declares him not liable in all cases.” One understands the androgynus, for whitish [effluent] you declare him to be a woman, for red [effluent] you declare him to be a man. But here there is no known impurity. Rebbi Samuel bar Sosartai said, explain it if he forgot the first. Rebbi Yose asked, where do we hold? If he forgot it forever, it is one path. If he forgot repeatedly, there are two paths. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rebbi Simeon parallels Rebbi Eliezer in the interpretation of Ḥizqiah. Just as Rebbi Eliezer said there, until he knows whether he did become impure by a crawling animal or a corpse, so Rebbi Simeon says here, until he knows whether he did become impure by red [effluent] or by whitish. One understands there since he said, a doubt of awareness is awareness. But here, since he saw whitish and red together, it is certain knowledge.

HALAKHAH: “If one became impure in the Temple courtyard,” etc. Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: One verse says, he defiled the dwelling place of the Eternal, another verse says, he defiled the Sanctuary of the Eternal. Why is this? To state a difference between one who became inside and one who became outside. If he became impure (inside) not unless he bring his head and most of his body inside; if he became impure (outside) not unless he stay for prostrating. If he became impure inside and entered further inside? Let us hear from the following: “If he prostrated himself, or tarried that he could have prostrated himself.” If he tarried, is that not as if he brought his head and most of his body inside, but you are saying, “he tarried that he could have prostrated himself.” And here, not unless he tarried that he could have prostrated himself. How is that? About which of them does he become liable? About the first or the last? The colleagues say, about the first. Rebbi Yose told them, one says to him, leave, and you say about the first? But we must hold about the last.

HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Eliezer says,” etc. Ḥizqiah says, there is disagreement between them. Rebbi Joḥanan said, interpreting the verse is between them; there are Tannaim who state, he is liable for forgetting impurity but is not liable for forgetting the Sanctuary, and there are Tannain who state, he is liable for forgetting the crawling animal but is not liable for forgetting the Sanctuary. The argument of Rebbi Eliezer seems inverted. There he says, even if he did not know. But here he says, not unless he knew. There, by which he sinned, not unless he knew by what he became liable. Here, while he was impure, in all cases. Rebbi Ḥinena said, here “by what” is not written. The argument of Rebbi Joshua seems inverted. There he says, while he was impure, not unless he knew by what he became liable. Here, by which he sinned, in any case. How does Rebbi Eliezer uphold by what? This excludes the one who is occupied.

Ḥizqiah said: he who swears that two are two is flogged for a vain oath. Rebbi Menahem in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: He who saw rain falling and said Κύριε πόλυ βρέξον is flogged for a vain oath. Rebbi Onias, Rebbi Jacob ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Samuel ben Naḥman: 24 city councils were in Judea and they all were destroyed because of true vain oaths, as it is written: For the vain did I hit your sons.

Rebbi Abba, Rav Jehudah in the name of Rav: in error, a sacrifice; intentional, a sacrifice. But if he said, I was of the opinion that this oath does not exist, he is free. Ḥizqiah stated: At any place where the Torah mentions sin without attribute you include intentional equally with unintentional unless Scripture inform you that it is unintentional.

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.

Their roasted egg, Bar Qappara permitted, Ḥizqiah forbade. So far if it was roasted intentionally. If it was roasted unintentionally? Let us hear from the following: There was a fire in an under-growth of reeds and a swamp of date palms where there were locusts which were roasted. The case came before Rebbi Mana, who forbade them. Rebbi Abbahu said, because of admixture of impure locusts. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, and this is of the stringencies of Rav. Rav returned there and saw them taking things lightly and was restrictive with them. A man was carrying meat while walking on the market. There came a vulture, seized it from his hand, and it dropped off under him. He went and wanted to sell it. Rav told him, it is forbidden to you, for I am saying that it was carrying carcass meat, dropped it and took the other instead. A man went to wash a piece of meat in the river. He forgot it and left. Then he went and wanted to sell it. Rav told him, it is forbidden to you, for I am saying the other one was carried away by the river and it brought another piece of carcass meat in its place.

Samuel said, a cup which serves as base for a dragon is forbidden, a dragon which serves as base for a cup is permitted. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav: Fragments of a dragon are permitted. If it was a whole dragon and broke, it is forbidden.But did the fragments not come from a whole one? Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rav: So it is: If one saw them bowing down before a whole dragon and then it was broken, it is forbidden.

If somebody worshipped an egg Ḥizqiah said, he did not make it forbidden; Rebbi Joḥanan said, he made it forbidden. Rebbi Zeˋira said, they disagree about an egg. The colleagues say, they disagree about pebbles in a river bed. Rebbi Huna said, a verse supports what the colleagues say:Your part is with river pebbles; these are your destiny. The strength of Ḥizqiah is from the following: “Then why is an Ashera forbidden? Because it was held by human hand, and anything held by human hand is forbidden.” Everybody agrees that wheat is forbidden; as Rebbi Ḥanina bar Yasa said in the name of Rav Jehudah: The roots of wheat split the earth to a depth of 50 cubits; the soft roots of a fig tree split rock. Then what do the roots of the carob and the roots of the sycamore? Rebbi Ḥanina said, once every thirty days the abyss wells up and drenches them. What is the reason? I, the Eternal, am watching over it and water it in moments. It was stated: Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says, this teaches that the earth drinks only according to its hardness.

If somebody worshipped an egg Ḥizqiah said, he did not make it forbidden; Rebbi Joḥanan said, he made it forbidden. Rebbi Zeˋira said, they disagree about an egg. The colleagues say, they disagree about pebbles in a river bed. Rebbi Huna said, a verse supports what the colleagues say:Your part is with river pebbles; these are your destiny. The strength of Ḥizqiah is from the following: “Then why is an Ashera forbidden? Because it was held by human hand, and anything held by human hand is forbidden.” Everybody agrees that wheat is forbidden; as Rebbi Ḥanina bar Yasa said in the name of Rav Jehudah: The roots of wheat split the earth to a depth of 50 cubits; the soft roots of a fig tree split rock. Then what do the roots of the carob and the roots of the sycamore? Rebbi Ḥanina said, once every thirty days the abyss wells up and drenches them. What is the reason? I, the Eternal, am watching over it and water it in moments. It was stated: Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says, this teaches that the earth drinks only according to its hardness.

An egg of pagan worship which turned into a chick. Rebbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rebbi Josia: Cahana and Ḥizqiah disagree. Cahana said, it is permitted, Ḥizqiah said, it is forbidden. There is a difficulty in the opinion of Ḥizqiah: how is it possible for an egg of pagan worship to become a chick? Where do we hold? If somebody squashed it, there is no chick. If he brought it inside the lattice enclosure, come and look: If he worshipped it it is not forbidden; because he brought it inside the grating it should be forbidden? Rebbi Yudan the father of Rebbi Mattaniah said, explain it if he used to tow the idol.

An egg of pagan worship which turned into a chick. Rebbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rebbi Josia: Cahana and Ḥizqiah disagree. Cahana said, it is permitted, Ḥizqiah said, it is forbidden. There is a difficulty in the opinion of Ḥizqiah: how is it possible for an egg of pagan worship to become a chick? Where do we hold? If somebody squashed it, there is no chick. If he brought it inside the lattice enclosure, come and look: If he worshipped it it is not forbidden; because he brought it inside the grating it should be forbidden? Rebbi Yudan the father of Rebbi Mattaniah said, explain it if he used to tow the idol.

An egg of pagan worship which turned into a chick. Rebbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rebbi Josia: Cahana and Ḥizqiah disagree. Cahana said, it is permitted, Ḥizqiah said, it is forbidden. There is a difficulty in the opinion of Ḥizqiah: how is it possible for an egg of pagan worship to become a chick? Where do we hold? If somebody squashed it, there is no chick. If he brought it inside the lattice enclosure, come and look: If he worshipped it it is not forbidden; because he brought it inside the grating it should be forbidden? Rebbi Yudan the father of Rebbi Mattaniah said, explain it if he used to tow the idol.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, a stele is a monolith, an altar has many stones. Ḥizqiah said, a stele is annulled once it is damaged; of an altar one has to damage each single stone. A baraita of Ḥizqiah disagrees with him: If you tore down the altar, leave it alone; if you broke the stele, leave it alone . Rebbi Ze`ira, Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia; Rebbi Ḥiyya (Rebbi) Abba, Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rav Hoshaia: When He turns all stones of the altar like smashed pieces of chalk, persecute them until you eliminated its egg from the world. But here, if you broke a stele, leave it alone; if you tore down an altar, leave it alone.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, a stele is a monolith, an altar has many stones. Ḥizqiah said, a stele is annulled once it is damaged; of an altar one has to damage each single stone. A baraita of Ḥizqiah disagrees with him: If you tore down the altar, leave it alone; if you broke the stele, leave it alone . Rebbi Ze`ira, Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia; Rebbi Ḥiyya (Rebbi) Abba, Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rav Hoshaia: When He turns all stones of the altar like smashed pieces of chalk, persecute them until you eliminated its egg from the world. But here, if you broke a stele, leave it alone; if you tore down an altar, leave it alone.

Rebbi Aḥa went to Emmaus and ate something made in boiling water. Rebbi Jeremiah ate pickles. Rebbi Ḥizqiah ate locusts. Rebbi Abbahu forbade their wine on the testimony of Rebbi Ḥiyya, Rebbi Assi, and Rebbi Immi who went up King’s Mountain and saw a Gentile who was suspected because of wine. They came and said it before him. He told them, but not as a pretext. But some say, one Sabbath eve no wine was found in all of Samaria. When Sabbath ended, it was found full from what the Arameans brought and the Samaritans accepted from them. But some say, when King Diocletian came here he decided and said, all peoples have to offer libations except the Jews. The Samaritans offered libations and their wine was forbidden. But some say, they have a kind of dove and they offer libations to it.

HALAKHAH: “Libation wine is forbidden,” etc. Ḥizqiah said, that is at a place where water is not sold by measure. But at a place where water is sold by measure it is like wine in wine.

Ḥizqiah said, if somebody mixed a cup from forbidden and from permitted [wine], if the forbidden fell in [last] it makes it forbidden, permitted [last] makes it permitted. Rebbi Samuel [bar Rav Isaac] said, this follows Rebbi Eliezer, as Rebbi Eliezer said, I am going after the last one. Rebbi Jeremiah said, this is a stringency about libation wine. Rebbi Yose asked, if it were a stringency about libation wine, even if the permitted fell in last it should be forbidden! Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: if somebody mixed a cup from forbidden and from permitted [wine], one considers the permitted as nonexistent; if the forbidden does impart taste it is forbidden, otherwise permitted. Rebbi Hoshaia said, only if the permitted fell in last. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, it does not make any difference whether the forbidden fell in first and the permitted last or the permitted first and the forbidden last, even water and wine, even if it was mixed perfectly from permitted, one considers the permitted as nonexistent; if the forbidden does impart taste it is forbidden, otherwise permitted. Rebbi Ze`ira said, this has been said about the preceding; how can it be? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if a flask of libation wine fell into an amphora of (water) and then it fell into a water cistern, one considers the permitted as nonexistent; if the forbidden does impart taste it is forbidden, otherwise permitted.

HALAKHAH: “If the Court ruled to uproot an entire subject,” etc. Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, “of a subject,” not the entire subject. Rebbi Hila said, “of the commandments”, not entire commandments. Is that written? As Rebbi Immi said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: For interpretation, one removes from the beginning of the paragraph to its end. Rebbi Ḥananiah in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah: Even a middle word. You have to pour oil on it, it is a flour offering, to include all flour offerings for pouring.

Rebbi Joḥanan asked: If one of the public died, can it be brought in his stead? They answered, is it not written, those who came from captivity? Is a purification offering an elevation offering? But just as an elevation offering is not eaten, this purification offering was not eaten. Rebbi Jehudah says, they brought it for idolatry; Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, it was a temporary ruling. Rebbi Jeremiah (learned) [did not say] so but the bull needs laying on of hands by the Elders while the goats of idolatry do not need laying on of hands by the Elders. By whom? Rebbi Jeremiah wanted to say, by Aaron and his sons. Rebbi Yose told him, Rebbi Ḥiyya also stated, he shall put his hands on, they shall put their hands on, to include the goats of idolatry for laying on hands but not by the Elders. Rebbi Yose (learned) [did not say] so but the living [goat] needs laying on of hands by Aaron, but the goats of idolatry do not need laying on of hands by Aaron. It is written so, “Aaron shall lean with both his hands on the living goat’s head; the living [goat] needs laying on of hands by Aaron, but he goats of idolatry do not need laying on of hands by Aaron.” What does Rebbi Jeremiah do with this? He explains it, for a common priest.

So is the Mishnah: “but the Anointed is not liable for the impurity of the Temple and its sancta, everybody’s opinion, and neither is the Prince for hearing a sound, the words of Rebbi Simeon.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, and the Sanctuary he shall not leave, nor desecrate. Therefore, if he left, he would not desecrate. Rebbi Ashian, Rebbi Jonah: Rebbi Abun bar Cahana found a difficulty. Is it not written, a widow, or a divorcee, or a desecrated, a harlot, these he shall not marry, therefore if he married he would not desecrate? What about it? Ḥizqiah said, this person would be extirpated from the community. One whose sacrifice is identical to that of the community. This excludes the Anointed whose sacrifice is not equal to that of the community. They objected, is not also the Prince’s sacrifice not equal to that of the community? It is equal on the day of Atonement. But his brothers the priests are not equal on the day of Atonement! They are equal on the other days of the year. Rebbi Yudan bar Shalom said, they are equal in that the blood is given outside.

HALAKHAH: “What is an old woman,” etc. Rebbi Meïr says, the blood disappears because of the milk. Rebbi Yose says, the blood disappears because of the pain. You find a leniency and a stringency following Rebbi Meïr, and a leniency and a stringency following Rebbi Yose. A leniency following Rebbi Meïr, for if the baby was continuing to suckle for four ot five years, her timing continues exact. And a stringency, if she handed her child to a wet-nurse or it died, she [makes impure] for 24 hours. A leniency for Rebbi Yose, for if she handed her child to a wet-nurse or it died, her timing is exact. And a stringency, for if the baby was continuing to suckle for four ot five years, it is forbidden after 24 months. But did not Rebbi Meïr say, she makes impure for 24 hours? When? Immediately or if the baby stops and cannot start again? Let us hear from the following: “A baby can nurse until 24 complete months, after that it is as if an abomination suckled, the words of Rebbi Eliezer. Rebbi Joshua said, a baby can nurse even four or five years; this is permitted. If he stopped, one cannot return him.” How long? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: up to 24 hours. Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, up to three times 24 hours. When was this said? If he stopped when healthy. But if he stopped because of sickness, one can return him immediately. And for a baby which was not in danger. But a baby who was in danger one can return him immediately even after a longer time.