larceny

Rav Jeremiah said, one should start to pray only from a practical rule. Rav Jeremiah said, he who deals with public needs is like him who studies Torah. Rav Ḥuna said: a woman who saw a spot like a mustard seed sits and watches seven days of purification because of it; then he stood up and prayed. Zeïra bar Ḥinena said: He who draws blood from a dedicated animal committed larceny; that is one of the decided practices. Bar Qappara stated: Eleven days between periods is a practice taught to Moses at Sinai. Rebbi Hoshaiah stated: One may add produce on the stalk and be tricky in order to free it from tithes. Abdan asked Rebbi: How many levels are there for dedicated things? He answered him: four. And how many levels for Terumah? He answered: three, then he stood up and prayed.

HALAKHAH: It is written (Ps. 24:1): “The Eternal’s are the earth and what is in it, the dry land and its inhabitants.” He who profits from the world commits larceny until good deeds will permit him. Rebbi Abbahu said, it is written (Deut. 22:9) “Lest the fullness of the seed that you sow and the yield of the vineyard should be forbidden.” The entire world and its contents are like a vineyard. What is its redemption? The benediction. Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: (Ps. 16:2) “Say to the Eternal, You are my Master, my good is only with You.” If you ate and recited the benedictions then it is as if you ate from your own. Another explanation: “My good is בל with you”, I am feeding My goodness to your body. Another explanation: “My good is בל with you”, all good things may be mixed together and come to you. Rebbi Aḥa said, what is “only with you?” I shall not bring any good things to the world without you. As it is said (Gen. 41:44) “Without you nobody may lift his hand.” Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: (Lev. 19:24) “Holy for praises”, this shows that it needs benediction before and after. From here did Rebbi Aqiba say that nobody should taste anything before he gives praise.

Abba bar bar Ḥana and Rav Ḥuna were sitting down and eating and Rebbi Zeïra was standing and serving them. He came and carried both in one hand. Abba bar bar Ḥana said to him: Is your other hand cut off? His father got angry with him and said to him: “Is it not enough for you that you are reclining and he stands and serves? But in addition, he is a Cohen and you make fun of him when Samuel said that he who uses a Cohen commits larceny. I order that he should recline and you get up and serve in his stead.” From where that he who uses a Cohen commits larceny? Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Samuel said (Ezra 8:28): “I said to them, you are holy and the vessels are holy.” Since one who uses the Temple vessels commits larceny, also one who uses a Cohen commits larceny!

Abba bar bar Ḥana and Rav Ḥuna were sitting down and eating and Rebbi Zeïra was standing and serving them. He came and carried both in one hand. Abba bar bar Ḥana said to him: Is your other hand cut off? His father got angry with him and said to him: “Is it not enough for you that you are reclining and he stands and serves? But in addition, he is a Cohen and you make fun of him when Samuel said that he who uses a Cohen commits larceny. I order that he should recline and you get up and serve in his stead.” From where that he who uses a Cohen commits larceny? Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Samuel said (Ezra 8:28): “I said to them, you are holy and the vessels are holy.” Since one who uses the Temple vessels commits larceny, also one who uses a Cohen commits larceny!

Abba bar bar Ḥana and Rav Ḥuna were sitting down and eating and Rebbi Zeïra was standing and serving them. He came and carried both in one hand. Abba bar bar Ḥana said to him: Is your other hand cut off? His father got angry with him and said to him: “Is it not enough for you that you are reclining and he stands and serves? But in addition, he is a Cohen and you make fun of him when Samuel said that he who uses a Cohen commits larceny. I order that he should recline and you get up and serve in his stead.” From where that he who uses a Cohen commits larceny? Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Samuel said (Ezra 8:28): “I said to them, you are holy and the vessels are holy.” Since one who uses the Temple vessels commits larceny, also one who uses a Cohen commits larceny!

Abba bar bar Ḥana and Rav Ḥuna were sitting down and eating and Rebbi Zeïra was standing and serving them. He came and carried both in one hand. Abba bar bar Ḥana said to him: Is your other hand cut off? His father got angry with him and said to him: “Is it not enough for you that you are reclining and he stands and serves? But in addition, he is a Cohen and you make fun of him when Samuel said that he who uses a Cohen commits larceny. I order that he should recline and you get up and serve in his stead.” From where that he who uses a Cohen commits larceny? Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Samuel said (Ezra 8:28): “I said to them, you are holy and the vessels are holy.” Since one who uses the Temple vessels commits larceny, also one who uses a Cohen commits larceny!

Five things were said about burning charcoal and five about the flame. One commits larceny with the burning charcoal of the Temple; one may not use its flame but one cannot commit larceny with the latter. Burning charcoal of idolatry is forbidden, its flame is allowed. He who makes a vow not to use anything of another person may not use his burning charcoal but is allowed his flame. He who carries out burning charcoal into the public domain is guilty but for the flame he is free of punishment. One makes the benediction over the flame but not over glowing charcoal. Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Rav: If the charcoal was crackling one makes the benediction. Rebbi Yoḥanan from Karẓion in the name of Rebbi Naḥum bar Simai: Only if [the flame] is jumping off.

Five things were said about burning charcoal and five about the flame. One commits larceny with the burning charcoal of the Temple; one may not use its flame but one cannot commit larceny with the latter. Burning charcoal of idolatry is forbidden, its flame is allowed. He who makes a vow not to use anything of another person may not use his burning charcoal but is allowed his flame. He who carries out burning charcoal into the public domain is guilty but for the flame he is free of punishment. One makes the benediction over the flame but not over glowing charcoal. Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Rav: If the charcoal was crackling one makes the benediction. Rebbi Yoḥanan from Karẓion in the name of Rebbi Naḥum bar Simai: Only if [the flame] is jumping off.

There, we have stated: “If a peruṭah of Temple property fell into somebody’s wallet, or if somebody said, a peruṭah in this wallet shall be Temple property,” it was stated that “with the first coin he committed probable larceny, with the second one certain larceny, the words of Rebbi Aqiba. But the Sages say, with any of them he committed probable larceny, except that with the last one he committed certain larceny.” Rebbi Yudan, the father of Rebbi Mattania said, that is, if there were ten coins. But if there were only two, with the first coin he committed probable larceny, with the second one certain larceny. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked before Rebbi Joḥanan: What is the difference between him who says “in the wallet” and him who says “from the wallet?” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, even if he spent the entire wallet he would not have committed larceny; just as you say ‘that he drank ṭevel retroactively,’ here also ‘retroactively he spent profane money.’ But here it depends on the act of separation. Rebbi Jonah said, in both cases it depends on the act of separation; it is as if he said, this wallet should not be freed from a peruṭah of Temple property. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish’s argument is inverted. There, he says that one commits larceny with a peruṭah corresponding to the computation of three log. And here, he says so? After he asked, he returned and gave the simple answer.

There, we have stated: “If a peruṭah of Temple property fell into somebody’s wallet, or if somebody said, a peruṭah in this wallet shall be Temple property,” it was stated that “with the first coin he committed probable larceny, with the second one certain larceny, the words of Rebbi Aqiba. But the Sages say, with any of them he committed probable larceny, except that with the last one he committed certain larceny.” Rebbi Yudan, the father of Rebbi Mattania said, that is, if there were ten coins. But if there were only two, with the first coin he committed probable larceny, with the second one certain larceny. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked before Rebbi Joḥanan: What is the difference between him who says “in the wallet” and him who says “from the wallet?” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, even if he spent the entire wallet he would not have committed larceny; just as you say ‘that he drank ṭevel retroactively,’ here also ‘retroactively he spent profane money.’ But here it depends on the act of separation. Rebbi Jonah said, in both cases it depends on the act of separation; it is as if he said, this wallet should not be freed from a peruṭah of Temple property. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish’s argument is inverted. There, he says that one commits larceny with a peruṭah corresponding to the computation of three log. And here, he says so? After he asked, he returned and gave the simple answer.

There, we have stated: “If a peruṭah of Temple property fell into somebody’s wallet, or if somebody said, a peruṭah in this wallet shall be Temple property,” it was stated that “with the first coin he committed probable larceny, with the second one certain larceny, the words of Rebbi Aqiba. But the Sages say, with any of them he committed probable larceny, except that with the last one he committed certain larceny.” Rebbi Yudan, the father of Rebbi Mattania said, that is, if there were ten coins. But if there were only two, with the first coin he committed probable larceny, with the second one certain larceny. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked before Rebbi Joḥanan: What is the difference between him who says “in the wallet” and him who says “from the wallet?” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, even if he spent the entire wallet he would not have committed larceny; just as you say ‘that he drank ṭevel retroactively,’ here also ‘retroactively he spent profane money.’ But here it depends on the act of separation. Rebbi Jonah said, in both cases it depends on the act of separation; it is as if he said, this wallet should not be freed from a peruṭah of Temple property. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish’s argument is inverted. There, he says that one commits larceny with a peruṭah corresponding to the computation of three log. And here, he says so? After he asked, he returned and gave the simple answer.

There, we have stated: “If a peruṭah of Temple property fell into somebody’s wallet, or if somebody said, a peruṭah in this wallet shall be Temple property,” it was stated that “with the first coin he committed probable larceny, with the second one certain larceny, the words of Rebbi Aqiba. But the Sages say, with any of them he committed probable larceny, except that with the last one he committed certain larceny.” Rebbi Yudan, the father of Rebbi Mattania said, that is, if there were ten coins. But if there were only two, with the first coin he committed probable larceny, with the second one certain larceny. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked before Rebbi Joḥanan: What is the difference between him who says “in the wallet” and him who says “from the wallet?” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, even if he spent the entire wallet he would not have committed larceny; just as you say ‘that he drank ṭevel retroactively,’ here also ‘retroactively he spent profane money.’ But here it depends on the act of separation. Rebbi Jonah said, in both cases it depends on the act of separation; it is as if he said, this wallet should not be freed from a peruṭah of Temple property. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish’s argument is inverted. There, he says that one commits larceny with a peruṭah corresponding to the computation of three log. And here, he says so? After he asked, he returned and gave the simple answer.

There, we have stated: “If a peruṭah of Temple property fell into somebody’s wallet, or if somebody said, a peruṭah in this wallet shall be Temple property,” it was stated that “with the first coin he committed probable larceny, with the second one certain larceny, the words of Rebbi Aqiba. But the Sages say, with any of them he committed probable larceny, except that with the last one he committed certain larceny.” Rebbi Yudan, the father of Rebbi Mattania said, that is, if there were ten coins. But if there were only two, with the first coin he committed probable larceny, with the second one certain larceny. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked before Rebbi Joḥanan: What is the difference between him who says “in the wallet” and him who says “from the wallet?” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, even if he spent the entire wallet he would not have committed larceny; just as you say ‘that he drank ṭevel retroactively,’ here also ‘retroactively he spent profane money.’ But here it depends on the act of separation. Rebbi Jonah said, in both cases it depends on the act of separation; it is as if he said, this wallet should not be freed from a peruṭah of Temple property. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish’s argument is inverted. There, he says that one commits larceny with a peruṭah corresponding to the computation of three log. And here, he says so? After he asked, he returned and gave the simple answer.

There, we have stated: “If a peruṭah of Temple property fell into somebody’s wallet, or if somebody said, a peruṭah in this wallet shall be Temple property,” it was stated that “with the first coin he committed probable larceny, with the second one certain larceny, the words of Rebbi Aqiba. But the Sages say, with any of them he committed probable larceny, except that with the last one he committed certain larceny.” Rebbi Yudan, the father of Rebbi Mattania said, that is, if there were ten coins. But if there were only two, with the first coin he committed probable larceny, with the second one certain larceny. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked before Rebbi Joḥanan: What is the difference between him who says “in the wallet” and him who says “from the wallet?” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, even if he spent the entire wallet he would not have committed larceny; just as you say ‘that he drank ṭevel retroactively,’ here also ‘retroactively he spent profane money.’ But here it depends on the act of separation. Rebbi Jonah said, in both cases it depends on the act of separation; it is as if he said, this wallet should not be freed from a peruṭah of Temple property. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish’s argument is inverted. There, he says that one commits larceny with a peruṭah corresponding to the computation of three log. And here, he says so? After he asked, he returned and gave the simple answer.

There, we have stated: “If a peruṭah of Temple property fell into somebody’s wallet, or if somebody said, a peruṭah in this wallet shall be Temple property,” it was stated that “with the first coin he committed probable larceny, with the second one certain larceny, the words of Rebbi Aqiba. But the Sages say, with any of them he committed probable larceny, except that with the last one he committed certain larceny.” Rebbi Yudan, the father of Rebbi Mattania said, that is, if there were ten coins. But if there were only two, with the first coin he committed probable larceny, with the second one certain larceny. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked before Rebbi Joḥanan: What is the difference between him who says “in the wallet” and him who says “from the wallet?” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, even if he spent the entire wallet he would not have committed larceny; just as you say ‘that he drank ṭevel retroactively,’ here also ‘retroactively he spent profane money.’ But here it depends on the act of separation. Rebbi Jonah said, in both cases it depends on the act of separation; it is as if he said, this wallet should not be freed from a peruṭah of Temple property. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish’s argument is inverted. There, he says that one commits larceny with a peruṭah corresponding to the computation of three log. And here, he says so? After he asked, he returned and gave the simple answer.

There, we have stated: “If a peruṭah of Temple property fell into somebody’s wallet, or if somebody said, a peruṭah in this wallet shall be Temple property,” it was stated that “with the first coin he committed probable larceny, with the second one certain larceny, the words of Rebbi Aqiba. But the Sages say, with any of them he committed probable larceny, except that with the last one he committed certain larceny.” Rebbi Yudan, the father of Rebbi Mattania said, that is, if there were ten coins. But if there were only two, with the first coin he committed probable larceny, with the second one certain larceny. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked before Rebbi Joḥanan: What is the difference between him who says “in the wallet” and him who says “from the wallet?” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, even if he spent the entire wallet he would not have committed larceny; just as you say ‘that he drank ṭevel retroactively,’ here also ‘retroactively he spent profane money.’ But here it depends on the act of separation. Rebbi Jonah said, in both cases it depends on the act of separation; it is as if he said, this wallet should not be freed from a peruṭah of Temple property. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish’s argument is inverted. There, he says that one commits larceny with a peruṭah corresponding to the computation of three log. And here, he says so? After he asked, he returned and gave the simple answer.

Rebbi Ḥaggai asked before Rebbi Yose: There, we have stated: “If he said to him, give them one piece, but he said, take two each, and they took three each, all committed larceny;” but here you say so? He said to him, there the agency of the owner stopped after the first piece, but here each single grain of wheat is under the agency of the owner. What is the difference? If there were before him two heaps, one put in order by his intention, the other put in order not by his intention.

Rebbi Jeremiah asked before Rebbi Zeïra: Does an unclean animal need standing and appraisal? He said to him, if Rebbi Yose had said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan that a pure wild animal does not need standing and appraisal, an unclean animal would not need it. Rebbi Hila said, we have stated thus (Lev. 27:21): “If an unclean animal, he should redeem it as appraised.” Just as an unclean animal is particular in that it is the same at the time of its redemption as at the time of its dedication, so I am adding the dead animal which is the same at the time of its redemption as at the time of its dedication, and I exclude the one for which he said, this is dedicated, and then it died, which is not the same at the time of its redemption as at the time of its dedication. Rebbi Yose said, a Mishnah said so: “One commits larceny with a donkey and its milk.” Is not milk comparable to its being dead? With all that needs redemption one can commit larceny. You cannot explain it as giving the rules of dead [animals] since we stated “a donkey”. Rebbi Ḥanina said before Rebbi Mana, explain it following Rebbi Simeon since Rebbi Simeon said, dedications for the upkeep of the Temple do not need standing and appraisal. He said to him, if it is following Rebbi Simeon, why a donkey and not any animal?

Rebbi Jeremiah asked before Rebbi Zeïra: Does an unclean animal need standing and appraisal? He said to him, if Rebbi Yose had said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan that a pure wild animal does not need standing and appraisal, an unclean animal would not need it. Rebbi Hila said, we have stated thus (Lev. 27:21): “If an unclean animal, he should redeem it as appraised.” Just as an unclean animal is particular in that it is the same at the time of its redemption as at the time of its dedication, so I am adding the dead animal which is the same at the time of its redemption as at the time of its dedication, and I exclude the one for which he said, this is dedicated, and then it died, which is not the same at the time of its redemption as at the time of its dedication. Rebbi Yose said, a Mishnah said so: “One commits larceny with a donkey and its milk.” Is not milk comparable to its being dead? With all that needs redemption one can commit larceny. You cannot explain it as giving the rules of dead [animals] since we stated “a donkey”. Rebbi Ḥanina said before Rebbi Mana, explain it following Rebbi Simeon since Rebbi Simeon said, dedications for the upkeep of the Temple do not need standing and appraisal. He said to him, if it is following Rebbi Simeon, why a donkey and not any animal?

But Rebbi Ismael himself had a problem: from where does one prove it? Rebbi Abbahu, Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Two prohibitions and one extirpation, the prohibitions split the extirpation. What is the reason? It should not be used to be rubbed on anybody’s skin and in its proportions you shall not imitate it, and it is written, a person who would compound similarly, or who would put it on a stranger, will be extirpated from his people, that is two prohibitions and one extirpation. The prohibitions split the extirpation. How does Rebbi Joḥanan treat this? The verse speaks about males. His sister is mentioned to teach about all females. Does Rebbi Eleazar not accept this? He has it from do not come near, equally male or female. How does Rebbi Joḥanan treat this? He explains it but it is not clear, so also from the following: Samuel bar Abba asked before Rebbi Zeˋira, should not well-being sacrifices, being treated separately, split all sancta regarding impurity? He told him, it was necessary that they be treated separately, to eliminate sancta dedicated for the upkeep of the Temple regarding larceny, lest one be liable for them because of mushiness, leftovers, and impurity. But is that not a Mishnah? “All sancta destined for the altar combine with one another with respect to liability for mushiness, leftovers, and impurity,” in contrast to sancta destined for the upkeep of the Temple. Since they do not combine, they do split. Rebbi Ḥanina said, so it is. They split but do not combine.

There exists a baraita which says, idols are like a menstruating woman and its appurtenances are like a menstruating woman. Also there exists a baraita which says, idols are like a menstruating woman and its appurtenances are like crawling animals. The one who says, idols are like a menstruating woman and its appurtenances are like a menstruating woman, is understandable. But concerning the one who says, idols are like a menstruating woman and its appurtenances are like crawling animals, is it not called “unwell” only for its appurtenances? You will defile the coating of your silver gods and the clothing of your molten gold. Explain it if they were engraved on its body. Rebbi Jacob of Kefar Ḥanan said, explain it if one worships the ephod itself, similar to what is written, Gideon turned it into an ephod. Our Mishnah follows him who said, idols are like a menstruating woman and its appurtenances are like a menstruating woman. But did we not state: “its stones, its wood, and its dust make impure like a crawling animal”? Explain it if he worshipped the house itself and then built it up. But did we not state “there are three houses”? Explain it if he worshipped the house itself and then renovated it, as Rebbi Abba, Rab Huna said in the name of Rav: One who worships a house makes it forbidden. Rebbi Zeˋira, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If somebody dedicates a house one does commit larceny with it. Rebbi Zeˋira said, about this the rabbis disagree. For him who says that he forbade it one may commit larceny with it, but for him who says that he does not forbid it, one does not commit larceny with it? Rebbi Ḥaggai objected before Rebbi Yose, does not a Mishnah disagree with Rav? “A trough in a rock: one does not fill from it.” Because he excavated it and after that combined it. Then not if he fixed it and after that excavated it. Is this house not as if he excavated it and after that combined it? What does Rav do with it? He explains that the hewing of stones is the completion of work on them. Does this not disagree with Rebbi Joḥanan, since Rebbi Joḥanan said, an idol which was broken is forbidden. And so we are thinking to say if in the future he cannot restore it in its entirety it is permitted according to everybody. But did we not state, “there are three kinds of stones”? Explain it that he worshipped every single stone and then builds with them. Even with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish this does not disagree, as Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, an idol which was broken is permitted. And so we are thinking to say if in the future he can restore it in its entirety it is forbidden according to everybody, and Rebbi Yudan, the father of Rebbi Mattaniah, said, if they remain in their place is this not as if in the future he can restore it in its entirety? And these remain at their place. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav, one who worships a house makes it forbidden, a tree he does not make forbidden. But did we not state, “there are three kinds of Ashera”? Explain it that he worshipped a vine and then planted it.

There exists a baraita which says, idols are like a menstruating woman and its appurtenances are like a menstruating woman. Also there exists a baraita which says, idols are like a menstruating woman and its appurtenances are like crawling animals. The one who says, idols are like a menstruating woman and its appurtenances are like a menstruating woman, is understandable. But concerning the one who says, idols are like a menstruating woman and its appurtenances are like crawling animals, is it not called “unwell” only for its appurtenances? You will defile the coating of your silver gods and the clothing of your molten gold. Explain it if they were engraved on its body. Rebbi Jacob of Kefar Ḥanan said, explain it if one worships the ephod itself, similar to what is written, Gideon turned it into an ephod. Our Mishnah follows him who said, idols are like a menstruating woman and its appurtenances are like a menstruating woman. But did we not state: “its stones, its wood, and its dust make impure like a crawling animal”? Explain it if he worshipped the house itself and then built it up. But did we not state “there are three houses”? Explain it if he worshipped the house itself and then renovated it, as Rebbi Abba, Rab Huna said in the name of Rav: One who worships a house makes it forbidden. Rebbi Zeˋira, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If somebody dedicates a house one does commit larceny with it. Rebbi Zeˋira said, about this the rabbis disagree. For him who says that he forbade it one may commit larceny with it, but for him who says that he does not forbid it, one does not commit larceny with it? Rebbi Ḥaggai objected before Rebbi Yose, does not a Mishnah disagree with Rav? “A trough in a rock: one does not fill from it.” Because he excavated it and after that combined it. Then not if he fixed it and after that excavated it. Is this house not as if he excavated it and after that combined it? What does Rav do with it? He explains that the hewing of stones is the completion of work on them. Does this not disagree with Rebbi Joḥanan, since Rebbi Joḥanan said, an idol which was broken is forbidden. And so we are thinking to say if in the future he cannot restore it in its entirety it is permitted according to everybody. But did we not state, “there are three kinds of stones”? Explain it that he worshipped every single stone and then builds with them. Even with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish this does not disagree, as Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, an idol which was broken is permitted. And so we are thinking to say if in the future he can restore it in its entirety it is forbidden according to everybody, and Rebbi Yudan, the father of Rebbi Mattaniah, said, if they remain in their place is this not as if in the future he can restore it in its entirety? And these remain at their place. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav, one who worships a house makes it forbidden, a tree he does not make forbidden. But did we not state, “there are three kinds of Ashera”? Explain it that he worshipped a vine and then planted it.

There exists a baraita which says, idols are like a menstruating woman and its appurtenances are like a menstruating woman. Also there exists a baraita which says, idols are like a menstruating woman and its appurtenances are like crawling animals. The one who says, idols are like a menstruating woman and its appurtenances are like a menstruating woman, is understandable. But concerning the one who says, idols are like a menstruating woman and its appurtenances are like crawling animals, is it not called “unwell” only for its appurtenances? You will defile the coating of your silver gods and the clothing of your molten gold. Explain it if they were engraved on its body. Rebbi Jacob of Kefar Ḥanan said, explain it if one worships the ephod itself, similar to what is written, Gideon turned it into an ephod. Our Mishnah follows him who said, idols are like a menstruating woman and its appurtenances are like a menstruating woman. But did we not state: “its stones, its wood, and its dust make impure like a crawling animal”? Explain it if he worshipped the house itself and then built it up. But did we not state “there are three houses”? Explain it if he worshipped the house itself and then renovated it, as Rebbi Abba, Rab Huna said in the name of Rav: One who worships a house makes it forbidden. Rebbi Zeˋira, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If somebody dedicates a house one does commit larceny with it. Rebbi Zeˋira said, about this the rabbis disagree. For him who says that he forbade it one may commit larceny with it, but for him who says that he does not forbid it, one does not commit larceny with it? Rebbi Ḥaggai objected before Rebbi Yose, does not a Mishnah disagree with Rav? “A trough in a rock: one does not fill from it.” Because he excavated it and after that combined it. Then not if he fixed it and after that excavated it. Is this house not as if he excavated it and after that combined it? What does Rav do with it? He explains that the hewing of stones is the completion of work on them. Does this not disagree with Rebbi Joḥanan, since Rebbi Joḥanan said, an idol which was broken is forbidden. And so we are thinking to say if in the future he cannot restore it in its entirety it is permitted according to everybody. But did we not state, “there are three kinds of stones”? Explain it that he worshipped every single stone and then builds with them. Even with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish this does not disagree, as Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, an idol which was broken is permitted. And so we are thinking to say if in the future he can restore it in its entirety it is forbidden according to everybody, and Rebbi Yudan, the father of Rebbi Mattaniah, said, if they remain in their place is this not as if in the future he can restore it in its entirety? And these remain at their place. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav, one who worships a house makes it forbidden, a tree he does not make forbidden. But did we not state, “there are three kinds of Ashera”? Explain it that he worshipped a vine and then planted it.

If he removed and the wind blew it away, the disagreement between Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Ḥanina, since Rebbi Ḥanina said, if a fistful was put in the fire when the wind blew it away, by the last blowing the owner was atoned for and the remainders freed from larceny. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if the fire engulfed most of it. What means “most of it”? Most of the fistful, or had it been said about most of each separate lump? There came Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It had been said about most of each separate lump.

MISHNAH: On all of them he gives from bottom to top except the one he is standing in front of, where he gives from top to bottom. He sprinkles on the surface of the altar seven times. The rest of the blood he poured on the Western base of the outer altar; those of the outer altar one pours on the southern base. This and that combine in the water canal and leave towards the Kidron valley where it is sold to gardeners as fertilizer; one commits larceny with it.

It was stated: “One commits larceny with blood, the words of Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon, but the Sages are saying, there is no larceny with blood.” Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, for the blood is it, it atones for the person. You only have atonement of persons from it. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, any who eats it will be extirpated. You only have extirpation of persons from it. Rebbi Zeˋira said, they differ if he dedicated blood. He who said, you only have atonement of persons from it, and this since there is no atonement from it there is no larceny with it. He who says, you only have extirpation of persons from it, and since there is extirpation from it there is larceny with it. There came Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, they differ if he dedicated blood or for the upkeep of the Temple. Rebbi Zeˋira enjoyed it; he thought that it had been said about the rabbis. He said to him, what do you have in your hand? It was said about Rebbi Simeon.

It was stated: “One commits larceny with blood, the words of Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon, but the Sages are saying, there is no larceny with blood.” Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, for the blood is it, it atones for the person. You only have atonement of persons from it. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, any who eats it will be extirpated. You only have extirpation of persons from it. Rebbi Zeˋira said, they differ if he dedicated blood. He who said, you only have atonement of persons from it, and this since there is no atonement from it there is no larceny with it. He who says, you only have extirpation of persons from it, and since there is extirpation from it there is larceny with it. There came Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, they differ if he dedicated blood or for the upkeep of the Temple. Rebbi Zeˋira enjoyed it; he thought that it had been said about the rabbis. He said to him, what do you have in your hand? It was said about Rebbi Simeon.

It was stated: “One commits larceny with blood, the words of Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon, but the Sages are saying, there is no larceny with blood.” Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, for the blood is it, it atones for the person. You only have atonement of persons from it. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, any who eats it will be extirpated. You only have extirpation of persons from it. Rebbi Zeˋira said, they differ if he dedicated blood. He who said, you only have atonement of persons from it, and this since there is no atonement from it there is no larceny with it. He who says, you only have extirpation of persons from it, and since there is extirpation from it there is larceny with it. There came Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, they differ if he dedicated blood or for the upkeep of the Temple. Rebbi Zeˋira enjoyed it; he thought that it had been said about the rabbis. He said to him, what do you have in your hand? It was said about Rebbi Simeon.

It was stated: “One commits larceny with blood, the words of Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon, but the Sages are saying, there is no larceny with blood.” Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, for the blood is it, it atones for the person. You only have atonement of persons from it. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, any who eats it will be extirpated. You only have extirpation of persons from it. Rebbi Zeˋira said, they differ if he dedicated blood. He who said, you only have atonement of persons from it, and this since there is no atonement from it there is no larceny with it. He who says, you only have extirpation of persons from it, and since there is extirpation from it there is larceny with it. There came Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, they differ if he dedicated blood or for the upkeep of the Temple. Rebbi Zeˋira enjoyed it; he thought that it had been said about the rabbis. He said to him, what do you have in your hand? It was said about Rebbi Simeon.

Rebbi Abba the son of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: So the Sages are answering Rebbi Simeon. If he sold them, would it not transfer sanctity to the money? What is the difference between them and their money’s worth? This disagrees with what Rebbi Eleazar said: There are those of them of which they said, one has no usufruct but one does not commit larceny, therefore it one sold them it does not transfer sanctity to the money, and there are those of them of which they said, one has no usufruct but one does not commit larceny, therefore if one sold them it transfers sanctity to the money. Of the ashes of the interior altar and the candelabrum one has no usufruct but one does not commit larceny, therefore if one sold them it does not transfer sanctity to the money. Of blood one has no usufruct but one does not commit larceny, therefore if one sold it, it transfers sanctity to the money.

Rebbi Abba the son of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: So the Sages are answering Rebbi Simeon. If he sold them, would it not transfer sanctity to the money? What is the difference between them and their money’s worth? This disagrees with what Rebbi Eleazar said: There are those of them of which they said, one has no usufruct but one does not commit larceny, therefore it one sold them it does not transfer sanctity to the money, and there are those of them of which they said, one has no usufruct but one does not commit larceny, therefore if one sold them it transfers sanctity to the money. Of the ashes of the interior altar and the candelabrum one has no usufruct but one does not commit larceny, therefore if one sold them it does not transfer sanctity to the money. Of blood one has no usufruct but one does not commit larceny, therefore if one sold it, it transfers sanctity to the money.

Rebbi Abba the son of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: So the Sages are answering Rebbi Simeon. If he sold them, would it not transfer sanctity to the money? What is the difference between them and their money’s worth? This disagrees with what Rebbi Eleazar said: There are those of them of which they said, one has no usufruct but one does not commit larceny, therefore it one sold them it does not transfer sanctity to the money, and there are those of them of which they said, one has no usufruct but one does not commit larceny, therefore if one sold them it transfers sanctity to the money. Of the ashes of the interior altar and the candelabrum one has no usufruct but one does not commit larceny, therefore if one sold them it does not transfer sanctity to the money. Of blood one has no usufruct but one does not commit larceny, therefore if one sold it, it transfers sanctity to the money.

Rebbi Abba the son of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: So the Sages are answering Rebbi Simeon. If he sold them, would it not transfer sanctity to the money? What is the difference between them and their money’s worth? This disagrees with what Rebbi Eleazar said: There are those of them of which they said, one has no usufruct but one does not commit larceny, therefore it one sold them it does not transfer sanctity to the money, and there are those of them of which they said, one has no usufruct but one does not commit larceny, therefore if one sold them it transfers sanctity to the money. Of the ashes of the interior altar and the candelabrum one has no usufruct but one does not commit larceny, therefore if one sold them it does not transfer sanctity to the money. Of blood one has no usufruct but one does not commit larceny, therefore if one sold it, it transfers sanctity to the money.

Rav Ḥisda said, only if his purification offering was presented last. But if his well-being offering was presented last, what is left over is for a well-being offering. Rebbi Ze`ira said, even if his well-being offering was presented last, it is a general rule for a nazir that his leftover be for the gift account. A baraita supports one and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Ze`ira: “The following are not designated monies: any which contain money for purification offerings should be left to die. Even if he designated money for purification offerings that should be left to die, it remains not designated.” A baraita supports Rav Ḥisda: “This is for my purification offering and the rest for my nezirut. Then he died. One commits larceny with all of them but not with part of them.” It does not say, when he died it should be given to the gift account.

MISHNAH: If it was found in the countryside, limbs are carrion, cuts are permitted. On holidays, when meat is abundant, even limbs are permitted. Rebbi Simeon said, the Court stipulated seven things, and this was one of them: If a Gentile sent his elevation offering from overseas also sent its libations, they are brought from his property; otherwise they are brought from public money. Similarly, if a proselyte died and the estate includes well-being offerings; if he also has flour offerings they are brought from his property; otherwise they are brought from public money. It is a stipulation of the Court that the flour offering of a deceased High Priest be brought from public money; Rebbi Jehudah says, from his heirs, and it was brought whole. About salt and wood that the Cohanim may use them, and about the Cow that one does not commit larceny with its ashes. And about disqualified nests that they be charged to the public; Rebbi Yose says, he who provides the nests provides the disqualified ones.

HALAKHAH: The elder Rebbi Hoshaia said (more)<to his son>` this was taught for their monetary value. Rebbi Joḥanan said to him, does one say to a person, go and commit larceny with sacrifices? But they followed the majority of cases: If most are male, they are elevation offerings, if most are female, well-being offerings. But do not well-being offerings come from males and females? What does he do? He redeems them as profane and then turns them into elevation offerings. Rebbi Ze`ira said, it is a stipulation by the court that all redundant animals should be brought as elevation offerings, so it is a stipulation by the court that lost animals should be brought as elevation offerings. Rebbi Yose said to Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, is that not intentional misuse? He said to him, since it is a stipulation by the court, it is not intentional misuse.

Rebbi Samuel ben Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: It would have been logical that one commit larceny with them, but they decided that one does not commit larceny with them. But did we not state: “it is ḥattat, this teaches that one commits larceny with it. [With it one commits larceny,] with its ashes one does not commit larceny.” Rebbi Abbahu said, at the beginning they were using it as a disinfectant and were putting it on their wounds and therefore they decided that one would commit larceny with it. When they were fenced in, they decided that one does not commit larceny with it.

Rebbi Samuel ben Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: It would have been logical that one commit larceny with them, but they decided that one does not commit larceny with them. But did we not state: “it is ḥattat, this teaches that one commits larceny with it. [With it one commits larceny,] with its ashes one does not commit larceny.” Rebbi Abbahu said, at the beginning they were using it as a disinfectant and were putting it on their wounds and therefore they decided that one would commit larceny with it. When they were fenced in, they decided that one does not commit larceny with it.

Rebbi Samuel ben Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: It would have been logical that one commit larceny with them, but they decided that one does not commit larceny with them. But did we not state: “it is ḥattat, this teaches that one commits larceny with it. [With it one commits larceny,] with its ashes one does not commit larceny.” Rebbi Abbahu said, at the beginning they were using it as a disinfectant and were putting it on their wounds and therefore they decided that one would commit larceny with it. When they were fenced in, they decided that one does not commit larceny with it.

Rebbi Samuel ben Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: It would have been logical that one commit larceny with them, but they decided that one does not commit larceny with them. But did we not state: “it is ḥattat, this teaches that one commits larceny with it. [With it one commits larceny,] with its ashes one does not commit larceny.” Rebbi Abbahu said, at the beginning they were using it as a disinfectant and were putting it on their wounds and therefore they decided that one would commit larceny with it. When they were fenced in, they decided that one does not commit larceny with it.

Rebbi Samuel ben Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: It would have been logical that one commit larceny with them, but they decided that one does not commit larceny with them. But did we not state: “it is ḥattat, this teaches that one commits larceny with it. [With it one commits larceny,] with its ashes one does not commit larceny.” Rebbi Abbahu said, at the beginning they were using it as a disinfectant and were putting it on their wounds and therefore they decided that one would commit larceny with it. When they were fenced in, they decided that one does not commit larceny with it.

Rebbi Samuel ben Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: It would have been logical that one commit larceny with them, but they decided that one does not commit larceny with them. But did we not state: “it is ḥattat, this teaches that one commits larceny with it. [With it one commits larceny,] with its ashes one does not commit larceny.” Rebbi Abbahu said, at the beginning they were using it as a disinfectant and were putting it on their wounds and therefore they decided that one would commit larceny with it. When they were fenced in, they decided that one does not commit larceny with it.

Rebbi Samuel ben Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: It would have been logical that one commit larceny with them, but they decided that one does not commit larceny with them. But did we not state: “it is ḥattat, this teaches that one commits larceny with it. [With it one commits larceny,] with its ashes one does not commit larceny.” Rebbi Abbahu said, at the beginning they were using it as a disinfectant and were putting it on their wounds and therefore they decided that one would commit larceny with it. When they were fenced in, they decided that one does not commit larceny with it.

It was stated: “No courtyard was in Jerusalem which was not illuminated by the light of the water-drawing festivity.” It was stated: A woman could check her wheat by the light of the fire on the altar. Would they not commit larceny? No, as Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, taste, looks, and sound are not subject to larceny. Six sounds were heard in Jericho. “In Jericho one heard the sound of the opening of the main gate. In Jericho one heard the sound of the organ. In Jericho one heard the sound of the wooden mechanical device for the basin which Ben Qaṭin made. In Jericho one heard the voice of Gabinius the herald. In Jericho one heard the sound of the fife. In Jericho one heard the sound of the cymbal, and some are saying, also the voice of the High Priest when he mentioned the Name on the day of Atonement. In Jericho one smelled the compounding of the incense. Rebbi Eliezer ben Dalgai said, my family had goats in the Akhwar Mountains which were sneezing from the smell of compounding the incense.”

It was stated: “No courtyard was in Jerusalem which was not illuminated by the light of the water-drawing festivity.” It was stated: A woman could check her wheat by the light of the fire on the altar. Would they not commit larceny? No, as Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, taste, looks, and sound are not subject to larceny. Six sounds were heard in Jericho. “In Jericho one heard the sound of the opening of the main gate. In Jericho one heard the sound of the organ. In Jericho one heard the sound of the wooden mechanical device for the basin which Ben Qaṭin made. In Jericho one heard the voice of Gabinius the herald. In Jericho one heard the sound of the fife. In Jericho one heard the sound of the cymbal, and some are saying, also the voice of the High Priest when he mentioned the Name on the day of Atonement. In Jericho one smelled the compounding of the incense. Rebbi Eliezer ben Dalgai said, my family had goats in the Akhwar Mountains which were sneezing from the smell of compounding the incense.”

MISHNAH: A burning charcoal is like the feet of its owner but a flame may be everywhere. One does not commit larceny with burning charcoals of the Temple; one may not use its flame but one does not commit larceny.

MISHNAH: A burning charcoal is like the feet of its owner but a flame may be everywhere. One does not commit larceny with burning charcoals of the Temple; one may not use its flame but one does not commit larceny.

HALAKHAH: “Five things were said about burning charcoal and five about the flame. One commits larceny with the burning charcoal of the Temple; one may not use its flame but one cannot commit larceny with the latter. Burning charcoal of idolatry is forbidden, its flame is allowed. He who makes a vow not to use anything of another person may not use his burning charcoal but is allowed his flame. He who carries burning charcoal into the public domain is liable but for the flame he is free of punishment. One makes the benediction over the flame but not over glowing charcoal.” Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Rav: If the charcoal was crackling one makes the benediction. Rebbi Joḥanan from Karṣion in the name of Rebbi Naḥum bar Simai: Only if {the flame} is jumping off.

HALAKHAH: “Five things were said about burning charcoal and five about the flame. One commits larceny with the burning charcoal of the Temple; one may not use its flame but one cannot commit larceny with the latter. Burning charcoal of idolatry is forbidden, its flame is allowed. He who makes a vow not to use anything of another person may not use his burning charcoal but is allowed his flame. He who carries burning charcoal into the public domain is liable but for the flame he is free of punishment. One makes the benediction over the flame but not over glowing charcoal.” Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Rav: If the charcoal was crackling one makes the benediction. Rebbi Joḥanan from Karṣion in the name of Rebbi Naḥum bar Simai: Only if {the flame} is jumping off.

MISHNAH: The dissolution of vows flies in the air and has no support. The rules of the Sabbath, holiday sacrifices, and larceny on sancta are like mountains hanging on a hair, few verses and many rules. Civil law, Temple service, purity and impurity, and forbidden sexual relations have support. All of them are the body of the Torah.

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One does not say “his” but [ ]. In which respect? In case the heir took it, one removes it from his hand. Does one have the same rule for the creditor? Was it not stated: If either the heir or the creditor took it, one takes it from their hands? Rebbi Aḥa bar Ulla said, let us hear from the following: “If he dedicated 90 minas but his debt was 100 minas, [the creditor] adds another denar and redeems these properties.” Not necessarily a denar, but anything, that a dedication should not be seen to be profanated without redemption. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One would be guilty of complete larceny. That is difficult. If one would be guilty of complete larceny, should if not be redeemed for its full value? If it can be redeemed for less than its full value, one should not be guilty of complete larceny! What are we talking about? If it is connected to the ground, can there be larceny about real estate? But we talk about standing grain. Since if the administrator misbehaved and took it, one does not take it from his hand; the administrator and the heir follow the same rule. Also if the heir misbehaved and took it, one does not take it from his hand. Rebbi Samuel, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The same rule holds for an ox. Can you say that an ox is real estate? Rebbi Tanḥum bar Mari in the name of Rebbi Yose: They made the rules for an ox parallel those of dedications that lost their value. Here, you say one takes it from his hand, but there you say, one does not take it from his hand. Since you diminished the woman’s power in that her ketubah is a lien only on the properties of her first husband, you strengthened her power in this matter that if the heir came and took it, one removes it from his hand. It was stated thus: Trees and cutting, old or young, one removes from their hands.

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One does not say “his” but [ ]. In which respect? In case the heir took it, one removes it from his hand. Does one have the same rule for the creditor? Was it not stated: If either the heir or the creditor took it, one takes it from their hands? Rebbi Aḥa bar Ulla said, let us hear from the following: “If he dedicated 90 minas but his debt was 100 minas, [the creditor] adds another denar and redeems these properties.” Not necessarily a denar, but anything, that a dedication should not be seen to be profanated without redemption. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One would be guilty of complete larceny. That is difficult. If one would be guilty of complete larceny, should if not be redeemed for its full value? If it can be redeemed for less than its full value, one should not be guilty of complete larceny! What are we talking about? If it is connected to the ground, can there be larceny about real estate? But we talk about standing grain. Since if the administrator misbehaved and took it, one does not take it from his hand; the administrator and the heir follow the same rule. Also if the heir misbehaved and took it, one does not take it from his hand. Rebbi Samuel, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The same rule holds for an ox. Can you say that an ox is real estate? Rebbi Tanḥum bar Mari in the name of Rebbi Yose: They made the rules for an ox parallel those of dedications that lost their value. Here, you say one takes it from his hand, but there you say, one does not take it from his hand. Since you diminished the woman’s power in that her ketubah is a lien only on the properties of her first husband, you strengthened her power in this matter that if the heir came and took it, one removes it from his hand. It was stated thus: Trees and cutting, old or young, one removes from their hands.

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One does not say “his” but [ ]. In which respect? In case the heir took it, one removes it from his hand. Does one have the same rule for the creditor? Was it not stated: If either the heir or the creditor took it, one takes it from their hands? Rebbi Aḥa bar Ulla said, let us hear from the following: “If he dedicated 90 minas but his debt was 100 minas, [the creditor] adds another denar and redeems these properties.” Not necessarily a denar, but anything, that a dedication should not be seen to be profanated without redemption. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One would be guilty of complete larceny. That is difficult. If one would be guilty of complete larceny, should if not be redeemed for its full value? If it can be redeemed for less than its full value, one should not be guilty of complete larceny! What are we talking about? If it is connected to the ground, can there be larceny about real estate? But we talk about standing grain. Since if the administrator misbehaved and took it, one does not take it from his hand; the administrator and the heir follow the same rule. Also if the heir misbehaved and took it, one does not take it from his hand. Rebbi Samuel, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The same rule holds for an ox. Can you say that an ox is real estate? Rebbi Tanḥum bar Mari in the name of Rebbi Yose: They made the rules for an ox parallel those of dedications that lost their value. Here, you say one takes it from his hand, but there you say, one does not take it from his hand. Since you diminished the woman’s power in that her ketubah is a lien only on the properties of her first husband, you strengthened her power in this matter that if the heir came and took it, one removes it from his hand. It was stated thus: Trees and cutting, old or young, one removes from their hands.

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One does not say “his” but [ ]. In which respect? In case the heir took it, one removes it from his hand. Does one have the same rule for the creditor? Was it not stated: If either the heir or the creditor took it, one takes it from their hands? Rebbi Aḥa bar Ulla said, let us hear from the following: “If he dedicated 90 minas but his debt was 100 minas, [the creditor] adds another denar and redeems these properties.” Not necessarily a denar, but anything, that a dedication should not be seen to be profanated without redemption. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One would be guilty of complete larceny. That is difficult. If one would be guilty of complete larceny, should if not be redeemed for its full value? If it can be redeemed for less than its full value, one should not be guilty of complete larceny! What are we talking about? If it is connected to the ground, can there be larceny about real estate? But we talk about standing grain. Since if the administrator misbehaved and took it, one does not take it from his hand; the administrator and the heir follow the same rule. Also if the heir misbehaved and took it, one does not take it from his hand. Rebbi Samuel, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The same rule holds for an ox. Can you say that an ox is real estate? Rebbi Tanḥum bar Mari in the name of Rebbi Yose: They made the rules for an ox parallel those of dedications that lost their value. Here, you say one takes it from his hand, but there you say, one does not take it from his hand. Since you diminished the woman’s power in that her ketubah is a lien only on the properties of her first husband, you strengthened her power in this matter that if the heir came and took it, one removes it from his hand. It was stated thus: Trees and cutting, old or young, one removes from their hands.

HALAKHAH: “If a widow’s ketubah was 200,” etc. We understand worth a mina for 200 or worth 200 for a mina. In any case, she made the orphans lose a mina. [If it was worth] a mina [and she sold it] for 200, would the sale not be invalidated as erroneous buy? Explain it that the property increased in value. Rebbi Abin said, this supports Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, since Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, real estate buys are never under the laws of overcharging. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if the transaction was excessive, it comes under the law of overcharging. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “The following do not fall under the laws of overcharging: Slaves, securities, real estate, and redemptions.” He explains it, unless it was excessive. If he redeemed what was worth a mina by 200, Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is not redeemed, but Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it is redeemed. A baralta disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: If he said, this toga instead of this donkey, the latter becomes profane. And its end disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: It is necessary to compute the value. Rebbi Yose said, the baraita itself implies that it is necessary to compute the value. Where do they disagree? To bring [a sacrifice to atone for] larceny. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he has to bring a sacrifice for larceny; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he does not have to bring a sacrifice for larceny.

HALAKHAH: “If a widow’s ketubah was 200,” etc. We understand worth a mina for 200 or worth 200 for a mina. In any case, she made the orphans lose a mina. [If it was worth] a mina [and she sold it] for 200, would the sale not be invalidated as erroneous buy? Explain it that the property increased in value. Rebbi Abin said, this supports Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, since Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, real estate buys are never under the laws of overcharging. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if the transaction was excessive, it comes under the law of overcharging. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “The following do not fall under the laws of overcharging: Slaves, securities, real estate, and redemptions.” He explains it, unless it was excessive. If he redeemed what was worth a mina by 200, Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is not redeemed, but Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it is redeemed. A baralta disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: If he said, this toga instead of this donkey, the latter becomes profane. And its end disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: It is necessary to compute the value. Rebbi Yose said, the baraita itself implies that it is necessary to compute the value. Where do they disagree? To bring [a sacrifice to atone for] larceny. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he has to bring a sacrifice for larceny; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he does not have to bring a sacrifice for larceny.

HALAKHAH: “If a widow’s ketubah was 200,” etc. We understand worth a mina for 200 or worth 200 for a mina. In any case, she made the orphans lose a mina. [If it was worth] a mina [and she sold it] for 200, would the sale not be invalidated as erroneous buy? Explain it that the property increased in value. Rebbi Abin said, this supports Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, since Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, real estate buys are never under the laws of overcharging. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if the transaction was excessive, it comes under the law of overcharging. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “The following do not fall under the laws of overcharging: Slaves, securities, real estate, and redemptions.” He explains it, unless it was excessive. If he redeemed what was worth a mina by 200, Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is not redeemed, but Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it is redeemed. A baralta disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: If he said, this toga instead of this donkey, the latter becomes profane. And its end disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: It is necessary to compute the value. Rebbi Yose said, the baraita itself implies that it is necessary to compute the value. Where do they disagree? To bring [a sacrifice to atone for] larceny. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he has to bring a sacrifice for larceny; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he does not have to bring a sacrifice for larceny.

HALAKHAH: “These orchard trees shall be qorbān,” etc. If he saw the king’s cutting crew coming near, if he saw fire coming near, and he said: These orchard trees shall be qorbān if they are not cut, this garment shall be qorbān if it is not burned or torn. Were they sanctified retroactively or only for the future? What is the difference? If he used them. If you say that they are sanctified retroactively, he committed larceny. If you say for the future, he did not commit larceny.

HALAKHAH: “These orchard trees shall be qorbān,” etc. If he saw the king’s cutting crew coming near, if he saw fire coming near, and he said: These orchard trees shall be qorbān if they are not cut, this garment shall be qorbān if it is not burned or torn. Were they sanctified retroactively or only for the future? What is the difference? If he used them. If you say that they are sanctified retroactively, he committed larceny. If you say for the future, he did not commit larceny.

MISHNAH: A woman who had made a vow of nazir and designated her animal when her husband dissolved her vow, if the animal was his, it leaves and grazes with the herd. But if the animal was hers, the purification offering shall die, the elevation offering shall be brought as an elevation offering, the well-being offering as a well-being offering, to be eaten on one day; it does not need bread. If she had money not designated, it should be given as a donation. If the monies were designated, the value of the purification offering shall be thrown into the Dead Sea; one may not use it but there can be no larceny. For the value of the elevation offering, they shall bring an elevation offering; it is subject to the law of larceny. For the value of the well-being offering, they shall bring a well-being offering, to be eaten on one day; it does not need bread.

MISHNAH: A woman who had made a vow of nazir and designated her animal when her husband dissolved her vow, if the animal was his, it leaves and grazes with the herd. But if the animal was hers, the purification offering shall die, the elevation offering shall be brought as an elevation offering, the well-being offering as a well-being offering, to be eaten on one day; it does not need bread. If she had money not designated, it should be given as a donation. If the monies were designated, the value of the purification offering shall be thrown into the Dead Sea; one may not use it but there can be no larceny. For the value of the elevation offering, they shall bring an elevation offering; it is subject to the law of larceny. For the value of the well-being offering, they shall bring a well-being offering, to be eaten on one day; it does not need bread.

There, we have stated: “Leftovers for nezirim are for nezirim; what is left over from a nazir is for donation.” Rav Ḥisda said, only if his purification offering was presented last. But if his well-being offering waspresented last, what is left over is for a well-being offering. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, even if his well-being offering was presented last, it is a general rule for a nazir that his leftover be for donation. A baraita supports one and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Ze‘ira: “The following are undesignated monies: any which contain money for purification offerings that should die. Even if he designated money for purification offerings that should die, it remains undesignated.” A baraita supports Rav Ḥisda: “This is for my purification offering and the rest for my nezirut. Then he died. One commits larceny with all of them but not with part of them.” It does not say, when he died it should be given for donation.

An animal is not subject to the rules of the non-designated at the beginning, but it is subject to the rules of the non-designated at the end. Money is subject to the rules of the non-designated at the beginning, but it is not subject to the rules of the non-designated at the end. Money is subject to the rules of the non-designated at the beginning, as we have stated: “If he had money not designated, it should be given as donation.” An animal is subject to the rules of the non-designated at the end, as we have stated: “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, if he brought three animals but did not explain.” They are subject to the rules of the non-designated at the beginning, as we have stated: “ ‘These are for my purification offering, the remainder is for the rest of my nezirut’, when he died. One commits larceny about all but one cannot commit larceny about a part.” It is not subject to the rules of the non-designated at the end, when he brought money and redeemed it for an animal. If he designated a donkey, it is as if he designated money. If he designated an ox, Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun and Rebbi Ḥiyya ben Julianus, both speak in Shammai’s name. One says, he is like one who designates money; the other says, he is like one who designates an animal.

An animal is not subject to the rules of the non-designated at the beginning, but it is subject to the rules of the non-designated at the end. Money is subject to the rules of the non-designated at the beginning, but it is not subject to the rules of the non-designated at the end. Money is subject to the rules of the non-designated at the beginning, as we have stated: “If he had money not designated, it should be given as donation.” An animal is subject to the rules of the non-designated at the end, as we have stated: “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, if he brought three animals but did not explain.” They are subject to the rules of the non-designated at the beginning, as we have stated: “ ‘These are for my purification offering, the remainder is for the rest of my nezirut’, when he died. One commits larceny about all but one cannot commit larceny about a part.” It is not subject to the rules of the non-designated at the end, when he brought money and redeemed it for an animal. If he designated a donkey, it is as if he designated money. If he designated an ox, Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun and Rebbi Ḥiyya ben Julianus, both speak in Shammai’s name. One says, he is like one who designates money; the other says, he is like one who designates an animal.

MISHNAH: A man can declare his son a nazir but a woman cannot declare her son a nazir. How is this? If he shaved him or relatives shaved him; if he protested or relatives protested, if he had designated animals, the purification offering shall die; the elevation offering shall be brought as elevation offering; the well-being offering shall be brought as elevation offering; it may be eaten for one day and does not need bread. If he had money not designated, it should be given as donation. If the monies were designated, the money’s worth of the purification offering shall be thrown into the Dead Sea; one may not use it but there can be no larceny. For the value of the elevation offering, he shall bring an elevation offering; it is subject to the law of larceny. For the value of the well-being offering, he shall bring a well-being offering, to be eaten on one day; it does not need bread. A man may shave on the basis of his father’s nezirut, but a woman may not shave on the basis of her father’s nezirut. How is this? If his father was a nazir and had set aside unspecified money for his nezirut when he died, and he said, I am a nazir on condition that I may shave on my father’s money, Rebbi Yose said, the money shall be given as donation, for he cannot shave on his father’s money. Who may shave based on his father’s nezirut? If both he and his father were nezirim and his father had set aside unspecified money for his nezirut when he died; this one shaves on his father’s nezirut.

MISHNAH: A man can declare his son a nazir but a woman cannot declare her son a nazir. How is this? If he shaved him or relatives shaved him; if he protested or relatives protested, if he had designated animals, the purification offering shall die; the elevation offering shall be brought as elevation offering; the well-being offering shall be brought as elevation offering; it may be eaten for one day and does not need bread. If he had money not designated, it should be given as donation. If the monies were designated, the money’s worth of the purification offering shall be thrown into the Dead Sea; one may not use it but there can be no larceny. For the value of the elevation offering, he shall bring an elevation offering; it is subject to the law of larceny. For the value of the well-being offering, he shall bring a well-being offering, to be eaten on one day; it does not need bread. A man may shave on the basis of his father’s nezirut, but a woman may not shave on the basis of her father’s nezirut. How is this? If his father was a nazir and had set aside unspecified money for his nezirut when he died, and he said, I am a nazir on condition that I may shave on my father’s money, Rebbi Yose said, the money shall be given as donation, for he cannot shave on his father’s money. Who may shave based on his father’s nezirut? If both he and his father were nezirim and his father had set aside unspecified money for his nezirut when he died; this one shaves on his father’s nezirut.

There, we have stated: “An animal that is found as from Jerusalem to Migdal-Eder in every direction.” The elder Rebbi Hoshaia said, this was taught for their monetary value. Rebbi Joḥanan said to him, does one say to a person, go and commit larceny with sacrifices? But in every case they followed the majority of cases: If most are male, they are elevation offerings, if most are female, well-being offerings. But do not well-being offerings come from males and females? What does he do? He redeems them as profane and then turns them into elevation offerings. This is difficult. Can a purification offering become an elevation offering? Rebbi Ḥanina said, it is a stipulation by the court that all redundant animals should be brought as elevation offerings. Rebbi Yose said to Rebbi Jacob bar Ḥama, is that not intentional [misuse]? He said to him, since it is a stipulation by the court, it is not intentional [misuse]. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, as you say there, it is a stipulation by the court that lost animals should be brought as elevation offerings.

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: “This shall be an elevation sacrifice for thirty days,” it is an elevation sacrifice for thirty days; after thirty days it automatically becomes profane. What is its status regarding larceny? Rebbi Joḥanan said, the larceny is clear. Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rebbi Hila both say, the larceny is in doubt. “You are preliminarily married to me for thirty days,” she is preliminarily married. What is the difference between dedication and woman? We find that a dedication can be eliminated without redemption but we do not find that a woman could leave without a divorce document. Where do we find that a dedication can be eliminated without redemption? Following Rebbi Simeon, since Rebbi Simeon says, “they enter without paying.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, explain it according to everybody regarding a bought field. “This is your bill of divorce for thirty days”: it is no bill of divorce. Rebbi Isaac ben R. Eleazar said, when do you say that she is preliminarily married? If he effectuated the preliminary marriage by money. But if he effectuated the preliminary marriage by a document, since marriage documents were inferred from divorce documents and in the case of a divorce she is not divorced, so in the case of a preliminary marriage she is not preliminarily married.

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: “This shall be an elevation sacrifice for thirty days,” it is an elevation sacrifice for thirty days; after thirty days it automatically becomes profane. What is its status regarding larceny? Rebbi Joḥanan said, the larceny is clear. Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rebbi Hila both say, the larceny is in doubt. “You are preliminarily married to me for thirty days,” she is preliminarily married. What is the difference between dedication and woman? We find that a dedication can be eliminated without redemption but we do not find that a woman could leave without a divorce document. Where do we find that a dedication can be eliminated without redemption? Following Rebbi Simeon, since Rebbi Simeon says, “they enter without paying.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, explain it according to everybody regarding a bought field. “This is your bill of divorce for thirty days”: it is no bill of divorce. Rebbi Isaac ben R. Eleazar said, when do you say that she is preliminarily married? If he effectuated the preliminary marriage by money. But if he effectuated the preliminary marriage by a document, since marriage documents were inferred from divorce documents and in the case of a divorce she is not divorced, so in the case of a preliminary marriage she is not preliminarily married.

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: “This shall be an elevation sacrifice for thirty days,” it is an elevation sacrifice for thirty days; after thirty days it automatically becomes profane. What is its status regarding larceny? Rebbi Joḥanan said, the larceny is clear. Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rebbi Hila both say, the larceny is in doubt. “You are preliminarily married to me for thirty days,” she is preliminarily married. What is the difference between dedication and woman? We find that a dedication can be eliminated without redemption but we do not find that a woman could leave without a divorce document. Where do we find that a dedication can be eliminated without redemption? Following Rebbi Simeon, since Rebbi Simeon says, “they enter without paying.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, explain it according to everybody regarding a bought field. “This is your bill of divorce for thirty days”: it is no bill of divorce. Rebbi Isaac ben R. Eleazar said, when do you say that she is preliminarily married? If he effectuated the preliminary marriage by money. But if he effectuated the preliminary marriage by a document, since marriage documents were inferred from divorce documents and in the case of a divorce she is not divorced, so in the case of a preliminary marriage she is not preliminarily married.

There, it was stated: “These orchard trees shall be qorbān if they are not cut, this garment shall be qorbān if it is not burned.” And it was burned. Were they sanctified retroactively? He committed larceny. If you say that it refers to the future, he did not commit larceny.

There, it was stated: “These orchard trees shall be qorbān if they are not cut, this garment shall be qorbān if it is not burned.” And it was burned. Were they sanctified retroactively? He committed larceny. If you say that it refers to the future, he did not commit larceny.

New paragraph. “Properties not subject to the laws of misappropriation of sancta.” As it was stated: “These properties are acquired together with properties subject to the laws of misappropriation of sancta.” Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: This follows Rebbi Yose the Galilean, as it was stated: “ ‘He commits larceny before the Eternal,’ Rebbi Yose the Galilean says, this includes simple sancta. Ben Azzai says, this includes well-being sacrifices. Abba Yose ben Dosai says, Ben Azzai said this only for the firstling.” What is between them? He who says well-being sacrifices certainly include tithes. But he who says tithes excludes the firstling. “Rebbi Simeon says, both most holy and simple sancta; about any sancta for which he is responsible if alienated, I am reading ‘against his neighbor and he lied’; but about any sancta for which he is not responsible if alienated, I am reading ‘against the Eternal and he lied’ ”. Rav Huna said, both qualified and disqualified sancta, if he is responsible if alienated, even if they are for the Eternal, I am reading “against his fellow and he denied”, but if he is not responsible if alienated, I am reading “against the Eternal and he lied” but not “against his fellow and he lied”.

MISHNAH: How much time does one have to return it? In walled cities until one can show it to a banker, in villages until Sabbath eve. If he recognizes it, he should take it back even after twelve months, but he has only a complaint against him. He may use it for Second Tithe without hesitation since it is only miserly’. Cheating is by four oboli, claim is about two oboli, confession is about one peruṭah. There are five peruṭot: Confession is about one peruṭah; a woman is preliminarily married by one peruṭah’s worth; one who used one peruṭah’s worth of Temple property committed larceny; one who finds one peruṭah’ s worth has to make it public; one who robbed another of one peruṭah’s worth and swore about it, has to return it to him even in Media. There are five fifths: He who eats heave, or heave of the tithe, or heave of the tithe of demay, or ḥallah, or first fruits, adds a fifth. He who redeems his vineyard in the fourth year or his Second Tithe, adds a fifth. He who redeems his own gifts to the Temple, adds a fifth. He who used one peruṭah’s worth of Temple property, adds a fifth. He who robbed another of one peruṭah’s worth and swore about it, adds a fifth.

But Rebbi Joḥanan himself had a problem: from where does one prove it? Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Two prohibitions and one extirpation, the prohibitions split the extirpation. For example, it should not be used to be rubbed on anybody’s skin and in its proportions you shall not imitate it, and it is written, a person who would compound similarly, or who would put it on a stranger, will be extirpated from his people, that is two prohibitions and one extirpation. The prohibitions split the extirpation. Also from the following: Samuel bar Abba asked before Rebbi Ze`ura, should not well-being sacrifices, being treated separately, split all sancta regarding impurity? He told him, it was necessary that they be treated separately, to eliminate sancta destined for the upkeep of the Temple [regarding larceny], lest one be liable for them because of mushiness, leftovers, and impurity. But is that not a Mishnah? “All sancta destined for the altar combine with one another with respect to liability for mushiness, leftovers, and impurity,” in contrast to sancta destined for the upkeep of the Temple. Since they do not combine, they do (not) split. Rebbi Ḥanina said, what he really questioned, should they not split but combine ?

HALAKHAH: Slaying you shall slay the inhabitants of that town by the sword, etc. Rebbi Simeon says, its domesticated animal, not first born or tithes found there; its booty, not Temple money or Second Tithe found there. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina asked: What is the status of hair of its just women? Let us hear from the following: Rebbi Simeon says, its domesticated animal, not first born or tithes found there; its booty, not Temple money or Second Tithe found there. The sancta of a seduced town, Rebbi Joḥanan said, one cannot commit larceny with them; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, one can commit larceny with them. Rebbi Joḥanan objected to Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: According to your opinion that one can commit larceny with them, should one not state that “six purification offerings are left to die”? He answered, because in this case even an elevation offering dies. Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: One can commit larceny with them because of sancta of an apostate. Should they not be sacrificed? Because of the sacrifice of an evildoer is an abomination. Rebbi Uqba said, also in the following they disagree: If a bull was led out to be stoned when its witnesses were found to be perjured, Rebbi Joḥanan said, the first to come acquires it; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it was false despair. Similarly, if a slave was led out to be executed when its witnesses were found to be perjured, Rebbi Joḥanan said, he acquired himself; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it was false despair.

HALAKHAH: Slaying you shall slay the inhabitants of that town by the sword, etc. Rebbi Simeon says, its domesticated animal, not first born or tithes found there; its booty, not Temple money or Second Tithe found there. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina asked: What is the status of hair of its just women? Let us hear from the following: Rebbi Simeon says, its domesticated animal, not first born or tithes found there; its booty, not Temple money or Second Tithe found there. The sancta of a seduced town, Rebbi Joḥanan said, one cannot commit larceny with them; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, one can commit larceny with them. Rebbi Joḥanan objected to Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: According to your opinion that one can commit larceny with them, should one not state that “six purification offerings are left to die”? He answered, because in this case even an elevation offering dies. Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: One can commit larceny with them because of sancta of an apostate. Should they not be sacrificed? Because of the sacrifice of an evildoer is an abomination. Rebbi Uqba said, also in the following they disagree: If a bull was led out to be stoned when its witnesses were found to be perjured, Rebbi Joḥanan said, the first to come acquires it; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it was false despair. Similarly, if a slave was led out to be executed when its witnesses were found to be perjured, Rebbi Joḥanan said, he acquired himself; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it was false despair.

HALAKHAH: Slaying you shall slay the inhabitants of that town by the sword, etc. Rebbi Simeon says, its domesticated animal, not first born or tithes found there; its booty, not Temple money or Second Tithe found there. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina asked: What is the status of hair of its just women? Let us hear from the following: Rebbi Simeon says, its domesticated animal, not first born or tithes found there; its booty, not Temple money or Second Tithe found there. The sancta of a seduced town, Rebbi Joḥanan said, one cannot commit larceny with them; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, one can commit larceny with them. Rebbi Joḥanan objected to Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: According to your opinion that one can commit larceny with them, should one not state that “six purification offerings are left to die”? He answered, because in this case even an elevation offering dies. Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: One can commit larceny with them because of sancta of an apostate. Should they not be sacrificed? Because of the sacrifice of an evildoer is an abomination. Rebbi Uqba said, also in the following they disagree: If a bull was led out to be stoned when its witnesses were found to be perjured, Rebbi Joḥanan said, the first to come acquires it; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it was false despair. Similarly, if a slave was led out to be executed when its witnesses were found to be perjured, Rebbi Joḥanan said, he acquired himself; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it was false despair.

HALAKHAH: Slaying you shall slay the inhabitants of that town by the sword, etc. Rebbi Simeon says, its domesticated animal, not first born or tithes found there; its booty, not Temple money or Second Tithe found there. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina asked: What is the status of hair of its just women? Let us hear from the following: Rebbi Simeon says, its domesticated animal, not first born or tithes found there; its booty, not Temple money or Second Tithe found there. The sancta of a seduced town, Rebbi Joḥanan said, one cannot commit larceny with them; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, one can commit larceny with them. Rebbi Joḥanan objected to Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: According to your opinion that one can commit larceny with them, should one not state that “six purification offerings are left to die”? He answered, because in this case even an elevation offering dies. Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: One can commit larceny with them because of sancta of an apostate. Should they not be sacrificed? Because of the sacrifice of an evildoer is an abomination. Rebbi Uqba said, also in the following they disagree: If a bull was led out to be stoned when its witnesses were found to be perjured, Rebbi Joḥanan said, the first to come acquires it; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it was false despair. Similarly, if a slave was led out to be executed when its witnesses were found to be perjured, Rebbi Joḥanan said, he acquired himself; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it was false despair.

They objected, there is no extirpation for larceny and it was stated! We come to state only things which cannot become permitted after being forbidden. Oaths may become permitted after being forbidden. This implies that there are no categories of work for the day of Atonement, for if anybody violated all of them in one forgetting he is liable only for one [sacrifice] for all of them. But if anybody violated each of them separately, would he not be liable for each single one?

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.

What means “burns it”? He slurps it. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, in a dirty cup. This implies that one who drinks from a dirty cup neither benefits nor commits larceny.

There exists a baraita which says, idols are like a menstruating woman and its appurtenances are like a menstruating woman. Also there exists a baraita which says, idols are like a menstruating woman and its appurtenances are like crawling animals. The one who says, idols are like a menstruating woman and its appurtenances are like a menstruating woman, is understandable. But the one who says, idols are like a menstruating woman and its appurtenances are like crawling animals, is it not called “unwell” only for its appurtenances? Explain it if they were engraved on its body. As Rebbi Jacob of Kefar Ḥanan said, explain it if one worships the ephod itself, similar to what is written, Gideon made an ephod. Our Mishnah follows him who said, idols are like a menstruating woman and its appurtenances are like a menstruating woman, and we have stated: “its stones, its wood, and its dust make impure like a crawling animal.” Explain it if he worshipped the house itself, as Rebbi Abba, Rab Huna said in the name of Rav: One who worships a house makes it forbidden. Rebbi Zeˋira, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If somebody dedicates a house one does not commit larceny with it. And he who says, one does not commit larceny with it, can he make it forbidden? Rebbi Ḥaggai objected before Rebbi Yose, does not a Mishnah disagree with Rav? “A trough in a rock: one does not fill from it, and one does not sanctify with it, and one does not sprinkle with it, it does not have to be fastened with a tightened cover, and it does not invalidate a miqweh. If it was a vessel and he fixed it with lime, etc., up to it invalidates a miqweh.” Because he excavated it and after that combined it. Then if he fixed it and after that excavated it, what do you do with it? Explain it following Rebbi Joḥanan that the hewing of stones is the completion of work on them. Does this not disagree with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish who said, an idol which was broken is permitted? And so we are thinking to say if in the future he can restore it to its vessel it is forbidden according to everybody. Explain it if he worships every single stone and then builds with them. Does this not disagree with Rebbi Joḥanan, as Rebbi Joḥanan said, an idol which was broken is forbidden? And so we are thinking to say if in the future he cannot restore it to its vessel it is permitted according to everybody. Explain it if he worshipped a vine and afterwards planted it.

There exists a baraita which says, idols are like a menstruating woman and its appurtenances are like a menstruating woman. Also there exists a baraita which says, idols are like a menstruating woman and its appurtenances are like crawling animals. The one who says, idols are like a menstruating woman and its appurtenances are like a menstruating woman, is understandable. But the one who says, idols are like a menstruating woman and its appurtenances are like crawling animals, is it not called “unwell” only for its appurtenances? Explain it if they were engraved on its body. As Rebbi Jacob of Kefar Ḥanan said, explain it if one worships the ephod itself, similar to what is written, Gideon made an ephod. Our Mishnah follows him who said, idols are like a menstruating woman and its appurtenances are like a menstruating woman, and we have stated: “its stones, its wood, and its dust make impure like a crawling animal.” Explain it if he worshipped the house itself, as Rebbi Abba, Rab Huna said in the name of Rav: One who worships a house makes it forbidden. Rebbi Zeˋira, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If somebody dedicates a house one does not commit larceny with it. And he who says, one does not commit larceny with it, can he make it forbidden? Rebbi Ḥaggai objected before Rebbi Yose, does not a Mishnah disagree with Rav? “A trough in a rock: one does not fill from it, and one does not sanctify with it, and one does not sprinkle with it, it does not have to be fastened with a tightened cover, and it does not invalidate a miqweh. If it was a vessel and he fixed it with lime, etc., up to it invalidates a miqweh.” Because he excavated it and after that combined it. Then if he fixed it and after that excavated it, what do you do with it? Explain it following Rebbi Joḥanan that the hewing of stones is the completion of work on them. Does this not disagree with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish who said, an idol which was broken is permitted? And so we are thinking to say if in the future he can restore it to its vessel it is forbidden according to everybody. Explain it if he worships every single stone and then builds with them. Does this not disagree with Rebbi Joḥanan, as Rebbi Joḥanan said, an idol which was broken is forbidden? And so we are thinking to say if in the future he cannot restore it to its vessel it is permitted according to everybody. Explain it if he worshipped a vine and afterwards planted it.

HALAKHAH: “There are three houses,” etc. Rav and Rebbi Joḥanan both are saying, the Mishnah treats their entry into the Land. The opinion of Rav, who said that one who worships a house makes it forbidden, is the reason that he explains it by their entry into the Land. Following the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan, who said that if somebody dedicates a house one does not commit larceny with it, could he not have explained it by somebody who was worshipping the house? {The effect of] one who worships a house can be voided. At their entry into the Land it could not be voided. What could he do? He removes its clapboards and it is permitted.