jehudah

What is the reason of Rebbi Jehudah? A man may not take his father’s wife, and he should not uncover his father’s wing; that is his rape victim. How do the rabbis explain “his father’s wing”? There, they say and they do not know the origin of the tradition, that refers to a wing which is in need of his father. Would he not anyhow be [criminally] liable for her because of “his father’s wife”? Rebbi Hila said, because of forewarning; if he was warned because of his father’s wife he will be whipped, and because of his father’s wing he will be whipped. Rebbi Jehudah agrees about whipping. Rebbi Jehudah agrees about sacrifice. Rebbi Jehudah agrees about all other men that he is free. Rebbi Jehudah agrees that if he marries her preliminarily that the preliminary marriage is legally valid.

What is the reason of Rebbi Jehudah? A man may not take his father’s wife, and he should not uncover his father’s wing; that is his rape victim. How do the rabbis explain “his father’s wing”? There, they say and they do not know the origin of the tradition, that refers to a wing which is in need of his father. Would he not anyhow be [criminally] liable for her because of “his father’s wife”? Rebbi Hila said, because of forewarning; if he was warned because of his father’s wife he will be whipped, and because of his father’s wing he will be whipped. Rebbi Jehudah agrees about whipping. Rebbi Jehudah agrees about sacrifice. Rebbi Jehudah agrees about all other men that he is free. Rebbi Jehudah agrees that if he marries her preliminarily that the preliminary marriage is legally valid.

What is the reason of Rebbi Jehudah? A man may not take his father’s wife, and he should not uncover his father’s wing; that is his rape victim. How do the rabbis explain “his father’s wing”? There, they say and they do not know the origin of the tradition, that refers to a wing which is in need of his father. Would he not anyhow be [criminally] liable for her because of “his father’s wife”? Rebbi Hila said, because of forewarning; if he was warned because of his father’s wife he will be whipped, and because of his father’s wing he will be whipped. Rebbi Jehudah agrees about whipping. Rebbi Jehudah agrees about sacrifice. Rebbi Jehudah agrees about all other men that he is free. Rebbi Jehudah agrees that if he marries her preliminarily that the preliminary marriage is legally valid.

What is the reason of Rebbi Jehudah? A man may not take his father’s wife, and he should not uncover his father’s wing; that is his rape victim. How do the rabbis explain “his father’s wing”? There, they say and they do not know the origin of the tradition, that refers to a wing which is in need of his father. Would he not anyhow be [criminally] liable for her because of “his father’s wife”? Rebbi Hila said, because of forewarning; if he was warned because of his father’s wife he will be whipped, and because of his father’s wing he will be whipped. Rebbi Jehudah agrees about whipping. Rebbi Jehudah agrees about sacrifice. Rebbi Jehudah agrees about all other men that he is free. Rebbi Jehudah agrees that if he marries her preliminarily that the preliminary marriage is legally valid.

What is the reason of Rebbi Jehudah? A man may not take his father’s wife, and he should not uncover his father’s wing; that is his rape victim. How do the rabbis explain “his father’s wing”? There, they say and they do not know the origin of the tradition, that refers to a wing which is in need of his father. Would he not anyhow be [criminally] liable for her because of “his father’s wife”? Rebbi Hila said, because of forewarning; if he was warned because of his father’s wife he will be whipped, and because of his father’s wing he will be whipped. Rebbi Jehudah agrees about whipping. Rebbi Jehudah agrees about sacrifice. Rebbi Jehudah agrees about all other men that he is free. Rebbi Jehudah agrees that if he marries her preliminarily that the preliminary marriage is legally valid.

Rebbi Ḥaggai asked before Rebbi Yose: Is the child a bastard following Rebbi Jehudah? He said to him, No one with a damaged testicle or with cut-off penis may marry into the Eternal’s congregation interrupts the argument. It interrupted the argument in the matter of the father’s wife. The father’s wife was part of the set of all incest prohibitions; it was selected from this set to teach about bastardy for all incest prohibitions. Similarly, let the rape victim be selected to teach a prohibition concerning all rape victims. The father’s wife was part of the set of all incest prohibitions; it was selected from this set to teach about bastardy for all incest prohibitions. Can you say here that the rape victim was in the set, that it could teach a prohibition concerning all rape victims? Why cannot the father’s wife be selected to teach about the rape victim in her case? He said to him, if she is his father’s wife, she is not his rape victim; if she is the father’s rape victim, she is not his wife.

MISHNAH: A murderer who attacked someone with a stone or an iron, or forced him under water or into fire so he could not escape from there and died, is [criminally] liable. If he pushed him into water or fire and he could have escaped from there by himself but died, he is not [criminally] liable. If he provoked a dog or a snake against him, he is not [criminally] liable. If he let a snake bite him, Rebbi Jehudah declares him [criminally] liable but for the Sages he is not [criminally] liable.

What is Rebbi Jehudah’s reason? Because of the poison in the hollow teeth. What is the reason of the rabbis? There is no poison in the hollow teeth until it excretes it.

MISHNAH: If a murderer was mixed up with others, none of them are criminally liable. Rebbi Jehudah says, one keeps them in jail. Any condemned to death who were mixed up with others shall be executed by the easier way. Those to be stoned with those to be burned, Rebbi Simeon says they shall be stoned because burning is more painful, but the Sages say they shall be burned since stoning is more painful. Rebbi Simeon told them, if burning were not more painful it would not have been prescribed for a Cohen’s daughter who committed adultery. They answered him, if stoning were not more painful, it would not have been prescribed for the blasphemer and those who worship strange cults. Those to be slain with those to be strangled, Rebbi Simeon says by the sword, but the Sages say by strangulation.

HALAKHAH: “He who steals the chalice,” etc. קסווה cista. Rav Jehudah said, it was a Temple vessel, as one says and the libation chalices.

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

Bar Qappara said, Ahaz and all evil kings of Israel have no part in the World to Come. What is the reason? All their kings fell, not one of them calls to Me. They objected to him: Is he not mentioned in the era of kings, in the days of Uzziahu, Yotham, Ahaz, Yeḥizqiahu the kings of Jehudah? He answered them, because he showed shame. How did he show shame? Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: You find that when the prophet came to accuse him, he fled to an impure place and buried his face in an impure place, implying that the Divine Presence does not dwell at an impure place. That is what is written: The Eternal said to Isaiah, please go out towards Aḥaz, you and your son Še’ar Yašuv, to the end of the canal of the upper pond, to the path of the fuller’s field. Do not read fuller’s but suppressing. He hid his face and fled before him. (How is that? When the prophet came to accuse him, he fled to an impure place and buried his face in an impure place.) Rebbi Jehudah says, because he was made to suffer about his firstborn son. What is the reason? Zimri, the strongman of Ephraim, killed etc. Rebbi Hoshaia the Elder said, because his father was just. But was Manasse’s father not just? Manasse’s father was just but his son was evil. Hezekias’s father was evil and his son was evil. That is what Hezekias says: Behold about peace, bitter is bitter for me. Bitter before me, from Aḥaz. Bitter after me, from Manasse. Aḥaz’s father was just and his son just, that is what is written: hand to hand will not cleanse evil, but the seed of the just will escape. [Rebbi Phineas said.] it is not written “the seed of a just will escape” but the seed of the just will escape. The seed lying between two just men will escape.

Bar Qappara said, Ahaz and all evil kings of Israel have no part in the World to Come. What is the reason? All their kings fell, not one of them calls to Me. They objected to him: Is he not mentioned in the era of kings, in the days of Uzziahu, Yotham, Ahaz, Yeḥizqiahu the kings of Jehudah? He answered them, because he showed shame. How did he show shame? Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: You find that when the prophet came to accuse him, he fled to an impure place and buried his face in an impure place, implying that the Divine Presence does not dwell at an impure place. That is what is written: The Eternal said to Isaiah, please go out towards Aḥaz, you and your son Še’ar Yašuv, to the end of the canal of the upper pond, to the path of the fuller’s field. Do not read fuller’s but suppressing. He hid his face and fled before him. (How is that? When the prophet came to accuse him, he fled to an impure place and buried his face in an impure place.) Rebbi Jehudah says, because he was made to suffer about his firstborn son. What is the reason? Zimri, the strongman of Ephraim, killed etc. Rebbi Hoshaia the Elder said, because his father was just. But was Manasse’s father not just? Manasse’s father was just but his son was evil. Hezekias’s father was evil and his son was evil. That is what Hezekias says: Behold about peace, bitter is bitter for me. Bitter before me, from Aḥaz. Bitter after me, from Manasse. Aḥaz’s father was just and his son just, that is what is written: hand to hand will not cleanse evil, but the seed of the just will escape. [Rebbi Phineas said.] it is not written “the seed of a just will escape” but the seed of the just will escape. The seed lying between two just men will escape.

MISHNAH: Three kings and four private persons have no part in the Future World. Three kings: Ahab, Jeroboam, Manasse. Rebbi Jehudah says, Manasse has part in the Future World, as it is said: he prayed to Him. He let Himself be petitioned, and heard his supplications, and returned him to Jerusalem, to his kingdom. They told him, He returned him to his kingdom; He did not return him to life in the Future World. Four private persons: Bileam and Doëg, Aḥitophel and Gehazi.

When Manasse became king, he was wild after Isaiah; he wanted to kill him, but he fled before him. He fled to a cedar tree, the cedar swallowed him, except to a ṣiṣit of his coat. They came and reported it before him. He said, go and cut down the cedar. They cut down the cedar and blood was seen flowing. But the Eternal did not want to pardon: from here that he has no part in the Future World. And is it not written, in addition to the sins of Manasse ben Hezekias, the king of Jehudah. Let us say, before he changed his ways. Because of all the rages by which Manasse enraged him. Let us say, before he repented. But is it not written: For he, Amon, increased in criminality. He did not add, but he found new ways. And is there not written: Also innocent blood did Manasse spill, a great deal, until he filled Jerusalem from mouth to mouth? How is it possible for flesh and blood to fill Jerusalem with innocent blood from mouth to mouth? But he slew Isaiah who was equal to Moses, about whom is written: Mouth to mouth I would speak to him.

It is written The rage of the Eternal was kindled against Israel. The Eternal said to Moses: Take all the heads of the people and hang them for the Eternal before the sun. What he told him was, install their heads as judges over them and let them execute the sinners at daytime. That is what is written: Moses told the judges of Israel: each one should kill his men who cling to the Baˋal Peˋor. How many were the judges of Israel? 78’600. Heads of thousands, 600. Heads of hundreds, 6'000. Heads of fifties, 12’000. heads of tens, 60’000. It turns out that the judges of Israel were 78’600. He told them, each of you should execute two. It turns out that the number of the killed was 157’200. Behold, a man from the Children of Israel came and introduced to his brothers the Midianite woman, to the eyes of Moses. What means to the eyes of Moses? Like a man who says, that is in your eyes, Moses. He told him, is not Ẓippora a Midianite, and are not her hooves split? This one is pure, that one is impure? There, Phineas was present. He said, is there nobody who would kill him or be killed? Where are the lions? A lion whelp is Jehudah; Dan is a lion whelp; Benjamin a rapacious wolf. When Phineas saw that nobody of Israel did anything, he immediately rose from his court, took the spear in his hand, and put its iron under his belt. He was leaning on its wood until he arrived at his door. When he arrived at his door, they asked him, where to, Phineas? He said to them, do you not agree that everywhere the tribe of Levi is with the tribe of Simeon? They said, let him, maybe the Pharisees permitted the matter. When he entered, the Holy One, praise to Him, performed six wonders for him. The first miracle: usually they would separate, but the angel glued the one to the other. The second miracle: He directed the spear into her belly to that his penis should be seen inside her belly because of the fault-finders, lest they say that he muscled himself in with them and satisfied himself. The third miracle: the angel closed their mouths, so they could not cry. The fourth miracle: they did not slip from the weapon but stayed in place. The fifth miracle: The angel lifted the lintel so that both of them were carried out between his shoulders. The sixth miracle: When the plague started to destroy the people, what did he do? He threw them on the ground and prayed. That is what is written: Phineas stood and prayed; the plague was arrested.

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.

You find [written] when Naˋaman, the army commander of the king of Aram, came to him with his horses and his chariot. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is written with his horse. He wanted to give him gold and silver, stolas and garments, precious stones and pearls, but he did not accept. That is what is written: He insisted that he take, but he refused. Geḥazi came and said, by the living Eternal, if I would run after him and take anything from him. “A defect” is written. He went, met him, took what he took, and hid it in his upper storey. He came to Elisha, who asked him, from where to where, Geḥazi? You refused the reward of the just! He answered, your servant did not go here or there. But he said, did not my thoughts go when a man turned from his carriage towards you; is it time to take silver and gold; is it time to take precious stones and pearls? Therefore, Naˋaman’s skin disease shall cling to you. It is written: Four men afflicted with skin disease were at the door of the gate. Who were they? Rebbi Jehudah in the name of Rav: They were Geḥazi and his three sons.

Rebbi Ḥanania and Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: at the time when they voted and said that three kings and four private persons had no part in the Future World, there came a disembodied voice and said, does it pay for you that you oppose, that you choose, not I, and what can you say? They wanted to include Solomon with them. David came and bowed down before them, but some say that fire came out of the Holiest of Holies and flared around them. Hadar IIla was used to be answered when he prayed. From the time he voted with them he prayed but was not answered. The interpreters of hints say, all of them have part in the Future World. What is the reason? Mine is Gilead, mine is Manasse, Ephraim my main fortress, Jehudah is my scepter, Moab my washing trough, at Edom I shall throw my shoe. Mine is Gilead, that is Ahab, king of Israel, who fell at Ramot Gilead. Mine is Manasse, its plain meaning. Ephraim my main fortress, that is Jeroboam ben Nevat the Ephraimite. Jehudah is my scepter, that is Aḥitophel. Moab my washing trough, that is Geḥazi. At Edom I shall throw my shoe, that is Doëg the Edomite. Israel said before the Holy One, praise to Him: Master of all Worlds, what can we do if David, King of Israel, cursed them? Men of blood and deceit shall not live to half of their days! He told them, it is up to Me to make them friends one to the other. For me Peleshet is friendly; to me Peleshet makes friends; it is up to Me to lead them to good deeds and to make them friends one to the other.

Rebbi Ḥanania and Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: at the time when they voted and said that three kings and four private persons had no part in the Future World, there came a disembodied voice and said, does it pay for you that you oppose, that you choose, not I, and what can you say? They wanted to include Solomon with them. David came and bowed down before them, but some say that fire came out of the Holiest of Holies and flared around them. Hadar IIla was used to be answered when he prayed. From the time he voted with them he prayed but was not answered. The interpreters of hints say, all of them have part in the Future World. What is the reason? Mine is Gilead, mine is Manasse, Ephraim my main fortress, Jehudah is my scepter, Moab my washing trough, at Edom I shall throw my shoe. Mine is Gilead, that is Ahab, king of Israel, who fell at Ramot Gilead. Mine is Manasse, its plain meaning. Ephraim my main fortress, that is Jeroboam ben Nevat the Ephraimite. Jehudah is my scepter, that is Aḥitophel. Moab my washing trough, that is Geḥazi. At Edom I shall throw my shoe, that is Doëg the Edomite. Israel said before the Holy One, praise to Him: Master of all Worlds, what can we do if David, King of Israel, cursed them? Men of blood and deceit shall not live to half of their days! He told them, it is up to Me to make them friends one to the other. For me Peleshet is friendly; to me Peleshet makes friends; it is up to Me to lead them to good deeds and to make them friends one to 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.

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.

The band of Korah will not have part in the Future World and not be resurrected in the future. What is the reason? The desert covered them, in this world; they were lost from among the congregation, in the future. It was stated: Rebbi Jehudah ben Bathyra says, one understands from what is said, I erred like a lost sheep; look after Your servant, that just as the lost object mentioned there at the end will be searched for, so also the lost object mentioned here at the end will be searched for.

HALAKHAH: “The Ten Tribes,” etc. The Ten Tribes have no part in the World to Come, and will not see the future. What is the reason? He threw them into another country like this day. As the day passes and does never return, so they go, never to return, the words of Rebbi Aqiba. Rebbi Simeon ben Jehudah from Kefar-Ikos said in the name of Rebbi Simeon: If their behavior remains as on this day, they will not return; otherwise, they will return.

Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Jehudah. One said, they were exiles only when they were uncircumcised. The other said, they were exiled only when they were bastards. He who says uncircumcised, for circumcision and commandments. But he who says bastards, from their fathers. Rebbi Joḥanan said, Israel was exiled only after they formed 24 heretical sects. What is the reason? Son of man, I am sending you to the Children of Israel, to rebellious peoples who rebelled against Me. It is not written “to a rebellious people” but to rebellious peoples who rebelled against Me; they and their fathers have acted criminally against Me up to this day. Rebbi Berekhia and Rebbi Ḥelbo in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman. Israel was exiled to three diasporas: one inside the river Sanbation, one to Daphne of Antiochia, and one on whom the Cloud descended and covered them. Just as they were exiled to three diasporas, so the tribes of Reuben, Gad, and half the tribe of Manasse were exiled into three diasporas. What is the reason? You went in the way of your sister and I gave her cup into your hand. So when they return, they will return from three diasporas. What is the reason? To tell the prisoners, leave, those who were exiled inside the river Sanbation; those in darkness, become visible, those upon whom the Cloud descended and covered them; on the roads they are grazing and on all plains is their pasturage, those who were exiled to Daphne of Antiochia.

HALAKHAH: “The people of a seduced town,” etc. A town but not a village, a town but not a fortified place. This means, from five to ten, the words of Rebbi Meïr; Rebbi Jehudah says, from one hundred up to a majority of the tribe. If two seduced two, is it possible to try the two who had seduced two both as seducers and as seduced? If there were proselytes and residents, are they counted for the majority? If there were menageries for wild animals, birds, or fish; birds flying higher than ten [handbreadths], what are the rules?

MISHNAH: And one who kidnaps a person from Israel is not punishable unless he bring him into his property. Rebbi Jehudah says, unless he bring him into his property and use him, as it is said, and enslaved him or sold him. One who kidnaps his own son, Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa declares punishable but the Sages make him not prosecutable. One who kidnapped a person half slave and half free Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa declares punishable but the Sages make him not prosecutable.

What is the reason of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa? Of the Children of Israel. What is the reason of the rabbis? Of his brothers, not his sons. What is the reason of Rebbi Jehudah? Of his brothers, even partially his brother. What is the reason of the rabbis? Of his brothers, unless he be totally his brother.

Rebbi Simeon ben Menasia says: Beauty, and vigor, and riches, and wisdom, and white hair, and honor, and children, are an adornment for the just. What is the reason? A crown of glory is white hair; on the way of piety it is found. A crown of the elderly are grandchildren; the glory of children are their parents. The glory of the young is their force; the splendor of the elderly is white hair. And it says, before his Elders in honor. It was stated: Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, these seven qualities which the Sages enumerated for the just were all realized by Rebbi and his sons. Rebbi Joḥanan said, all seven qualities which the Sages enunciated about the just were in Rebbi. Who was Rebbi? Rebbi is Rebbi Jehudah the Prince. Rebbi Abbahu said, Rebbi is Rebbi Yudan the Prince, is Our Teacher.

MISHNAH: [Denial] about words of the Sopherim is more serious than about words of the Torah. 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. One executes him not at the court in his town, nor at the court at Jabneh but one transports him to the Supreme Court in Jerusalem, keeps him until a holiday of pilgrimage, and executes him on the holiday as it is said, the entire people shall see and fear, the words of Rebbi Aqiba. Rebbi Jehudah says, one does not procrastinate in his case but executes him immediately, writes, and sends messengers to all places: Mr. A son of Mr. B was found guilty to be executed by the court.

HALAKHAH: “And the false prophet,” etc. “And one who prophesies what he did not hear,” like Ṣedekias ben Kenaana. “And what was not said to him,” like Ḥanania ben Azzur. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, Ḥanania ben Azzur was a true prophet; only he took instruction and heard what Jeremiah prophesied in the upper market; he went and prophesied in the lower market. Ḥanania ben Azzur told him, is not the essence of the matter only once seventy years will be fullfilled for Babylon, I shall remember you. In all, the days of Manasse were 55 years. Deduct from them 20 years for which the Heavenly Court does not punish or extirpate, add the two of Amon and 31 of Josia. That is what is written: At the beginning of the reign of Ṣedekias the king of Jehudah, in the fifth year, in the fifth month, Ḥanania ben Azzur, the prophet from Gibeon, said to me in the House of the Eternal, before the priests and all the people, as follows: So said the Eternal of Hosts, the God of Israel, as follows. I broke the yoke of the king of Babylon; in another two years I shall return to this place all the Temple vessels which Nebuchadnezzar, the king of Babylon, took from this city and brought to Babylon. Jeremiah told him, you are saying thatin another two years I shall return, etc. But I say that Nebuchadnezzar will come and take the remainder. To Babylon they will be brought and stay there, etc. He said to him, give a sign. He answered, I am prophesying bad things and cannot give a sign for my words since the Holy One, praise to Him, said to bring evil and might refrain from it. But you prophesy good things; you are obligated to give a sign. He said to him, no, it is you who has to give a sign for your words. He answered, if it is so, I shall give a sign and miracle in the person of that man; this year he dies, for he spoke obstinately about the Eternal. This happened to him; Ḥanania the prophet died in this year, in the Seventh month. This was another year and you are saying so? But it teaches that he died on the Eve of New Year’s Day and ordered his sons and wife to hide the matter, that they should bury him after the new Year in order to falsify Jeremiah’s prophecy.

Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi said. not only to the bridal chamber but also to a house containing the bridal chamber. The following is problematic: Dining room and bedroom, bridal chamber and bedroom; if she entered the dining room, for which consequence? Rebbi Joḥanan said, to inherit from her. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, to dissolve her vows. Rebbi Zeˋira said, even though Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, to dissolve her vows, he agrees that he cannot actually dissolve them before she enters the bridal chamber. Rebbi Huna said, a verse supports Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: to whore in her father’s house. This excludes the case where the father’s agents handed her over to the husband’s agents, that she could not be stoned, but is strangled.

“He shall atone for the Sanctuary from the impurities of the Children of Israel, etc. In this aspect I have three impurities. The impurity of foreign worship as it is said, to defile My Sanctuary. Sexual offenses as it is said, not to act in the rules of abominations. Spilling of blood as it is said, do not defile the Land. I could think that this he-goat atones for all these impurities, the verse says, from the impurities, not all impurities. We find that the verse treated the impurity of the Sanctuary and its sancta separately; also here we treat only the impurity of the Sanctuary and its sancta separately, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Simeon says, from its place it is decided, as it is said, he shall atone for the Sanctuary from the impurities of the Children of Israel, any impurity in the Sanctuary. I could think that this he-goat atones for these impurities, the verse says, and their crimes. These are the rebellions, for so it says, the king of Moab rebelled against me.

MISHNAH: But about where there is no knowledge either at the start or at the end, the he-goats of the holidays and the he-goats of the Days of the New Moon atone, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Simeon says, the he-goats of the holidays atone but not the he-goats of the Days of the New Moon. What do the he-goats of the Days of the New Moon atone for? For the pure person who ate impure. Rebbi Meїr says, the atoning of all he-goats is the same, about the impurity of the Sanctuary and its sancta. Rebbi Simeon used to say, the he-goats of the holidays atone for the pure person who ate impure; those of the holidays atone for where there is no knowledge either at the start or at the end, and those of the Day of Atonement where there is no knowledge at the start but there is knowledge at the end. They asked him, could they be brought one for the other? He told them, they may be brought. They asked him, since their atoning is not the same, how can they be brought one for the other? He told them, all of them serve to atone for the impurity of the Sanctuary and its sancta.

HALAKHAH: “But about where there is no knowledge,” etc. Halakhah 5: “Rebbi Simeon used to say,” etc. Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: The reason of Rebbi Jehudah is and one goat’s he-goat sin offering for the Eternal. This he-goat atones for a sin known only to the Eternal. I have not only the he-goat of the Day of the New Moon; from where the he-goats of the holidays? Rebbi Ze`ira said, and a he-goat, the copula adds to the prior subject. Rebbi Ze`ira and Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia, Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He gave it to you to lift the sins of the congregation. Where do we hold? If about Naḥshon’s he-goat, it atoned for his tribe. If about the he-goat of the Day of (Atonement), there is nothing similar in later generations. But we must deal with the he-goat of the Day of the New Moon. What about it? It is said here “lifting sin” and it is said there “lifting sin”, Aaron shall lift the sin of the sancta”. Since there it is the sinfulness of the offerings not the sins of the offerers, also here it is the sinfulness of the offerings not the sins of the offerers. What did you see to say, “for the pure person who ate impure”, maybe we should say for the impure person who ate pure? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun said, Rebbi Jehudah splits the argument of Rebbi Meїr; Rebbi Simeon splits the argument of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Joḥanan agrees that the he-goat brought inside does not atone; rather it suspends. This parallels Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira, he shall make it a purification offering. He fixed it for suspension, that it could not be changed.

HALAKHAH: “But about where there is no knowledge,” etc. Halakhah 5: “Rebbi Simeon used to say,” etc. Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: The reason of Rebbi Jehudah is and one goat’s he-goat sin offering for the Eternal. This he-goat atones for a sin known only to the Eternal. I have not only the he-goat of the Day of the New Moon; from where the he-goats of the holidays? Rebbi Ze`ira said, and a he-goat, the copula adds to the prior subject. Rebbi Ze`ira and Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia, Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He gave it to you to lift the sins of the congregation. Where do we hold? If about Naḥshon’s he-goat, it atoned for his tribe. If about the he-goat of the Day of (Atonement), there is nothing similar in later generations. But we must deal with the he-goat of the Day of the New Moon. What about it? It is said here “lifting sin” and it is said there “lifting sin”, Aaron shall lift the sin of the sancta”. Since there it is the sinfulness of the offerings not the sins of the offerers, also here it is the sinfulness of the offerings not the sins of the offerers. What did you see to say, “for the pure person who ate impure”, maybe we should say for the impure person who ate pure? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun said, Rebbi Jehudah splits the argument of Rebbi Meїr; Rebbi Simeon splits the argument of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Joḥanan agrees that the he-goat brought inside does not atone; rather it suspends. This parallels Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira, he shall make it a purification offering. He fixed it for suspension, that it could not be changed.

HALAKHAH: “But about where there is no knowledge,” etc. Halakhah 5: “Rebbi Simeon used to say,” etc. Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: The reason of Rebbi Jehudah is and one goat’s he-goat sin offering for the Eternal. This he-goat atones for a sin known only to the Eternal. I have not only the he-goat of the Day of the New Moon; from where the he-goats of the holidays? Rebbi Ze`ira said, and a he-goat, the copula adds to the prior subject. Rebbi Ze`ira and Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia, Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He gave it to you to lift the sins of the congregation. Where do we hold? If about Naḥshon’s he-goat, it atoned for his tribe. If about the he-goat of the Day of (Atonement), there is nothing similar in later generations. But we must deal with the he-goat of the Day of the New Moon. What about it? It is said here “lifting sin” and it is said there “lifting sin”, Aaron shall lift the sin of the sancta”. Since there it is the sinfulness of the offerings not the sins of the offerers, also here it is the sinfulness of the offerings not the sins of the offerers. What did you see to say, “for the pure person who ate impure”, maybe we should say for the impure person who ate pure? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun said, Rebbi Jehudah splits the argument of Rebbi Meїr; Rebbi Simeon splits the argument of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Joḥanan agrees that the he-goat brought inside does not atone; rather it suspends. This parallels Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira, he shall make it a purification offering. He fixed it for suspension, that it could not be changed.

MISHNAH: Rebbi Simeon ben Jehudah said in his name, the rams of the New Moon Days atone for the pure person who ate of impure [sacrifice]. Those of the holidays add to them in that they atone for the pure person who ate impure [sacrifice] and for [infractions] of which there was knowledge neither at the start nor at the end. Those of the Day of Atonement add to them in that they atone for the pure person who ate impure [sacrifice] and for [infractions] of which there was knowledge neither at the start nor at the end and those for which there was no knowledge at the beginning but there was at the end. They said to him, did not the teacher use to say that they may be sacrificed one for the other? He said, yes. They said to him, if it is so then those of the Day of Atonement could be brought on the Days of the New Moon. But how could those of the Days of the New Moon be brought on the Day of Atonement to atone an atonement which is not theirs? He told them, all of them serve to atone for the impurity of the Sanctuary and its sancta.

Are not minor sins [positive commandments and] prohibitions; are not serious ones extirpations and capital crimes? Rav Jehudah said, so is the Mishnah: “Minor or serious ones. Those minor ones, whether he committed them intentionally or committed them unintentionally. Those intentional ones, whether he obtained knowledge of them or did not obtain knowledge of them. The following are minor sins: positive commandments and prohibitions. Serious ones, extirpations and capital crimes. Just as the he-goat whose blood is brought inside atones for intentional infractions and suspends for the unintentional, the same holds for the scapegoat.”

Shall be stationed alive; this teaches that it the future it is going to die. How long must it live? Up to he will finish from atoning to Sanctuary, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Simeon says, up to the moment of confession. In Rebbi Jehudah’s opinion, the confession is indispensable. In Rebbi Simeon’s opinion, the confession is not indispensable. What is the difference between them? If he slaughtered without confession. In Rebbi Jehudah’s opinion, he must bring another bull. In Rebbi Simeon’s opinion, he does not have to bring another bull. The same holds for the scapegoat. If he sent it without a confession. In Rebbi Jehudah’s opinion, he must bring another goat. In Rebbi Simeon’s opinion, he does not have to bring another goat. If he confessed, slaughtered, then the blood was spilled. Do you say, does he have to bring another bull and confess a second time or did he do his duty with the first confession? The same holds for the scapegoat; must he cast lots a second time or did he do his duty with the first confession?

Shall be stationed alive; this teaches that it the future it is going to die. How long must it live? Up to he will finish from atoning to Sanctuary, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Simeon says, up to the moment of confession. In Rebbi Jehudah’s opinion, the confession is indispensable. In Rebbi Simeon’s opinion, the confession is not indispensable. What is the difference between them? If he slaughtered without confession. In Rebbi Jehudah’s opinion, he must bring another bull. In Rebbi Simeon’s opinion, he does not have to bring another bull. The same holds for the scapegoat. If he sent it without a confession. In Rebbi Jehudah’s opinion, he must bring another goat. In Rebbi Simeon’s opinion, he does not have to bring another goat. If he confessed, slaughtered, then the blood was spilled. Do you say, does he have to bring another bull and confess a second time or did he do his duty with the first confession? The same holds for the scapegoat; must he cast lots a second time or did he do his duty with the first confession?

Shall be stationed alive; this teaches that it the future it is going to die. How long must it live? Up to he will finish from atoning to Sanctuary, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Simeon says, up to the moment of confession. In Rebbi Jehudah’s opinion, the confession is indispensable. In Rebbi Simeon’s opinion, the confession is not indispensable. What is the difference between them? If he slaughtered without confession. In Rebbi Jehudah’s opinion, he must bring another bull. In Rebbi Simeon’s opinion, he does not have to bring another bull. The same holds for the scapegoat. If he sent it without a confession. In Rebbi Jehudah’s opinion, he must bring another goat. In Rebbi Simeon’s opinion, he does not have to bring another goat. If he confessed, slaughtered, then the blood was spilled. Do you say, does he have to bring another bull and confess a second time or did he do his duty with the first confession? The same holds for the scapegoat; must he cast lots a second time or did he do his duty with the first confession?

Shall be stationed alive; this teaches that it the future it is going to die. How long must it live? Up to he will finish from atoning to Sanctuary, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Simeon says, up to the moment of confession. In Rebbi Jehudah’s opinion, the confession is indispensable. In Rebbi Simeon’s opinion, the confession is not indispensable. What is the difference between them? If he slaughtered without confession. In Rebbi Jehudah’s opinion, he must bring another bull. In Rebbi Simeon’s opinion, he does not have to bring another bull. The same holds for the scapegoat. If he sent it without a confession. In Rebbi Jehudah’s opinion, he must bring another goat. In Rebbi Simeon’s opinion, he does not have to bring another goat. If he confessed, slaughtered, then the blood was spilled. Do you say, does he have to bring another bull and confess a second time or did he do his duty with the first confession? The same holds for the scapegoat; must he cast lots a second time or did he do his duty with the first confession?

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

MISHNAH: If he swore not to observe a commandment but failed not to observe it, he is not liable; to observe a commandment and did not observe it, he is not liable, though it would have been logical that he should be liable, the words of Rebbi Jehudah ben Bathyra. Rebbi Jehudah ben Bathyra said, since he is liable for a permitted purpose, for which he is not sworn to from Mount Sinai, is it not logical that he should be liable about a commandment to which he is sworn from Mount Sinai? They said to him, no. What you say about an oath for permitted purpose where He made “no” equal to “yes”, can you say that about an oath concerning a commandment, where He did not make “no” equal to “yes”? Since one who swears not to observe a commandment but failed not to observe it, is not liable.

MISHNAH: If he swore not to observe a commandment but failed not to observe it, he is not liable; to observe a commandment and did not observe it, he is not liable, though it would have been logical that he should be liable, the words of Rebbi Jehudah ben Bathyra. Rebbi Jehudah ben Bathyra said, since he is liable for a permitted purpose, for which he is not sworn to from Mount Sinai, is it not logical that he should be liable about a commandment to which he is sworn from Mount Sinai? They said to him, no. What you say about an oath for permitted purpose where He made “no” equal to “yes”, can you say that about an oath concerning a commandment, where He did not make “no” equal to “yes”? Since one who swears not to observe a commandment but failed not to observe it, is not liable.

HALAKHAH: “If he swore not to observe a commandment,” etc. Rebbi Mani said, so is the Mishnah: “He is liable, the words of Rebbi Jehudah ben Bathyra.” What Rebbi Jehudah ben Bathyra said refers to prohibitions in general. “An oath that I shall eat carcass meat,” but he did not eat it. He is not liable. “An oath that I shall eat,” and he ate. If you would say that he is liable, they should have objected to him: No. You declare about an oath for permitted purpose where He made “no” equal to “yes” and “yes” equal to “no”, can you declare this about an oath concerning a commandment, where He did not make “no” equal to “yes”?

HALAKHAH: “If he swore not to observe a commandment,” etc. Rebbi Mani said, so is the Mishnah: “He is liable, the words of Rebbi Jehudah ben Bathyra.” What Rebbi Jehudah ben Bathyra said refers to prohibitions in general. “An oath that I shall eat carcass meat,” but he did not eat it. He is not liable. “An oath that I shall eat,” and he ate. If you would say that he is liable, they should have objected to him: No. You declare about an oath for permitted purpose where He made “no” equal to “yes” and “yes” equal to “no”, can you declare this about an oath concerning a commandment, where He did not make “no” equal to “yes”?

“If I did not see a snake like the beam of the olive press.” Did not the snake of king Sapor swallow camels and carts? When they wanted to kill it, they filled camel bags with straw and put glowing coals inside; it swallowed them and died. Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi said, I saw the hide of a snake made over eight spaces between pillars. Rebbi Samuel ben Jacob said, I saw the hide of a snake covering a state coach. Samuel said, square. If square one could state even a small one. Rebbi Yudan the father of Rebbi Mattaniah said, so it is. It is the way of this Tanna to use only big words, as we have stated: “A flying camel.” Could he not have stated, “a flying rat”?

A vain oath, if one swears to change what is known to men; a false oath if he swears to substitute. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: anything known to two persons is a (vain) oath, to three it is (false). Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: If it is known to two persons and another one at the end of the world, it is a vain oath. What is the difference between them? If he was untrue before two [persons], threw it into the sea, and they had warned him because of a vain oath; in the opinion of R. Joḥanan he is not flogged, in the opinion of Rebbi Eleazar he is flogged. If they had warned him because of a false oath, in the opinion of Rebbi Eleazar he is flogged, in the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan he is not flogged. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Jehudah, even an egg and a pearl. What means “even”? But, for example, an egg and a pearl.

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

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.

MISHNAH: “I put an oath upon you, I command you, I bind you,” these are liable. “By Heaven and Earth,” they are not liable. “By א-ד, by י-ה, by the Almighty, by Sabaoth, by the Gracious and Merciful, by the Forbearing and Most Benevolent,” and all substitute names, they are liable. One who curses by any of these is liable, the words of Rebbi Meїr; but the Sages declare him not liable. One who curses his father or mother by any of these is liable, the words of Rebbi Meїr; but the Sages declare him not liable. One who curses himself or another person by any of these violates a prohibition. “May God punish you, so may God punish you,” this is the imprecation mentioned in the Torah. “May He not punish you, may He bless you, may He do well with you,” Rebbi Meїr declares liable but Rebbi Jehudah declares not liable.

Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai, as our Mishnah. But some say, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, so is our Mishnah: “Rebbi Meïr declares liable but Rebbi Jehudah declares not liable.” Rebbi Meїr follows his own opinion and Rebbi Jehudah follows his own opinion, as we have stated: “If he cursed them by a substitute name, Rebbi Meїr declares him guilty but the Sages free him from prosecution.”

Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai, as our Mishnah. But some say, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, so is our Mishnah: “Rebbi Meïr declares liable but Rebbi Jehudah declares not liable.” Rebbi Meїr follows his own opinion and Rebbi Jehudah follows his own opinion, as we have stated: “If he cursed them by a substitute name, Rebbi Meїr declares him guilty but the Sages free him from prosecution.”

“Give me the wheat, and the barley,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the words of Rebbi Jehudah imply collectively one sacrifice, in detail three sacrifices. How is this? A detail wheat, a detail barley, a detail spelt. Collectively one sacrifice, in detail three sacrifices. Detail a third wheat, detail a third barley, detail a third spelt, are these taken together? Come and see; although he holds many details, even so they can be formulated collectively or in detail. In which respect? To make him liable for sacrifices. If he held four kinds, two kinds in one detail, two kinds on two details. even so they can be formulated collectively or in detail. As Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: “And I am greeting X,” one can assume that he signed concerning everything; “I am greeting X,” he signed only for the greeting. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, “I am greeting X,” one can assume that he signed concerning everything. What means “collectively”? Rebbi Joḥanan said, “X divorces Y and Z U.” What means “collectively”? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, “We, X and Z, divorce our wives at place A.” Rebbi Ze`ira said, Rebbi Joḥanan agrees that if he mentions divorce for each one separately that he needs the typical text and witnesses for each one separately. The strength of Rebbi Joḥanan is from the following: “ ‘That I shall not benefit from this one; a qorban for this one and a qorban for that one.’ Each single one needs a separate opening.” Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “If he wrote a separate text for each of them and the witnesses signed at the end, [only] the one with which the witnesses are read is valid.”

Samuel said. the detailed statement for Rebbi Meїr is the general statement for Rebbi Jehudah; the detailed statement for Rebbi Jehudah is the general statement for Rebbi Meїr. Rebbi Samuel said in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira, the words of the rabbis show that the detailed statement for Rebbi Meïr is not the general statement for Rebbi Jehudah and the detailed statement for Rebbi Jehudah is not the general statement for Rebbi Meïr, as Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: “And I am greeting X,” one can assume that he signed concerning everything; “I am greeting X,” he only signed for the greeting. If you would say that the detailed statement for Rebbi Meїr is the general statement for Rebbi Jehudah, even if he said “I am greeting X,” can one assume that he signed everything? Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah implies that the detailed statement for Rebbi Jehudah is not the general statement for Rebbi Meїr, as we have stated: “Rebbi Meїr says, even if he says, ‘wheat, and barley, and spelt,’ he is liable for each single one;” and nobody says “even” unless he agrees to an earlier statement. Rebbi Ḥinena said, in Rebbi Meïr’s opinion, whether he said, “wheat, and barley, and spelt,” or “wheat, barley, spelt,” it is a general statement and details. In Rebbi Jehudah’s opinion, if he said, “wheat, and barley, and spelt,” it is a general statement and details. If he said “wheat, barley, spelt,” it is a general statement without details.

Samuel said. the detailed statement for Rebbi Meїr is the general statement for Rebbi Jehudah; the detailed statement for Rebbi Jehudah is the general statement for Rebbi Meїr. Rebbi Samuel said in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira, the words of the rabbis show that the detailed statement for Rebbi Meïr is not the general statement for Rebbi Jehudah and the detailed statement for Rebbi Jehudah is not the general statement for Rebbi Meïr, as Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: “And I am greeting X,” one can assume that he signed concerning everything; “I am greeting X,” he only signed for the greeting. If you would say that the detailed statement for Rebbi Meїr is the general statement for Rebbi Jehudah, even if he said “I am greeting X,” can one assume that he signed everything? Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah implies that the detailed statement for Rebbi Jehudah is not the general statement for Rebbi Meїr, as we have stated: “Rebbi Meїr says, even if he says, ‘wheat, and barley, and spelt,’ he is liable for each single one;” and nobody says “even” unless he agrees to an earlier statement. Rebbi Ḥinena said, in Rebbi Meïr’s opinion, whether he said, “wheat, and barley, and spelt,” or “wheat, barley, spelt,” it is a general statement and details. In Rebbi Jehudah’s opinion, if he said, “wheat, and barley, and spelt,” it is a general statement and details. If he said “wheat, barley, spelt,” it is a general statement without details.

Samuel said. the detailed statement for Rebbi Meїr is the general statement for Rebbi Jehudah; the detailed statement for Rebbi Jehudah is the general statement for Rebbi Meїr. Rebbi Samuel said in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira, the words of the rabbis show that the detailed statement for Rebbi Meïr is not the general statement for Rebbi Jehudah and the detailed statement for Rebbi Jehudah is not the general statement for Rebbi Meïr, as Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: “And I am greeting X,” one can assume that he signed concerning everything; “I am greeting X,” he only signed for the greeting. If you would say that the detailed statement for Rebbi Meїr is the general statement for Rebbi Jehudah, even if he said “I am greeting X,” can one assume that he signed everything? Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah implies that the detailed statement for Rebbi Jehudah is not the general statement for Rebbi Meїr, as we have stated: “Rebbi Meїr says, even if he says, ‘wheat, and barley, and spelt,’ he is liable for each single one;” and nobody says “even” unless he agrees to an earlier statement. Rebbi Ḥinena said, in Rebbi Meïr’s opinion, whether he said, “wheat, and barley, and spelt,” or “wheat, barley, spelt,” it is a general statement and details. In Rebbi Jehudah’s opinion, if he said, “wheat, and barley, and spelt,” it is a general statement and details. If he said “wheat, barley, spelt,” it is a general statement without details.

Samuel said. the detailed statement for Rebbi Meїr is the general statement for Rebbi Jehudah; the detailed statement for Rebbi Jehudah is the general statement for Rebbi Meїr. Rebbi Samuel said in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira, the words of the rabbis show that the detailed statement for Rebbi Meïr is not the general statement for Rebbi Jehudah and the detailed statement for Rebbi Jehudah is not the general statement for Rebbi Meïr, as Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: “And I am greeting X,” one can assume that he signed concerning everything; “I am greeting X,” he only signed for the greeting. If you would say that the detailed statement for Rebbi Meїr is the general statement for Rebbi Jehudah, even if he said “I am greeting X,” can one assume that he signed everything? Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah implies that the detailed statement for Rebbi Jehudah is not the general statement for Rebbi Meїr, as we have stated: “Rebbi Meїr says, even if he says, ‘wheat, and barley, and spelt,’ he is liable for each single one;” and nobody says “even” unless he agrees to an earlier statement. Rebbi Ḥinena said, in Rebbi Meïr’s opinion, whether he said, “wheat, and barley, and spelt,” or “wheat, barley, spelt,” it is a general statement and details. In Rebbi Jehudah’s opinion, if he said, “wheat, and barley, and spelt,” it is a general statement and details. If he said “wheat, barley, spelt,” it is a general statement without details.

Samuel said. the detailed statement for Rebbi Meїr is the general statement for Rebbi Jehudah; the detailed statement for Rebbi Jehudah is the general statement for Rebbi Meїr. Rebbi Samuel said in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira, the words of the rabbis show that the detailed statement for Rebbi Meïr is not the general statement for Rebbi Jehudah and the detailed statement for Rebbi Jehudah is not the general statement for Rebbi Meïr, as Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: “And I am greeting X,” one can assume that he signed concerning everything; “I am greeting X,” he only signed for the greeting. If you would say that the detailed statement for Rebbi Meїr is the general statement for Rebbi Jehudah, even if he said “I am greeting X,” can one assume that he signed everything? Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah implies that the detailed statement for Rebbi Jehudah is not the general statement for Rebbi Meїr, as we have stated: “Rebbi Meїr says, even if he says, ‘wheat, and barley, and spelt,’ he is liable for each single one;” and nobody says “even” unless he agrees to an earlier statement. Rebbi Ḥinena said, in Rebbi Meïr’s opinion, whether he said, “wheat, and barley, and spelt,” or “wheat, barley, spelt,” it is a general statement and details. In Rebbi Jehudah’s opinion, if he said, “wheat, and barley, and spelt,” it is a general statement and details. If he said “wheat, barley, spelt,” it is a general statement without details.

Samuel said. the detailed statement for Rebbi Meїr is the general statement for Rebbi Jehudah; the detailed statement for Rebbi Jehudah is the general statement for Rebbi Meїr. Rebbi Samuel said in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira, the words of the rabbis show that the detailed statement for Rebbi Meïr is not the general statement for Rebbi Jehudah and the detailed statement for Rebbi Jehudah is not the general statement for Rebbi Meïr, as Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: “And I am greeting X,” one can assume that he signed concerning everything; “I am greeting X,” he only signed for the greeting. If you would say that the detailed statement for Rebbi Meїr is the general statement for Rebbi Jehudah, even if he said “I am greeting X,” can one assume that he signed everything? Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah implies that the detailed statement for Rebbi Jehudah is not the general statement for Rebbi Meїr, as we have stated: “Rebbi Meїr says, even if he says, ‘wheat, and barley, and spelt,’ he is liable for each single one;” and nobody says “even” unless he agrees to an earlier statement. Rebbi Ḥinena said, in Rebbi Meïr’s opinion, whether he said, “wheat, and barley, and spelt,” or “wheat, barley, spelt,” it is a general statement and details. In Rebbi Jehudah’s opinion, if he said, “wheat, and barley, and spelt,” it is a general statement and details. If he said “wheat, barley, spelt,” it is a general statement without details.

Samuel said. the detailed statement for Rebbi Meїr is the general statement for Rebbi Jehudah; the detailed statement for Rebbi Jehudah is the general statement for Rebbi Meїr. Rebbi Samuel said in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira, the words of the rabbis show that the detailed statement for Rebbi Meïr is not the general statement for Rebbi Jehudah and the detailed statement for Rebbi Jehudah is not the general statement for Rebbi Meïr, as Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: “And I am greeting X,” one can assume that he signed concerning everything; “I am greeting X,” he only signed for the greeting. If you would say that the detailed statement for Rebbi Meїr is the general statement for Rebbi Jehudah, even if he said “I am greeting X,” can one assume that he signed everything? Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah implies that the detailed statement for Rebbi Jehudah is not the general statement for Rebbi Meїr, as we have stated: “Rebbi Meїr says, even if he says, ‘wheat, and barley, and spelt,’ he is liable for each single one;” and nobody says “even” unless he agrees to an earlier statement. Rebbi Ḥinena said, in Rebbi Meïr’s opinion, whether he said, “wheat, and barley, and spelt,” or “wheat, barley, spelt,” it is a general statement and details. In Rebbi Jehudah’s opinion, if he said, “wheat, and barley, and spelt,” it is a general statement and details. If he said “wheat, barley, spelt,” it is a general statement without details.

Rebbi Abba, Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: In any case where two [witnesses] make him liable to pay money, a single witness sets him up for an oath. But do not two [witnesses] make him liable for real estate? It is a difference since one does not swear about real estate. But do not two [witnesses] make him liable for a fine? There is a difference since one does not swear about a fine. But do not two [witnesses] make him liable for a peruṭah? Is it so? Have we not stated: “A judicial oath is about a claim of two silver coins and the acknowledgment of one peruṭah.” Our Mishnah, when he swears by his own formulation. What (Rebbi) Samuel said, when he swears by the formulation of others. Rav Ḥisda and his group disagree. “A judicial oath”, any judicial oath. There is no difference whether he swears by his own formulation or he swears by the formulation of others, he cannot be liable except for a claim.

If somebody produced both a document and ḥazaqah. Rebbi says, it should be judged by the document. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, it should be judged by ḥazaqah. Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Rav Jeremiah: A case came before Rebbi Jehudah following Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. Rebbi Jeremiah asked before Rebbi Ze`ira: How? Did Rebbi switch his opinion? There he said, it should be judged by the document. But here he said it should be judged by ḥazaqah. Would we say, before he changed his opinion? Even if you say, after he changed his opinion. Rebbi only wanted to determine the truth of the matter. “If somebody occupied real estate on the basis of a document of sale and it was found invalid, this is not ḥazaqah.” Rebbi Jeremiah said, in dispute. Rebbi Samuel said, Rebbi Ze`ira, Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Abinna: it is everybody’s opinion. Rebbi Yose said, there if one produced both a document and ḥazaqah. Here if he came with a document. Rebbi Yudan said, there if he presented two groups of witnesses; here one who contradicts his own proofs.

MISHNAH: All who must swear by Torah standards do swear not to pay. The following do swear and collect: The journeyman, a person robbed or injured, and one whose opponent is suspected of perjury, and the grocer on his account book. How does the journeyman do it? He tells him, “give me my wages which you are holding;” he says, “I gave.” He swears and collects. Rebbi Jehudah says, only if there is partial admission. How is this? He tells him, “give me my wages of fifty denarii which you are holding;” but he says, “you received from these a gold denar.”

Rebbi Jehudah’s argument seems inverted. There he says, even if he does not know. But here he says, not unless he knows. There since it is not in the form of a biblical oath even (about a biblical oath) he does not know. But here it is in the form of a biblical oath.

MISHNAH: How about a person robbed? There were witnesses that he entered another’s house to take a pledge without authorization. He said to him, give me my vessels which you took but he answers I did not take; this one swears and takes. Rebbi Jehudah says, only if there is partial admission. How is this? He tells him, you took two of my vessels but he says, I took only one.

MISHNAH: The injured one, how? They were testifying against him that one came to his hand whole and left injured. He says, you injured me, but the other says, I did not injure; this one swears and collects. Rebbi Jehudah says, only if there was a partial admission. How is this? He said to him, you injured me twice but the other says, I injured you only once.

HALAKHAH: “The injured one, how,” etc. “Rebbi Jehudah was calling them beaters. Any time they are rubbing one another, he swears and collects. If he was bitten at a place where he could not bite himself, he collects without oath. At a later time if one says, you injured me, but the other says, I did not injure, this is like any other claim.”

That is to say, only if he did not introduce them. But if he introduced them, the householder has no liability, following what Rebbi Jehudah bar Shalom said: One did introduce the porters to the food merchants. They came, but they sent them away without giving them anything. The case came before Rebbi Shammai. Since if the food merchants had said that they took, would at the end not these and those collect? Therefore, they shall collect immediately.

MISHNAH: He said to the grocer, give me produce for a denar; that one delivered and said, give me the denar. He said to him, I gave it to you and you put it into anpalē: the householder has to swear. If he gave him the denar and said, give me the produce; he said to him I delivered them to you and you brought then to your house: the grocer has to swear. Rebbi Jehudah says, the one in possession of the produce is advantaged. He said to the money changer, give me oboloi for a denar; that one delivered and said, give me the denar. He said to him, I gave it to you and you put it into anpalē: the householder has to swear. If he gave him the denar and said, give me the oboloi; he said to him I delivered them to you and you threw them into you wallet: the money changer has to swear. Rebbi Jehudah says, it is not the practice of money changers to give an as before he took the denarii.

MISHNAH: He said to the grocer, give me produce for a denar; that one delivered and said, give me the denar. He said to him, I gave it to you and you put it into anpalē: the householder has to swear. If he gave him the denar and said, give me the produce; he said to him I delivered them to you and you brought then to your house: the grocer has to swear. Rebbi Jehudah says, the one in possession of the produce is advantaged. He said to the money changer, give me oboloi for a denar; that one delivered and said, give me the denar. He said to him, I gave it to you and you put it into anpalē: the householder has to swear. If he gave him the denar and said, give me the oboloi; he said to him I delivered them to you and you threw them into you wallet: the money changer has to swear. Rebbi Jehudah says, it is not the practice of money changers to give an as before he took the denarii.

HALAKHAH: “He said to the grocer, give me produce for a denar;” etc. Rebbi Ḥanina said, it is to be differentiated: “Rebbi Jehudah said, when? If the container was lying between them. But if it was in the possession of one of them …”

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

How does Rebbi Yose uphold this verse, bring your sacrifices in the morning, etc? The verse speaks about Jeroboam’s kingdom. When Jeroboam became king over Israel he started seducing Israel and said to them come, let us worship pagan worship. Pagan worship is lenient. This is what is written, let us go against Jehudah, cut it down, break it up, and appoint a king in it, the man from Ṭabeal. Rebbi Abba said, we checked all of Scripture but did not find a place named Ṭabeal. But it treats its worshippers well. The Torah said, selected him from all of the tribes of Israel to be a priest for Me. Pagan worship says, he made priests from the fringes of the people. Rebbi La said, from the thorns of the people, the rubbish of the people. The Torah said, the fat of My sacrifice shall not remain until the morning; but pagan worship said, bring your sacrifices in the morning. The Torah said, it should be eaten on the day of its slaughter and the next day; but pagan worship said, on the third day your tithes. The Torah said, do not sacrifice the blood of My sacrifice on leavened matter; but pagan worship said, and burn your thanksgiving offer of leavened matter. The Torah said, if you are vowing a vow to the Eternal, your God, do not tarry to fulfill it, but pagan worship said, pledge gifts, publicize them. Rebbi Yudan, Rebbi Mattaniah’s father, said, the verse only serves to mention the shame of Israel. The day of our king, the princes are sick from wine’s heat, he draws the mockers by his hand. On the day when Jeroboam became king over Israel, all of Israel came to him late in the evening and told him, come and worship pagan worship. He told them, it is late in the evening; I am drunk and not drunk. Everybody is drinking; but if you wish, go and come in the morning. That is what is written, for their heart is like an oven while they are lying in ambush; all night long their baker is sleeping. All night long their baker did not sleep. In the morning he is burning like fire of a conflagration. In the morning they came to him. He told them, I do understand what you want but I am afraid of your Synhedrion lest they kill me. They told him, we shall kill them; this is what is written, that all are glowing like an oven and eat their judges. Rebbi Levi said, they killed them, as is written, if a corpse is found. Rebbi La said, they deposed them; The day of our king, the princes are profaned from wine’s heat; the day when princes were profaned. From wine’s heat, they were addicted to wine. He draws the mockers by his hand: When he saw a serious person he placed two scoffers next to him who asked him, which generation was preferred over all generations? He told them, the generation of the Exodus. But did they not practice pagan worship? He answered them, because they were beloved they were not punished. But they told him, be quiet for the king wants to do the same. Not only that, but they made one and this one made two. He put the one up at Bethel; the other he gave to Dan.

Rebbi Abin bar Cahana said, we find that Jeroboam also invented Sabbaths and holidays. That is what is written: Jeroboam made the holiday in the eighth month, on the fifteenth of the month, like the holiday in Jehudah, and went on the altar; so did he at Bethel to sacrifice … in the month which he invented. “In addition to” is written, as you say, in addition to the Sabbaths of the Eternal.

A ducenarius honored Rebbi Jehudah the Prince with a plate full of denarii. He took one of them and sent the remainder to him. He asked Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish who said, he shall bring the value to the Dead Sea. But was he not an acquaintance and it was in the past? Rebbi Abbahu said, did not Rabban Gamliel ben Rebbi asked me, may one go to a fair, and I forbade it to him, although it was stated: “one goes to fairs and buys there male and female slaves.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, not only Jewish slaves but even Gentiles, because he brings them under the wings of the Shekhina. What about this? Rabban Gamliel was a minor personality and Rebbi Abbahu desired to confine him. But Rebbi Judan the Prince was an important person and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish wanted to limit the matter.

There, we have stated: “Rebbi Jehudah says, a woman should not apply lime because it disfigures her.” Rebbi Ḥanina and Rebbi Mana. One said, they disagreed about lime which she removed on the holiday, but lime which she removes after the holiday is forbidden. But the other says, they disagreed about lime which she removes after the holiday. But lime which she removes during the holiday is permitted. We did not know who said what. From what R. Ḥanina, Rebbi Yose said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Jehudah is consistent. Just as Rebbi Jehudah said there, temporary disfiguration is disfiguration, so he says here, temporary pain is pain. This implies that they disagreed about lime which she removed on the holiday, but lime which she removes after the holiday is forbidden.

There, we have stated: “Rebbi Jehudah says, a woman should not apply lime because it disfigures her.” Rebbi Ḥanina and Rebbi Mana. One said, they disagreed about lime which she removed on the holiday, but lime which she removes after the holiday is forbidden. But the other says, they disagreed about lime which she removes after the holiday. But lime which she removes during the holiday is permitted. We did not know who said what. From what R. Ḥanina, Rebbi Yose said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Jehudah is consistent. Just as Rebbi Jehudah said there, temporary disfiguration is disfiguration, so he says here, temporary pain is pain. This implies that they disagreed about lime which she removed on the holiday, but lime which she removes after the holiday is forbidden.

There, we have stated: “Rebbi Jehudah says, a woman should not apply lime because it disfigures her.” Rebbi Ḥanina and Rebbi Mana. One said, they disagreed about lime which she removed on the holiday, but lime which she removes after the holiday is forbidden. But the other says, they disagreed about lime which she removes after the holiday. But lime which she removes during the holiday is permitted. We did not know who said what. From what R. Ḥanina, Rebbi Yose said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Jehudah is consistent. Just as Rebbi Jehudah said there, temporary disfiguration is disfiguration, so he says here, temporary pain is pain. This implies that they disagreed about lime which she removed on the holiday, but lime which she removes after the holiday is forbidden.

MISHNAH: The following are forbidden to be sold to them: Pine cones, and white figs with their stalks, and incense, and white cocks. Rebbi Jehudah says, it is permitted to sell a white cock among chickens; when it is alone he cuts one claw and sells it since one does not sacrifice defective ones in pagan worship. All other things are permitted if unspecified but forbidden if specified. Rebbi Meïr says, it is also forbidden to sell good dates, and curved dates, and Nicolaos dates to Gentiles.

“And incense.” It was stated, if it was a bundle it is permitted. How many are a bundle? “Rebbi Jehudah ben Bathyra said, there are no less than five kinds in a bundle of incense. If he was a pagan priest it is forbidden, a medical man is permitted, a trader is permitted. A suspect trader is forbidden.”

MISHNAH: At a place where they used to sell small cattle to Gentiles one sells; at a place where they used not to sell one does not sell; nobody should change this because of controversy. Nowhere does one sell to them large animals, calves, and donkey foals, whole or damaged. Rebbi Jehudah permits damaged ones; Ben Bathyra permits horses.

If he transgressed and sold one fines him. Just as one fines for practice so one fines for custom. From where that one fines for custom? A person sold his camel to an Aramean. The case came before Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish who fined him double to make him take back the camel. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, they fined the broker and called him son who brokers to Arameans. Does Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish follow Rebbi Jehudah? As it was stated in the name of Rebbi Jehuda: “If somebody buys an animal from a Gentile and it gave birth to a firstling, he buys it up to its worth and gives half of its worth to a Cohen. If it was given to him as contractor, he has to pay for up to ten times its worth and gives all of its worth to the Cohen. But the Sages say, since the finger of the Gentile in involved it is no longer liable as firstling.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is more than Rebbi Jehudah. What Rebbi Jehudah said because of the practice of firstlings; but what Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said because of practice regarding a large animal.

If he transgressed and sold one fines him. Just as one fines for practice so one fines for custom. From where that one fines for custom? A person sold his camel to an Aramean. The case came before Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish who fined him double to make him take back the camel. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, they fined the broker and called him son who brokers to Arameans. Does Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish follow Rebbi Jehudah? As it was stated in the name of Rebbi Jehuda: “If somebody buys an animal from a Gentile and it gave birth to a firstling, he buys it up to its worth and gives half of its worth to a Cohen. If it was given to him as contractor, he has to pay for up to ten times its worth and gives all of its worth to the Cohen. But the Sages say, since the finger of the Gentile in involved it is no longer liable as firstling.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is more than Rebbi Jehudah. What Rebbi Jehudah said because of the practice of firstlings; but what Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said because of practice regarding a large animal.

If he transgressed and sold one fines him. Just as one fines for practice so one fines for custom. From where that one fines for custom? A person sold his camel to an Aramean. The case came before Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish who fined him double to make him take back the camel. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, they fined the broker and called him son who brokers to Arameans. Does Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish follow Rebbi Jehudah? As it was stated in the name of Rebbi Jehuda: “If somebody buys an animal from a Gentile and it gave birth to a firstling, he buys it up to its worth and gives half of its worth to a Cohen. If it was given to him as contractor, he has to pay for up to ten times its worth and gives all of its worth to the Cohen. But the Sages say, since the finger of the Gentile in involved it is no longer liable as firstling.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is more than Rebbi Jehudah. What Rebbi Jehudah said because of the practice of firstlings; but what Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said because of practice regarding a large animal.

“Rebbi Jehudah permits damaged ones.” Rebbi Jehudah said this only for a damaged one which cannot be healed. They told him, may he not bring a male to it, he fertilizes it and it gives birth? He said to them, I also said this only about a male (horse) [damaged one] which cannot be healed. They told him, may he not bring a female to him, she is fertilized by him and gives birth? Rav Abin in the name of the rabbis there: This implies that one is forbidden to provide them with fetuses. There, we have stated: “If somebody buys a Non-Jew’s donkey fetus or who sells one to him even though he is not authorized, or one who enters into partnership, or accepts from him as contractor, or lets it in contract, is not liable for firstling.” Rebbi Ḥaggai asked before Rebbi Yose, does this not imply that one is forbidden to provide them with fetuses? He said to them, Rebbi Abin in the name of the rabbis there already preceded you: This implies that one is forbidden to provide them with fetuses.

“Rebbi Jehudah permits damaged ones.” Rebbi Jehudah said this only for a damaged one which cannot be healed. They told him, may he not bring a male to it, he fertilizes it and it gives birth? He said to them, I also said this only about a male (horse) [damaged one] which cannot be healed. They told him, may he not bring a female to him, she is fertilized by him and gives birth? Rav Abin in the name of the rabbis there: This implies that one is forbidden to provide them with fetuses. There, we have stated: “If somebody buys a Non-Jew’s donkey fetus or who sells one to him even though he is not authorized, or one who enters into partnership, or accepts from him as contractor, or lets it in contract, is not liable for firstling.” Rebbi Ḥaggai asked before Rebbi Yose, does this not imply that one is forbidden to provide them with fetuses? He said to them, Rebbi Abin in the name of the rabbis there already preceded you: This implies that one is forbidden to provide them with fetuses.

MISHNAH: One does not sell to them anything connected to the ground, but one may sell for when it will be cut. Rebbi Jehudah says, he may sell for the purpose of cutting.

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 may be healed from the healing of property,” etc. Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: “healing of property,” his animal. “Healing of persons,” his body. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah: If it was scratched it is forbidden. As in the following case: Rebbi Immi went with Rebbi Jehudah the Prince to the hot springs of Gader. He hurt his finger and put a bandage on it. He saw it penetrate and cut it off. Did he not hear what Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If he was a professional healer it is permitted? This is not comparable. There if it was scratched it is permitted, but here it was scratched and is forbidden.

HALAKHAH: “One may be healed from the healing of property,” etc. Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: “healing of property,” his animal. “Healing of persons,” his body. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah: If it was scratched it is forbidden. As in the following case: Rebbi Immi went with Rebbi Jehudah the Prince to the hot springs of Gader. He hurt his finger and put a bandage on it. He saw it penetrate and cut it off. Did he not hear what Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If he was a professional healer it is permitted? This is not comparable. There if it was scratched it is permitted, but here it was scratched and is forbidden.

Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Eleazar. One says because he diminishes its volume, the other says because he reduces the number of drinkers. We do not know who said what. Since Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Jehudah inverted his reasoning but Rebbi Eleazar said, it was not inverted, there for the Cohen, here for the owners, it follows that Rebbi Joḥanan said because he reduces the number of drinkers.

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

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

Rebbi 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.

HALAKHAH: “The following matters of Gentiles are forbidden,” etc. Why is Gentile’s milk forbidden? Rebbi Abba (son of) [in the name of] Rav Jehudah, Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Why is Gentile’s milk forbidden? Because of uncovering. Let him make cheese! Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, because of the poison given between the holes. It was stated so: There are three kinds of poison; one swims, one sinks down, and one is similar to a net. Workers were in the field. The water pitcher was uncovered. The first ones drank and were [not] disabled. The second ones died. I say that it was sinking poison. In the days of Rebbi Jeremiah the barrels of the great assembly were uncovered. The first ones drank and were not disabled. The second ones died. I say that it was sinking poison. It was stated thus: “If a watermelon was pecked and ten people ate from it or wine was uncovered and ten people drank from it, it is forbidden to eat or drink after them; I say that there is sinking poison.”

Who forbade the oil? Rav Jehudah said, Daniel forbade it. Daniel was careful, etc.