la

Rebbi Ḥanina said, practice follows Rebbi Simeon, but we do not say this in all cases. Rav Jeremiah in the name of Rav: A case came before Rebbi and he instructed following Rebbi Simeon. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph gave a denar for salt. That one reneged. He said, does he not know that already a sickle is put on the thigh of that man, “He Who exacted retribution from the people of the Flood will in the future collect from him who does not keep his word”? A person paid for raw silk. He reneged. The case came before Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph and Rebbi Joḥanan. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph said, either he delivers for the amount of the pledge or one may turn him over to “Him Who exacted retribution.”. Rebbi Joḥanan said, either he delivers the entire contract or one may turn him over to “Him Who exacted retribution.” Rebbi La said, it was a case of a pledge; Rebbi Ze‘ira said, he had given him partial payment. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph agrees with Rebbi Joḥanan in a sale which is not usually split, such as of a cow or a stole.

Rebbi La said, he pays him the wages of his foot; Rebbi Ze‘ira said, he rents him the dwelling at an inflated price.

HALAKHAH: “The following eat by Torah law,” etc. Rebbi La said, “if you come into your neighbor’s vineyard.” Could anybody think that he would eat wood or stones? Why does the verse say “grapes”? That he may not skin figs or suck grapes.

“If he was working with his hand but not with his feet.” Rebbi La said, it is written: “If you come into your neighbor’s standing grain,” etc. With his hands, binding. With his feet, he compresses. Even with his shoulder, he carries.

HALAKHAH: “If one was working on figs,” etc. Rebbi La said, it is written: “If you come into your neighbor’s vineyard, you may eat grapes to satisfy yourself.” What else is there in the vineyard to eat but grapes? To teach you that if he was working on grapes he may not eat figs.

“But if he borrowed the cow and afterwards asked or paid its owner [to work with him] and it died he is liable.” Rebbi La said, from the meaning of what is said, “if its owner was not with it, certainly he shall pay,” would I not have known that if its owner was not with it, certainly he shall pay? Why does the verse say, “if its owner was with it he does not pay”? But since he borrowed the cow and did ask its owner at the same time, even if the latter was ploughing at another place when it died, he is not liable.

HALAKHAH: “If he said to him, lend me,” etc. “Somebody exchanged a cow,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, this contradicts Symmachos who says that in all cases of doubt one splits evenly. Rebbi La said, explain it if both of them say, I am certain. Rebbi Yose explained, if both of them say, I am certain, that is what Rebbi Joḥanan refered to when he said, this contradicts Symmachos’s words.

HALAKHAH: “He who leases a dwelling to another person,” etc. Why? If he came to claim at the end of the month, can he collect everything? And if he came to him at the beginning of the month, he can tell him, get out. Samuel says, the Mishnah is so: If he came to claim in the middle of the month. Rav said, a rule to collect. Rebbi La said, this clearly does not follow the rule of Ben Nannas who said, the later language supersedes the earlier one.

HALAKHAH: “One who contracts with another for a field,” etc. One understands that for barley he may not sow wheat; for wheat, may he not sow barley? It follows Rebbi La or is the opinion of everybody at a place where the yield of barley is not twice that of wheat. But at a place where barley produces twice as much as wheat he may sow barley.

HALAKHAH: “One who contracts with another for a field,” etc. One understands that for wheat he may not sow flax. For flax may he not sow wheat? Flax damages the soil for three years and you say so? Rebbi Menaḥem, the brother of Rebbi Gorion, explained before Rebbi La: It is better to sow flax after flax but not barley after barley.

HALAKHAH: It is written about torts that the collection be from the best quality, as it is said: “his best field, etc.” And it is written about a loan that the collection be from average quality, as it is said: “and the man to whom you are creditor, etc.” They inferred real estate from pledges. Similarly, should not pledges be inferred from real estate? Rebbi Simai explained: It is a word of the Torah that the court’s bailiff enter and collect from average quality. For if the creditor enter, he would bring out the best. And if the debtor enter, he would bring out the worst. But the court’s bailiff enters and collects from average quality. Rebbi Ismael stated: It is a word of the Torah that the debtor enter, as it is said: “and the man to whom you are creditor etc.” Rebbi La said, it was stated there: “to seize as pledge”, by the court. Outside the court, from where? The verse says, “if to seize as pledge you seize as pledge.” If he took the pledge without authorization, he transgresses all these verses. Rebbi La said, he caused himself to transgress all these verses.

HALAKHAH: It is written about torts that the collection be from the best quality, as it is said: “his best field, etc.” And it is written about a loan that the collection be from average quality, as it is said: “and the man to whom you are creditor, etc.” They inferred real estate from pledges. Similarly, should not pledges be inferred from real estate? Rebbi Simai explained: It is a word of the Torah that the court’s bailiff enter and collect from average quality. For if the creditor enter, he would bring out the best. And if the debtor enter, he would bring out the worst. But the court’s bailiff enters and collects from average quality. Rebbi Ismael stated: It is a word of the Torah that the debtor enter, as it is said: “and the man to whom you are creditor etc.” Rebbi La said, it was stated there: “to seize as pledge”, by the court. Outside the court, from where? The verse says, “if to seize as pledge you seize as pledge.” If he took the pledge without authorization, he transgresses all these verses. Rebbi La said, he caused himself to transgress all these verses.

It was stated: He takes a day garment as pledge during the night and a night garment during the day. He returns a day garment during the day and a night garment during the night. Pillow and bed sheet which are used as cover during the night he may take as pledge during the day and return for the night. An axe and a plough which usually are used for work during the day he may take as pledge during the night and return for the day. Rebbi La said: Sometimes one explains the verse “the sun shall not come onto it,” as “the sun shall not rise upon it”, but sometimes one explains as “the sun shall not set upon it” since it is written “returning you shall return the pledge to him when the sun comes,” at sunrise, “until the going of the sun return it to him,” until sundown.

Those bearing columns. Rebbi Ze‘ira: He tells the bottom dweller, you are obliged to support me. Rebbi La: He tells the dweller in the upper floor, the builders say that both have to build the foundations. The following supports the builders: “If his ruined building was close to the wall of his neighbor’s courtyard, he should not tell him: I am contributing to the foundations of your wall where it comes up, but he has to contribute to the foundations from the bottom and up. If it was built on top of ditches or caves, he is not obligated for anything.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, explain it, for example those inhabitants of Bet Shean where the bottom dweller cannot build unless the builder of the upper floor builds.

HALAKHAH: “One forces him to build,” etc. Rebbi La said: So it is; the way of a provident person is to build himself a wall, as it is said: “The wealth of the rich is the fortification of his might, etc.” It was stated: “If he stayed there for thirty days he is like the townspeople for the charity chest, for clothing six months, for assessments and penalties twelve months.” After all these, was twelve months said only for assessments and penalties? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said for Passover wheat, both to take and to give.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody’s wall was,” etc. In the House of Rebbi Yannai they said, the Mishnah speaks of those coming first to settle in a new town. Rebbi La said, The Mishnah speaks of a sealed wall. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah speaks of a barricade wall. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, the Mishnah says so: “If there are windows, on top, from below, and on equal height, four cubits.” On top four cubits, lest he could stand and see; from below four cubits, lest he could stand and see; at equal hight lest he obscure the sides. This was stated: “One distances the wall from a window by the size of a window.”

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

HALAKHAH: “A protrusion down to one handbreadth establishes a right of possession,” etc. Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Yannai: If the molding is [up to] one handbreadth wide he may extend it all the way, to draw it all the way. Nathan, Rebbi Hoshaia: About one who divides his house.

HALAKHAH: “A person may not open windows,” etc. Here you say, a door opposite a door is permitted, and there you say, a door opposite a door is forbidden. Where you say it is permitted, in an alley. And where you say it is forbidden, in a condominium courtyard. But did we not state: “Just as the inhabitants of a courtyard may object to one another, so the inhabitants of an alley may object to one another”? Rebbi La said, here when permission was given, there when permission was not given. Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is a difference because gardens are usually dug into. Rebbi Nasa said, are ruins not to be rebuilt?

There, they said: Admon and Rebbi Aqiba. Rebbi La said, they disagree when nothing was specified. Where do we hold? If it is obvious that access was included, everybody agrees that he does not have to pay for access. If it is obvious that access was not included, everybody agrees that he has to pay for access. But we must hold that nothing was specified. Then Rebbi Aqiba said, he does not have to buy access, but the rabbis say, he does have to buy access.

Rebbi Tanḥum from Kefar Gun in the name of Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose: Four. One collects grasses from everywhere on condition that one not uproot. And one relieves himself behind a wall. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Tanḥum: Up to a place where he lets wind and is not heard. And one grazes in forests, even the tribe of Jehudah in the tribe of Naftali, and one gives Naftali an entire region South of the lake, as it is said, “lake and South of it he inherits,” the words of Rebbi Yose the Galilean. Rebbi Aqiba says, “lake” is Lake Samokhonites, “and South” is Lake Tiberias. And one may step to one side. Rav Jehudah in the name of Rav: Even into a field full of saffron. How? Does one have to pay or not? Since Rav Jehudah said, even into a field full of saffron, that means, one pays. Rebbi La said, since Rav Jehudah said, even into a field full of saffron, that means, one does not pay. But one cannot deviate more than necessary. Let us hear from the following: Rabban Gamliel and Rebbi Joshua were on the road [and stepped aside because of obstacles on the road] when they saw Jehudah ben Pappos, who was sinking, coming towards them. Rabban Gamliël said to Rebbi Joshua: Who is this one who makes an exhibition of himself? He answered: This is Jehudah ben Pappos, all whose deeds are done for Heaven’s sake.

HALAKHAH: “Four situations for sellers.,” etc. How is this? If the measuring vessel belonged to the seller, he has the property rights, if to the buyer, he has the property rights. Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel, Rebbi La in the name of the Great Rebbi Jehudah, so is the Mishnah: If the measuring vessel belonged to a third person. It was stated: Rebbi Jehudah says, Friday evenings close to sundown he is not liable since he has permission, but the Sages say, in any case he is liable. What is the reason for what Rebbi Jehudah said? “If he is hired, it is paid for by his wages.”

If one checked an amphora to continuously give heave from it. Up to three days it is certain, after that in doubt Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: The first three days it certainly is wine, the last vinegar, the middle ones are in doubt. Rebbi Abbahu said, I heard this from him. What does and says Rebbi Joḥanan? For three days it is certain, after that in doubt. Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, Rebbi Yasa in the name of the rabbis, who come and hear from the House of Study of Bar Iṭyan, similar to the statement of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi about an amphora. If he lost a smooth needle and then found it rusty. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: The first three days it certainly is impure, the last pure, the middle ones are in doubt. Rebbi Abbahu said, I also heard that from him. What does and says Rebbi Joḥanan? The first three days it is certain, after that in doubt. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba asked: If he came at the end of (a week) [40 days] and found it clearly to be vinegar, [did it clearly become vinegar immediately] or only from that moment in the future? Rebbi Isaac asked: If the crucial time passed at the end of forty days, did the importance of the crucial time invalidate that of forty days or did the importance of forty days invalidate that of the crucial time?

HALAKHAH: “One who says, “my firstborn X shall not take a double portion,’ ” etc. Rebbi La made the right of the firstborn equal to that of the brothers. Rebbi Ḥaggai said to them: Is that not a verse, “he shall not be able to declare as firstborn.” Rebbi Eliezer said, by the Temple Service! He is able, but he is not permitted. Except that he is able designating it as a gift.

HALAKHAH: “One who says, Mr. X shall inherit from me,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa said only this about a son among sons or a daughter among daughters, but not a daughter among brothers or a brother among daughters. Rebbi Joḥanan said, practice follows Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa. Rebbi asked Rebbi Nathan; bar Abba said, so was the question: What is Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa’s reason? Rebbi Ze‘ira said, so was the question: What did they see to say that practice follows Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa? He told him, did you not teach us so: “they shall inherit”? So is the Mishnah: “they shall take.” [Rebbi] La said, even following him who said “inherit”, is not the power of the court strengthened? As you say, nobody can transfer property using the language of gift; here he may do it. Similarly, nobody can transfer property using the language of inheritance; here he may do it.

“If somebody said that all his property should be given to X, a Cohen, and [the estate] contained slaves, even if [the Cohen] said ‘I cannot have them’ they eat heave. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, since he said ‘I cannot have them’, the heirs acquired them.” Rebbi La said, they disagree if he did not specify. How do we hold? If it is clear that he wants them, everybody agrees that his slaves may eat heave. If it is clear that he does not want them, everybody agrees that the heirs acquired them. But we deal with the case that he did not specify, where the rabbis think that at the start he wanted them and then he changed his mind. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, since he said ‘it is impossible for me’, the heirs acquired them.

HALAKHAH: “One who writes his properties over to his sons,” etc. Rebbi Simeon ben Yaqim brought a case before Rebbi Joḥanan. “From today after his death,” his gift is a gift. “From today and after death” it is no bill of divorce. The colleagues say, so he told him: this is no condition. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, so he told him: It applies neither to bills of divorce nor to gifts. Rebbi La said, for a gift; since he said “from today”, the gift is clear. Why did he write “after death”? To reserve the yield to himself. But in bills of divorce, since he wrote “from today” in the bill, it would be a separation. Why did he write “after death”? To reserve her body to himself. Rebbi Abun bar Cahana said before Rebbi La, not to reserve her earnings for himself? He answered, we do not find a woman married to one man and her earnings belonging to another. Rebbi Ze‘ira confirmed him and called him “son of the Torah.”

HALAKHAH: “One who writes his properties over to his sons,” etc. Rebbi Simeon ben Yaqim brought a case before Rebbi Joḥanan. “From today after his death,” his gift is a gift. “From today and after death” it is no bill of divorce. The colleagues say, so he told him: this is no condition. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, so he told him: It applies neither to bills of divorce nor to gifts. Rebbi La said, for a gift; since he said “from today”, the gift is clear. Why did he write “after death”? To reserve the yield to himself. But in bills of divorce, since he wrote “from today” in the bill, it would be a separation. Why did he write “after death”? To reserve her body to himself. Rebbi Abun bar Cahana said before Rebbi La, not to reserve her earnings for himself? He answered, we do not find a woman married to one man and her earnings belonging to another. Rebbi Ze‘ira confirmed him and called him “son of the Torah.”

HALAKHAH: “If he is survived by adult and underage children,” etc. Rebbi La said, “if they said” in court. In the House of Rebbi Yannai they said, even a jug. Rav said, even a basket, even an axe. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: Even a needle, even a thread to tie down.

Rebbi Ḥanina said, if somebody definitively married off his son in a house, the latter acquired it. Rebbi Hoshaia stated, the house but not the movables. Rebbi La divided the dining hall between himself and his son. Rebbi Ḥaggai asked Rebbi Yose: If the ceremony was in the bedroom but the wedding party was in the dining room, what is the rule? He told him, one does not see him leaving.

“Similarly, a woman,” etc. Rebbi La said, “if she said” in court.

HALAKHAH: “One writes a bill of divorce for a man,” etc. Rebbi Abba said: He has to know both of them. Rebbi La said, he has to know the husband for his bill of divorce and the woman for her receipt. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Abba: “Rabban Gamliel the Elder instituted that one should write Mr. X and all his names, Mrs. Y and all her names, for the public good.” But even with Rebbi [La] it does not disagree: “In earlier times, his name and her name and the names of his and her towns could change.”

HALAKHAH: “One writes a bill of divorce for a man,” etc. Rebbi Abba said: He has to know both of them. Rebbi La said, he has to know the husband for his bill of divorce and the woman for her receipt. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Abba: “Rabban Gamliel the Elder instituted that one should write Mr. X and all his names, Mrs. Y and all her names, for the public good.” But even with Rebbi [La] it does not disagree: “In earlier times, his name and her name and the names of his and her towns could change.”

Rebbi Joḥanan said, if somebody redeemed Temple dedications for more than their worth, it is redeemed. But if somebody redeemed Second Tithe for more than its worth, it is not redeemed. What is the difference between dedications and Second Tithe? Rebbi La said, dedications have claimants, Second Tithe has no claimant. Rebbi Jonah asked, that is following him who says that it is not his property. But for him who says it is his property, what is the difference between dedications and Second Tithe? Rebbi Yose said, the reason has already been explained: dedications have claimants, Second Tithe has no claimant.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, if somebody redeemed Temple dedications without adding its fifth it is redeemed. But if somebody redeemed Second Tithe dedications without adding its fifth, it is not redeemed. What is the difference between dedications and Second Tithe? Rebbi La said, because a person usually adds to his dedications. Rebbi Jonah asked, that is following him who says that it is not his property. But for him who says it is his property, what is the difference between Second Tithe and dedications? Rebbi Yose said, did you not already give the reason? Because a person usually adds to his dedications.

Can he forever disqualify and have the other appoint [a replacement]? Rebbi Zeˋira said, they taught this about subsidiaries. Rebbi La said, what Rebbi Eleazar said about “one said in Tiberias, but the other said in Sepphoris,” is about those who live at the same place, from where to [Sepphoris] it is seven mil, but from there to [Tiberias] it is nine mil. Rebbi Yose said, one understands from this, that if two people had a case in Tiberias; one of them said in the permanent court, but the other said in an ad hoc court; one listens to the one who said in the permanent court.

HALAKHAH: “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rav Hoshaiah: Three Amoraïm. One said, any time he brings proof he can demand a new trial. The other said, if he brought within 30 days, he can demand a new trial, after 30 days he cannot demand a new trial. The other said, he never can demand a new trial unless he prove that he absolutely had no knowledge of it. But did we not state: “Rabban Gamliel said, what should he do who did not know that he had witnesses but found witnesses; that he had no proof, but found proof?” Rebbi La and Rebbi Zeˋira: One said, unless he voided his proofs; the other said, until he disclaimed his proofs.

Could one not judge him on Fridays, pass sentence on the Sabbath, and execute him after the Sabbath? If you say so, it turns out that his judgment is delayed. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked, could he not be judged on the Sabbath, have his sentence passed on the Sabbath, and be executed on the Sabbath? Temple service, which supersedes Sabbath prohibitions, is pushed aside by obligatory executions, since it is said, from My altar take him to be executed. Therefore the Sabbath, which is pushed aside by Temple service, logically should be pushed aside by obligatory executions. Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Yannai: This implies that courts may not sit on the Sabbath; what is the reason? It is said here, in all your dwellings, and it is said there, these shall be for you legal procedures for your generations in all your dwellings. Since there the verse refers to courts, so also here the verse refers to courts.

Rabbi La said, why does one record the argument of him who argues for acquittal? Because of him who argues for conviction, maybe his memory will fail him. If he switches his argument, they could say to him, this you said, this you did not say. [Does this mean] that it needs two [groups of] witnesses? It would mean that the trial would be extended. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, because of him who argues for acquittal.

“Up to what number does one add,” etc. It was stated: Why does one add judges? For if there were two of the original judges voting affirmatively, together with one of the later ones judgment will be rendered by three. Rebbi La said, since the judgment can be rendered by four, one does not render it by three.

Rebbi Ḥaggai said, only if he heard it the next day. But on the same day notice must be taken of collecting bones. Nikomachos stated before Rebbi Zeˋira: Collecting bones has no [minimal] amount. Rebbi Mani instructed Rebbi La from Kufra to tear his garment and mourn following Rebbi Aḥa, not to pollute himself following Rebbi Yose.

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.

Does not the blasphemer have to bring a sacrifice? The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: They answered him according to his argument. Following your argument, since you say that the blasphemer does not act, where do we find that somebody talks and brings a sacrifice that this one talks and brings a sacrifice? Rebbi Abba from Carthage asked, is not Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish’s argument inverted? There he said, for Rebbi Aqiba the blasphemer does not act. But here he says, the blasphemer is acting in the opinion of Rebbi Aqiba. Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Two Tannaïm following the opinion of Rebbi Aqiba. One said, the blasphemer does not act, and the other said, the blasphemer does act.

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 La: Both Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both are saying, there is no ”witnesses “here. Why? Because they might die. But might not a document be lost? Therefore, the reason can only be that they might forget their testimony. There, we have stated: “Where is my ox? He told him, it is lost. I want you to swear, he said, Amen. But witnesses testify that he ate it. He has to pay the value. If he confessed himself, he has to pay the value, and the fifth, and the reparation sacrifice.” The Mishnah [applies] if he does not know that there are witnesses. He comes to tell you, even if he knows that there are witnesses. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah says so: “If there were two groups of witnesses, if the first group reneged and after this the second, both are liable.” One understands that the first group becomes liable. Why the second? Not because they might forget their testimony? [Here also, because they (are commanded) to forget their testimony.]

It was said, if its owners were with him, he does not have to pay. Does he have to swear? Rebbi Ze`ira said, he swears. Rebbi Ḥanina and Rebbi La both are saying, he does not swear. A baraita supports Rebbi Ḥanina and Rebbi La: “Breakage, abduction, and death for which he is not liable in the cases of the paid keeper and the renter, and the borrower with the owner is not liable, without the owner is liable; loss and theft where the paid keeper and the renter are liable, is it not that a fortiori the borrower be not liable with the owner but liable without the owner?” For him who says it is obvious that he swears, should he not have to pay? Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of Rebbi Yudan: A baraita supports Rebbi Ze`ira. “The borrower, for whom the Torah was restrictive, with the owner is not liable, without the owner is liable; the paid keeper, for whom the Torah was lenient, a fortiori with the owner should not be liable, without the owner should be liable.” If you are saying, his problem was swearing, he should have stated “the paid keeper and the renter.” That means he only needs it for payment. It is difficult for Rebbi Ze`ira: the borrower swears if the owner was with him; if the owner was not with him he must pay. The unpaid keeper swears, whether the owner was with him or was not with him. You are saying that where the borrower pays the paid keeper swears. Where the paid keeper swears, the unpaid keeper should not be liable. Where the paid keeper pays, the unpaid keeper swears. What do you state about an unpaid keeper when the owner be with him? But some are asking, what do you state about an unpaid and a paid keeper, whether or not the owner be with him? Rebbi Abin said, any word of criminality. Rebbi Mana said, do we not find that the Torah treated loss and theft equally for the borrower? Therefore, we shall treat breakage, abduction, and death equally both for the unpaid and the paid keepers.

It was said, if its owners were with him, he does not have to pay. Does he have to swear? Rebbi Ze`ira said, he swears. Rebbi Ḥanina and Rebbi La both are saying, he does not swear. A baraita supports Rebbi Ḥanina and Rebbi La: “Breakage, abduction, and death for which he is not liable in the cases of the paid keeper and the renter, and the borrower with the owner is not liable, without the owner is liable; loss and theft where the paid keeper and the renter are liable, is it not that a fortiori the borrower be not liable with the owner but liable without the owner?” For him who says it is obvious that he swears, should he not have to pay? Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of Rebbi Yudan: A baraita supports Rebbi Ze`ira. “The borrower, for whom the Torah was restrictive, with the owner is not liable, without the owner is liable; the paid keeper, for whom the Torah was lenient, a fortiori with the owner should not be liable, without the owner should be liable.” If you are saying, his problem was swearing, he should have stated “the paid keeper and the renter.” That means he only needs it for payment. It is difficult for Rebbi Ze`ira: the borrower swears if the owner was with him; if the owner was not with him he must pay. The unpaid keeper swears, whether the owner was with him or was not with him. You are saying that where the borrower pays the paid keeper swears. Where the paid keeper swears, the unpaid keeper should not be liable. Where the paid keeper pays, the unpaid keeper swears. What do you state about an unpaid keeper when the owner be with him? But some are asking, what do you state about an unpaid and a paid keeper, whether or not the owner be with him? Rebbi Abin said, any word of criminality. Rebbi Mana said, do we not find that the Torah treated loss and theft equally for the borrower? Therefore, we shall treat breakage, abduction, and death equally both for the unpaid and the paid keepers.

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

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.

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.

Jewish craftsmen working for a Gentile at that time, in his house it is forbidden, in their houses permitted. Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says, when has this been said? When it was cut from the ground, but as long as it is standing on the ground it is forbidden. In another town in any case it is permitted. What means “in any case it is permitted”? Whether cut or standing, whether hired or contracting. Rebbi La said, Whether cut or standing, but only in contracting. Rebbi Simeon ben Karsana in the name of Rebbi Aḥa, concerning Sabbath, mourning, and pagan worship practice follows Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar.

Rebbi Onias said, Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba raised a difficulty: If he wanted to deflect him to another subject, he should have removed him to the five indeterminate places in the Torah, which are the following: “gift, cursed, tomorrow, almond shaped, rise”. Behold if you choose well the gift or the gift if you do not choose well. For in their rage they killed a man and by their will castrated a cursed ox or cursed be their rage for it is strong. Moses said to Joshua . . go fight Amaleq tomorrow or tomorrow I shall stand on top of the hill. On the candelabra four cups almond shaped or almond shaped their knobs and their flowers.The Eternal said to Moses, you will lie with your fathers and rise or rise will this people and whore. Rebbi Tanḥuma added the following: Jacob’s sons came from the field when they heard or when they heard the men were offended. Rebbi La said, there are things about which one kisses the mouth, as it is said, may he kiss me with the kisses of his mouth. Rebbi Isaac said, and me did the Eternal command. “Me, and me.” Things were said to me that were said to you. And things were said to me alone.

What is meant by "Gropers"? R. Johanan said, old men walking on staffs; Resh Laḳish said, the last gleaners.

R. 'Ami further said: What is the meaning of the verse (Eccl., 10.10): "If the iron be blunt and one do not whet the edge"? If thou seest a generation over which the heavens are as tough as iron, sending neither dew nor rain, it is due to the people's corrupt deeds, as it is said, "and one do not whet the edge." What is the remedy? They should pray much, as it is said (ibid.): "Then must he put to more strength, but wisdom is profitable to direct," the latter part of which means to say that the additional praying will prove more profitable if the people's deeds are still good. Resh Laḳish explains it thus: When thou seest a scholar

to whom his studies are as tough as iron, it is because his lesson is not properly ordered in his mind, as it is said, "and one do not whet the edge." What is his remedy? He should attend more diligently the sessions of the scholars, as it is said, "then must he put to more strength, but wisdom is profitable to direct," the latter part of which means to say that increased diligence will prove still more profitable if the scholar's studies have always been well ordered. Resh Laḳish used to arrange his studies in proper order forty times, corresponding to the forty days during which the Torah was given to Israel, before he appeared before R. Johanan. R. 'Adda b. 'Ahabah used to arrange his lessons in proper order twenty-four times, corresponding to the number of the books of the Pentateuch, Prophets, and Hagiographa, before he appeared before Raba.

Resh Laḳish said: What is the meaning of the verse (Eccl., 10.11): "If the serpent bite before it is charmed, then the charmer hath no advantage"? In the time to come all beasts will gather together and approach the serpent, saying to him: A lion attacks with his paws and eats his prey, a wolf tears and eats, but what pleasure hast thou in biting and killing? The serpent will reply: "The charmer hath no advantage."

R. Johanan said: He who conducts himself righteously here below is judged strictly in the heaven above, as it is said, "Truth springeth out of the earth and righteousness hath looked down from heaven." R. Ḥiyya b. 'Abba derives this lesson from this verse (Ps., 90.11): "And Thy wrath according to the fear that is due unto Thee." Resh Laḳish derives it from this verse (Is., 64.4): "Thou didst take away him that joyfully worked righteousness."

Said Resh Laḳish: Why is it written (Deut., 11.17): "And He will shut up the heavens"? Because when the heavens are prevented from sending down dew and rain, they are to be compared to a woman that travails, but cannot give birth. This is in keeping with what Resh Laḳish said in the name of Bar Ḳappara: The expression "shut up" is used in connection with a woman and in connection with rain;

Said Resh Laḳish: Why is it written (Deut., 11.17): "And He will shut up the heavens"? Because when the heavens are prevented from sending down dew and rain, they are to be compared to a woman that travails, but cannot give birth. This is in keeping with what Resh Laḳish said in the name of Bar Ḳappara: The expression "shut up" is used in connection with a woman and in connection with rain;

"Thou shalt surely tithe"? Tithe, in order that thou mayest become rich. R. Johanan once met the young son of Resh Laḳish and said to him: "Tell me thy verse." "Thou shalt surely tithe," said the boy, "pray, explain it to me." "Give tithe that thou mayest become rich," said R. Johanan. Whereupon the boy said: "Is man allowed to try God? Is it not written (Deut., 6.16): 'Ye shall not try the Lord'?" "Thus said R. 'Osha'ya," replied R. Johanan, "(trying is forbidden) except in this particular instance, for it is said (Mal., 3.10): 'Bring ye the whole tithe into the store-house, that there may be food in My house, and try Me now herewith, said the Lord of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall be more than sufficiency.'" [What is the meaning of the words: "that there shall be more than sufficiency"? Said Rami son of R. Yud in the name of Rab: It means that your lips will grow tired saying, it is enough]. The boy then said to R. Johanan: "If I had come to that verse, I should not have needed either you or 'Osha'ya, your teacher."

R. Johanan further said: Rain is granted for the sake of an individual, means of sustenance are granted for the sake of a multitude only. That rain is granted for the sake of an individual we learn from the verse (Deut., 28.12): "The Lord will open unto thee His good treasure, the heaven, to give the rain of thy land." That means of sustenance are granted for the sake of a multitude only, we learn from the verse (Exod., 16.4): "Behold I will cause to rain bread from heaven for you." But are not means of sustenance granted also for the sake of an individual? Do we not read: "R. Jose b. Judah said, three good leaders have arisen for Israel; they are Moses, Aaron and Miriam; and three precious gifts were presented to Israel for their sake. These are, the well, the pillar of cloud and the manna. The well was given for the merits of Miriam, the pillar of cloud for the merits of Aaron, and the manna for the merits of Moses. When Miriam died the well was taken away, for it is said (Num., 20.1): 'And Miriam died there,' and immediately after it is written: 'And there was no water for the congregation.' Subsequently the well came back on account of the merits of Moses and Aaron. When Aaron died the pillar of cloud disappeared, as it is said (ibid., 21.1): 'And the Canaanite, the king of Arad, heard.' What did he hear? He heard that Aaron had died and the clouds of glory were taken away from Israel, so he thought that now permission was given to wage war against them. Therefore it is written (ibid., 20.29): 'And all the congregation saw that Aaron was dead,' [concerning which R. 'Abahu said that one should not read 'they saw,' but 'they were seen'—agreeing herein with what Resh Laḳish said, namely, that ki (כי) has four meanings: if, perhaps (lest), but, because]. Both (well and cloud) later came back on account of the merits of Moses, but when Moses died all three disappeared, as it is said (Zech., 11.8): 'And I cut off the three shepherds in one month.' But is it true that they died in one month? Did not Miriam die in Nisan, Aaron in Ab, and Moses in Adar? The meaning therefore can only be that the three precious gifts which had been given to Israel through them were taken away in one month." Now, does it not follow from the foregoing Baraita that means of sustenance are granted also for the sake of an individual?! Moses is an exception; since all his requests were for a multitude, he was himself regarded as a multitude.

Resh Laḳish was likewise of the opinion that rain is granted also for the sake of an individual, for he said, whence do we infer that rain is granted for the sake of an individual? It is written (Zech., 10.1): "Ask ye of the Lord rain in the time of the latter rain, even of the Lord that maketh lightnings; and He will give them showers of rain, to every one grass in the field." Now, from the words "He will give them," one might conclude that He gives it only when everybody needs it; Scripture therefore adds "to every one"; but if it said only "to every one," we might think that He gives it only when that one needs it for all his fields; Scripture therefore says "field" (singular); but the word "field" might still be understood to mean a whole (large) field; Scripture therefore says "grass." This finds its illustration in the following case: R. Daniel b. R. Ḳeṭina had a garden which he used to examine every day, and say: This bed needs rain, and this one does not need it. The next day it was found that rain fell upon the one, but not upon the other.

Resh Laḳish said: In years of famine one must refrain from conjugal relations, for it is said (Gen., 41. 50): "And unto Joseph were born two sons before the year of famine came." It was taught, however, that people who have no children may perform their marital duty even in years of famine.

Resh Laḳish said: He is called pious, for it is said (Prov., 11. 17): "The merciful man doeth good to his own soul." R. Jeremiah b. 'Abba said in the name of Resh Laḳish, a scholar is not allowed to impose fasts upon himself, because it makes him lessen his heavenly work. R. Sheshet said, if a student takes upon himself such a fast, his meal should be given to the dogs.

Resh Laḳish said: He is called pious, for it is said (Prov., 11. 17): "The merciful man doeth good to his own soul." R. Jeremiah b. 'Abba said in the name of Resh Laḳish, a scholar is not allowed to impose fasts upon himself, because it makes him lessen his heavenly work. R. Sheshet said, if a student takes upon himself such a fast, his meal should be given to the dogs.

Why did they go out for these ceremonies to the open place of the town? Said R. Ḥiyya b. 'Abba: Because they wished to say thereby: We have cried privately and were not answered, now let us humiliate ourselves publicly. Resh Laḳish said, they meant to say: We have exiled ourselves from our synagogues, and exile atones for sin. Does it make any practical difference what reason we adopt? The difference arises with regard to a case where the community leave one synagogue and enter another.

Why do they put wood-ashes on the Torah scroll? Said R. Judah b. Pazzi, this means to say: "I will be with him in trouble" (Ps., 91. 15); Resh Laḳish said, it means to say: "In all their affliction He was afflicted" (Is., 63. 9). Said R. Zera: When I saw wood-ashes put on the Torah, I trembled in my whole body.

Why does everyone put ashes on his head? R. Levi b. Laḥma and R. Ḥama b. Ḥanina differ as to the reason therefor, the one maintains that it signifies: We regard ourselves before Thee as dust, while according to the other it means: That Thou mayest remember in our favor the ashes of Isaac and have mercy upon us. Does it make any difference what reason we adopt? The difference arises with regard to ordinary dust.

Why do they go to the cemetery? R. Levi b. Laḥma and R. Ḥama b. Ḥanina differ as to the reason, the one maintains that it signifies: We are before Thee as dead, while according to the other it is in order that the departed ones should pray for mercy in our behalf. What practical difference is there? The difference arises with regard to non-Jewish cemeteries.

What is the meaning of "Mount Moriah" (II Chron., 3. 1)? R. Levi b. Laḥma and R. Ḥama b. Ḥanina differ, the one saying it means a mount from which instruction (horaah) went forth to Israel, while the other says it means a mount which imposed fear (mora) upon the nations of the world.

The Patriarchal house once ordered a public fast, without informing R. Johanan and Resh Laḳish thereof. They informed them, however, the next morning. Resh Laḳish therefore said to R. Johanan: "How can we observe the fast, since we did not take it upon ourselves yester-night?" Said R. Johanan, "We must follow their (the Patriarchs') ordinances."

The Patriarchal house once ordered a public fast, without informing R. Johanan and Resh Laḳish thereof. They informed them, however, the next morning. Resh Laḳish therefore said to R. Johanan: "How can we observe the fast, since we did not take it upon ourselves yester-night?" Said R. Johanan, "We must follow their (the Patriarchs') ordinances."

Why did they not fast on Sunday? Said R. Johanan, because of the Christians; R. Samuel b. Naḥamani said, because Sunday is the third day after the creation of man; Resh Laḳish said, because of the additional soul; for Resh Laḳish holds that an additional soul is given to man on Friday eve, which is taken away from him at the expiration of the Sabbath, as it is said (Ex., 31.17): "He ceased from work and rested"—alas, the soul is gone after the Sabbath is over.

Why did they not fast on Sunday? Said R. Johanan, because of the Christians; R. Samuel b. Naḥamani said, because Sunday is the third day after the creation of man; Resh Laḳish said, because of the additional soul; for Resh Laḳish holds that an additional soul is given to man on Friday eve, which is taken away from him at the expiration of the Sabbath, as it is said (Ex., 31.17): "He ceased from work and rested"—alas, the soul is gone after the Sabbath is over.

And the incisor who makes one incision: Our rabbis taught (from Leviticus 19:28) an incision- could the rule [that this is forbidden] apply even if [one made] the incision because of one's house that fell or one's ship that sank at sea? What the verse (Leviticus 19:28) comes to teach is "for a person" (La-nefesh)- one is not culpable [for having violated the injunction of Leviticus 19:28) until one has made the incision because of one who has died. From where do we learn that one who makes 5 incisions for 1 is culpable [for the punishment of lashes] for each individual incision? It is learned [from Leviticus 19:28 in the word] "incision" (seret)- that each individual incision is warranting of punishment.

Rebbi Yosi says, From where do we learn that one who makes 1 incision for 5 dead is culpable [for the punishment of lashes] for each person [incised for]? It is learned [from Leviticus 19:28 in the word] "for a person" (La-nefesh) that a person is culpable for each individual dead person.