lenient

To what does this refer? To [an mixture of] grain [occurring] with [different] grain, or pulse with [different] pulse, to grain with pulse, and to pulse with grain. However they stated: Seeds from a garden which are not eaten, they add up [with other seeds to form an amount sufficient to prohibit the sowing of a seah] when there is 1/24 of the quantity [of such seed] that is necessary to sow a bet seah. Rabbi Shimon says: just as they ruled to be stringent so too they ruled to be lenient flax [mixed in with] produce, combines when there is 1/24 of the quantity [of such seed] that is necessary to sow a bet seah.

A field from which thorns had been removed may be sown in the eighth year. But if it had been improved upon, or cattle had been allowed to live upon it, it may not be sown in the eighth year. A field which had been improved upon in the seventh year: Bet Shammai says: they may not eat its produce in the seventh year, But Bet Hillel says: they may eat. Bet Shammai says: they may not eat produce of the sabbatical year with an expression of thanks. But Bet Hillel says: they may eat [sabbatical year produce] with an expression for thanks and without an expression of thanks. Rabbi Judah says: the statements must be reversed, for this is one of the instances where Bet Shammai is lenient and Bet Hillel is stringent.

How so? If there were fifty black figs and fifty white fig, and a black fig fell in, the black figs are forbidden, but the white figs are permitted; and if a white fig fell in them, the white figs are forbidden and the black figs are permitted. If it is unknown which kind fell in, then each kind helps to bring up the other. In this case, Rabbi Eliezer is stringent and Rabbi Joshua is lenient.

But in this, Rabbi Eliezer is more lenient and Rabbi Joshua more stringent. One was pressing a litra of dried figs [of terumah] into a jar and he didn’t know which: Rabbi Eliezer says: they are to be regarded as if they were separated, so that those below can bring up those above. Rabbi Joshua says: it cannot be brought up unless there are a hundred jars.

Rabbi Eliezer says: they may make repayment from one kind for another, provided that it is from a superior kind for an inferior kind. Rabbi Akiva says: they may make repayment only from the same kind. Hence if a man ate cucumbers grown a year before the seventh year, he must wait for those grown after the termination of the seventh year and repay with them. The same source which causes Rabbi Eliezer to be lenient causes Rabbi Akiva to be stringent, for it says: “And he shall give the priest the holy thing (hakodesh)” (Leviticus 22:14), [implying,] whatever is liable to become “kodesh,” the words of Rabbi Eliezer. But Rabbi Akiva says: “And he shall give the priest the holy thing (kodesh),” [implying] the same kind of holy thing which he ate.

Rabbi Shimon says: one may not anoint oneself with oil of second tithe in Jerusalem. But the sages allow it. They said to Rabbi Shimon: if a lenient ruling has been adopted in the case of terumah which is a grave matter, should we not also adopt a lenient ruling in the case of second tithe which is a light matter? He said to them: No; a lenient ruling has been adopted in the case of terumah though it is a grave matter, because in terumah we have adopted a lenient ruling also with regard to vetches and fenugreek, but how can we adopt a lenient ruling in the case of second tithe though it is a light matter, when we have not adopted a lenient ruling in second tithe with regard to vetches and fenugreek?

Rabbi Shimon says: one may not anoint oneself with oil of second tithe in Jerusalem. But the sages allow it. They said to Rabbi Shimon: if a lenient ruling has been adopted in the case of terumah which is a grave matter, should we not also adopt a lenient ruling in the case of second tithe which is a light matter? He said to them: No; a lenient ruling has been adopted in the case of terumah though it is a grave matter, because in terumah we have adopted a lenient ruling also with regard to vetches and fenugreek, but how can we adopt a lenient ruling in the case of second tithe though it is a light matter, when we have not adopted a lenient ruling in second tithe with regard to vetches and fenugreek?

Rabbi Shimon says: one may not anoint oneself with oil of second tithe in Jerusalem. But the sages allow it. They said to Rabbi Shimon: if a lenient ruling has been adopted in the case of terumah which is a grave matter, should we not also adopt a lenient ruling in the case of second tithe which is a light matter? He said to them: No; a lenient ruling has been adopted in the case of terumah though it is a grave matter, because in terumah we have adopted a lenient ruling also with regard to vetches and fenugreek, but how can we adopt a lenient ruling in the case of second tithe though it is a light matter, when we have not adopted a lenient ruling in second tithe with regard to vetches and fenugreek?

Rabbi Shimon says: one may not anoint oneself with oil of second tithe in Jerusalem. But the sages allow it. They said to Rabbi Shimon: if a lenient ruling has been adopted in the case of terumah which is a grave matter, should we not also adopt a lenient ruling in the case of second tithe which is a light matter? He said to them: No; a lenient ruling has been adopted in the case of terumah though it is a grave matter, because in terumah we have adopted a lenient ruling also with regard to vetches and fenugreek, but how can we adopt a lenient ruling in the case of second tithe though it is a light matter, when we have not adopted a lenient ruling in second tithe with regard to vetches and fenugreek?

Rabbi Shimon says: one may not anoint oneself with oil of second tithe in Jerusalem. But the sages allow it. They said to Rabbi Shimon: if a lenient ruling has been adopted in the case of terumah which is a grave matter, should we not also adopt a lenient ruling in the case of second tithe which is a light matter? He said to them: No; a lenient ruling has been adopted in the case of terumah though it is a grave matter, because in terumah we have adopted a lenient ruling also with regard to vetches and fenugreek, but how can we adopt a lenient ruling in the case of second tithe though it is a light matter, when we have not adopted a lenient ruling in second tithe with regard to vetches and fenugreek?

Rabbi Shimon says: one may not anoint oneself with oil of second tithe in Jerusalem. But the sages allow it. They said to Rabbi Shimon: if a lenient ruling has been adopted in the case of terumah which is a grave matter, should we not also adopt a lenient ruling in the case of second tithe which is a light matter? He said to them: No; a lenient ruling has been adopted in the case of terumah though it is a grave matter, because in terumah we have adopted a lenient ruling also with regard to vetches and fenugreek, but how can we adopt a lenient ruling in the case of second tithe though it is a light matter, when we have not adopted a lenient ruling in second tithe with regard to vetches and fenugreek?

One may not buy terumah with maaser sheni money, because this reduces the number of those who can eat it. But Rabbi Shimon permits it. Rabbi Shimon said to them: If the law is lenient in the case of wellbeing offerings, though they may become unfit or a remnant or unclean, why should it not also be lenient with regard to terumah? But they said to him: The law was lenient in the case of wellbeing offerings, because they are permitted to non-priests, but should we therefore be lenient with regard to terumah, which is forbidden to non-priests?

One may not buy terumah with maaser sheni money, because this reduces the number of those who can eat it. But Rabbi Shimon permits it. Rabbi Shimon said to them: If the law is lenient in the case of wellbeing offerings, though they may become unfit or a remnant or unclean, why should it not also be lenient with regard to terumah? But they said to him: The law was lenient in the case of wellbeing offerings, because they are permitted to non-priests, but should we therefore be lenient with regard to terumah, which is forbidden to non-priests?

One may not buy terumah with maaser sheni money, because this reduces the number of those who can eat it. But Rabbi Shimon permits it. Rabbi Shimon said to them: If the law is lenient in the case of wellbeing offerings, though they may become unfit or a remnant or unclean, why should it not also be lenient with regard to terumah? But they said to him: The law was lenient in the case of wellbeing offerings, because they are permitted to non-priests, but should we therefore be lenient with regard to terumah, which is forbidden to non-priests?

One may not buy terumah with maaser sheni money, because this reduces the number of those who can eat it. But Rabbi Shimon permits it. Rabbi Shimon said to them: If the law is lenient in the case of wellbeing offerings, though they may become unfit or a remnant or unclean, why should it not also be lenient with regard to terumah? But they said to him: The law was lenient in the case of wellbeing offerings, because they are permitted to non-priests, but should we therefore be lenient with regard to terumah, which is forbidden to non-priests?

An Israelite who was a tenant of a non-Jew in Syria: Rabbi Eliezer makes their produce liable to tithes and to [the law of] the sabbatical year; But Rabban Gamaliel makes [it] exempt. Rabban Gamaliel says: [one is to give] two hallah-portions in Syria; But Rabbi Eliezer says: [only] one hallah-portion. They adopted the lenient ruling of Rabban Gamaliel and the lenient ruling of Rabbi Eliezer. Eventually they went back and acted in accordance with Rabban Gamaliel in both respects.

An Israelite who was a tenant of a non-Jew in Syria: Rabbi Eliezer makes their produce liable to tithes and to [the law of] the sabbatical year; But Rabban Gamaliel makes [it] exempt. Rabban Gamaliel says: [one is to give] two hallah-portions in Syria; But Rabbi Eliezer says: [only] one hallah-portion. They adopted the lenient ruling of Rabban Gamaliel and the lenient ruling of Rabbi Eliezer. Eventually they went back and acted in accordance with Rabban Gamaliel in both respects.

They measure [the Shabbat limit] only through an expert. If he extended the limit at one point and limited it at another, they observe the place where he extended it. If there was one who made it a greater distance and one who made it a lesser distance, the greater distance is observed. Even a slave and even a female slave are believed when they say, “Thus far is the Shabbat limit”, since the sages did not enact the law in order to be strict but in order to be lenient.

Rabbi Akiva said to them: Do you not agree with me that one who puts his eruv in a cave may walk no further than two thousand cubits from the place of his eruv? They replied: when is this true? Only where no people dwell in it, but where people dwell in it one may walk through the whole of it and two thousand cubits beyond it. Thus [where an eruv is put] within [the cave] the law is more lenient than [where one is put] on top of it. And to the measurer, of whom they spoke, they give him a distance of two thousand cubits even if the end of his measure terminates within a cave.

Coins which were found between the [chest inscribed] “shekels” and the [chests inscribed] “freewill-offerings: Nearer to [the chest inscribed] “shekels”, they go to the shekels; [Nearer to the chests inscribed] “freewill-offerings”, they go to freewill-offerings; Half way in between, they go to freewill-offerings. [Coins which were found] between [the chest inscribed] “wood” and [the chest inscribed] “frankincense”: Nearer to [the chest inscribed] “wood”, they go to the wood; [Nearer to the chest inscribed] “frankincense”, they go to frankincense; Half way in between, they go to frankincense. [Coins which were found] between [the chest inscribed] “bird-offerings” and [the chest inscribed] “young pigeons for burnt-offerings”: Nearer to [the chest inscribed] “bird-offerings” they go to bird-offerings; [Nearer to the chest inscribed] “young pigeons for burnt-offerings”, they go to young pigeons for burnt-offerings; Half way in between, they go to young pigeons for burnt-offerings. [Coins which were found] between non-sacred [money] and [second] tithes [money]: Nearer to the non-sacred [money], they go to common [money]; Nearer to the [second] tithes [money], they go to [second] tithes; Half way in between, they are considered [second] tithes. This is the general rule: the go to that which is nearer [even if this] is lenient; but if half way in between, [they must go] to that which is the more stringent.

In three cases Rabban Gamaliel was strict like the words of Beth Shammai. One may not cover up hot food on Yom Tov for Shabbat; And one may not join together a lamp on a festival; And one may not bake [on Yom] thick loaves but only wafer-cakes. Rabban Gamaliel said: “In all their days, my father’s house never baked large loaves but only wafer-cakes.” They said to him: “What can we do with regards to your father’s house, for they were strict in respect to themselves but were lenient towards Israel to let them bake both large loaves and even charcoal-roasted loaves.”

Also he declared three decisions of a lenient character: One may sweep up [on a festival] between the couches, And put spices [on the coals] on a festival; And roast a kid whole on the night of Passover. But the sages forbid them.

Rabbi Meir says: [Priests] may inspect leprous symptoms at the outset [during the festival] for [the priest to make] a lenient assessment, but not to make a strict one. But the sages say: neither for a lenient nor for a severe assessment. Furthermore Rabbi Meir said: a man may gather his father’s and mother’s bones, since this is a joy for him. Rabbi Yose says: it is mourning for him. A man should not stir up wailing for his dead, nor hold a lamentation for him thirty days before the festival.

Rabbi Meir says: [Priests] may inspect leprous symptoms at the outset [during the festival] for [the priest to make] a lenient assessment, but not to make a strict one. But the sages say: neither for a lenient nor for a severe assessment. Furthermore Rabbi Meir said: a man may gather his father’s and mother’s bones, since this is a joy for him. Rabbi Yose says: it is mourning for him. A man should not stir up wailing for his dead, nor hold a lamentation for him thirty days before the festival.

If a murderer became mixed up with others, they are all exempted [from the death penalty]. R. Judah said: they are placed in a cell. If a number of persons condemned to different types of sentences became mixed with one another, they are executed by the most lenient. If criminals condemned to stoning [became mixed up] with others condemned to burning, Rabbi Shimon said: they are stoned, because burning is severer. But the sages say they are burned, because stoning is severer. Rabbi Shimon said to them: “If burning was not severer, it would not be decreed for a priest's adulterous daughter.” They replied: “If stoning was not severer, it would not be the penalty of a blasphemer and an idolater.” If men condemned to decapitation became mixed up with others condemned to strangling, Rabbi Shimon said: “They are [all] decapitated.” The sages say: “They are [all] strangled.”

[If the owner said,] “Where is my ox?” and he replied to him, “I do not know what you are talking about,” whereas in reality it died or was injured or captured or stolen or lost; [and the owner said,] “I adjure you,” and he said, “Amen,” he is liable. If he said to a paid guardian, or hirer, “Where is my ox?” and he replied to him, “It died,” whereas in reality it was injured or captured; [Or he replied,] “It was injured,” whereas in reality it died or was captured; [Or he replied,] “It was captured,” whereas in reality it died or was injured; [Or he replied,] “It was stolen”, whereas in reality it was lost; [Or he replied,] “It was lost,” whereas in reality it was stolen; [And the owner said,] “I adjure you,” and he said, “Amen,” he is exempt. [If he replied,] “It died,” or, “It was injured,” or, “It was captured,” whereas in reality it was stolen or lost; [And the owner said,] “I adjure you,” and he said, “Amen,” he is liable. [If he replied,] “It was lost,” or, “It was stolen,” whereas in reality it died or was injured or captured; [And the owner said,] “I adjure you,” and he said, “Amen,” he is exempt. This is the principle: he who [by lying] changes from liability to liability or from exemption to exemption, or from exemption to liability, is exempt; From liability to exemption, is liable. This is the principle: he who takes an oath to make it more lenient for himself, is liable; to make it more stringent for himself, is exempt.

In three cases Rabban Gamaliel was strict like the words of Beth Shammai. One may not wrap up hot food on a festival for the Sabbath; And one may not join together a lamp on a festival; And one may not bake [on festivals] thick loaves but only wafer-cakes. Rabban Gamaliel said: “In all their days, my father’s house never baked large loaves but only wafer-cakes.” They said to him: “What can we do with regards to your father’s house, for they were strict in respect to themselves but were lenient towards Israel to let them bake both large loaves and even charcoal-roasted loaves.”

Also he declared three decisions of a lenient character: One may sweep up [on a festival] between the couches, And put spices [on the coals] on a festival; And roast a kid whole on the night of Passover. But the sages forbid them.

The following cases are [examples] of the lenient rulings of Beth Shammai and of the rigorous rulings of Beth Hillel. An egg which is laid on a festival Beth Shammai says: it may be eaten, and Beth Hillel says: it may not be eaten. Beth Shammai says: yeast as much as an olive [in quantity], and leavened food as much as a date, and Beth Hillel says: as much as an olive [in quantity] in both cases.

Rabbi Judah says: there are six instances of lenient rulings by Beth Shammai and stringent rulings by Beth Hillel. The blood of a carcass: Beth Shammai pronounces it clean, And Beth Hillel pronounces it unclean. An egg found in a [bird’s] carcass: if the like of it were sold in the market, it is permitted, and if not, it is forbidden, according to the opinion of Beth Shammai. And Beth Hillel forbids it. But they agree in the case of an egg found in a trefa [bird] that it is forbidden since it had its growth in a forbidden condition. 3+4) The blood of a non-Jewish woman and the blood of purity of a leprous woman: Beth Shammai pronounces clean; And Beth Hillel says: [it is] like her spittle and her urine. One may eat fruits of the seventh year with an expression of thanks and without an expression of thanks [to the owner of the field], according to the opinion of Beth Shammai. But Beth Hillel says: one may not eat with an expression of thanks. Beth Shammai says: a waterskin [is liable to become impure only if it is] tied up and remains unimpaired. And the school of Hillel says: even if it is not tied up.

Rabbi Yose says: there are six instances of lenient rulings by Beth Shammai and stringent rulings by Beth Hillel. A fowl may be put on a table [together] with cheese but may not be eaten [with it], according to the opinion of Beth Shammai. But Beth Hillel says: it may neither be put on [the table together with it] nor eaten [with it]. Olives may be given as terumah for oil and grapes for wine, according to the opinion of Beth Shammai. But Beth Hillel says: they may not be given. One who sows seed [within] four cubits of a vineyard: Beth Shammai says: he has caused one row [of vines] to be prohibited. But Beth Hillel says: he has caused two rows to be prohibited. Flour paste [flour that had been mixed with boiling water]: Beth Shammai exempts [from the law of hallah]; But Beth Hillel pronounces it liable. One may immerse oneself in a rain-torrent, according to the opinion of Beth Shammai; But Beth Hillel say: one may not immerse oneself [therein]. One who became a proselyte on the eve of Passover: Beth Shammai says: he may immerse himself and eat his Passover sacrifice in the evening. But Beth Hillel says: one who separates himself from uncircumcision is as one who separates himself from the grave.

Rabbi Yishmael says: there are three instances of lenient rulings by Beth Shammai and strict rulings by Beth Hillel. The book of Ecclesiastes does not defile the hands, according to the opinion of Beth Shammai; But Beth Hillel say: it defiles the hands. Water of purification which has done its duty: Beth Shammai pronounces it pure, But Beth Hillel pronounces it impure. Black cumin: Beth Shammai pronounces it not liable to become impure, But Beth Hillel pronounces it liable to become impure. So, too, with regard to tithes.

Rabbi Eliezer says: there are two instances of lenient rulings by Beth Shammai and strict rulings by Beth Hillel. The blood of a woman after childbirth who has not immersed herself, Beth Shammai says: [it is] like her spittle and her urine. But Beth Hillel says: it causes impurity whether wet or dry. However, they agree in the case of the blood of a woman who gave birth when she had non-menstrual discharge, that it causes defilement whether wet or dry.

The law of evaluation is sometimes lenient, and at others times strict. The law of the field of possession is sometimes lenient, and at others times strict. The law concerning a warned ox that has killed a slave is sometimes lenient, and at others times strict. The law of the rapist and the seducer and the defamer is sometimes lenient, and at others times strict. The law of evaluation is sometimes lenient, and at others times strict. How so? Whether one has evaluated the fairest in Israel, or the ugliest in Israel, he must pay fifty selas. But if he said: “Behold, his monetary worth is upon me,” he pays only as much as he is worth.

The law of evaluation is sometimes lenient, and at others times strict. The law of the field of possession is sometimes lenient, and at others times strict. The law concerning a warned ox that has killed a slave is sometimes lenient, and at others times strict. The law of the rapist and the seducer and the defamer is sometimes lenient, and at others times strict. The law of evaluation is sometimes lenient, and at others times strict. How so? Whether one has evaluated the fairest in Israel, or the ugliest in Israel, he must pay fifty selas. But if he said: “Behold, his monetary worth is upon me,” he pays only as much as he is worth.

The law of evaluation is sometimes lenient, and at others times strict. The law of the field of possession is sometimes lenient, and at others times strict. The law concerning a warned ox that has killed a slave is sometimes lenient, and at others times strict. The law of the rapist and the seducer and the defamer is sometimes lenient, and at others times strict. The law of evaluation is sometimes lenient, and at others times strict. How so? Whether one has evaluated the fairest in Israel, or the ugliest in Israel, he must pay fifty selas. But if he said: “Behold, his monetary worth is upon me,” he pays only as much as he is worth.

The law of evaluation is sometimes lenient, and at others times strict. The law of the field of possession is sometimes lenient, and at others times strict. The law concerning a warned ox that has killed a slave is sometimes lenient, and at others times strict. The law of the rapist and the seducer and the defamer is sometimes lenient, and at others times strict. The law of evaluation is sometimes lenient, and at others times strict. How so? Whether one has evaluated the fairest in Israel, or the ugliest in Israel, he must pay fifty selas. But if he said: “Behold, his monetary worth is upon me,” he pays only as much as he is worth.

The law of evaluation is sometimes lenient, and at others times strict. The law of the field of possession is sometimes lenient, and at others times strict. The law concerning a warned ox that has killed a slave is sometimes lenient, and at others times strict. The law of the rapist and the seducer and the defamer is sometimes lenient, and at others times strict. The law of evaluation is sometimes lenient, and at others times strict. How so? Whether one has evaluated the fairest in Israel, or the ugliest in Israel, he must pay fifty selas. But if he said: “Behold, his monetary worth is upon me,” he pays only as much as he is worth.

“The law of the field of possession is sometimes lenient and sometimes strict.”How so? Whether one dedicates a field in the sandy plain of Mahoz or in the orchards of Savaste, [if he would redeem it] he must pay fifty shekels of silver for [every part of the field sufficient for] the sowing of a homer of barley. But if it was a field which he bought, he must pay what it is worth. Rabbi Eliezer says: it is all the same whether it is a field of possession or one that he bought. What is the difference between the field of possession and one that he bought? A field of possession he must pay the [added] fifth, whereas for a field that he has bought he need not pay the added fifth.

“The law concerning a warned ox that has killed a slave is sometimes lenient and sometimes strict.”How so? Whether it killed the fine looking slave or an ugly slave, he must pay thirty selas. If it killed a free man he must pay what he is worth. If it wounded, whether this one or the other, he must pay the full damage.

“The law of the rapist and seducer is sometimes lenient and sometimes strict.”How so? Whether he raped or seduced a girl from among the best of the priestly stock or the humblest in Israel, he must pay fifty selas. But compensation for shaming and for blemish is in accord with the [circumstances] of him who shames and of the one who suffers the shame.

The law of the defamer is sometimes lenient and sometimes strict. How so? Whether he defamed a girl from among the best of the priestly stock or the humblest in Israel, he must pay one hundred selas. Thus it turns out that he who speaks with his mouth suffers more than he that commits an act. For thus we have also found that the judgment against our fathers in the wilderness was sealed only because of their evil tongue, as it is written: “Yet you have tested me these ten times, and you have not listened to My voice” (Numbers 14:22).

“And the age is according to the subject of the vow:” How so? If a child evaluates an old man, he must pay the value of an old man. And if an old man evaluates a child he must pay the value of a child. The evaluation is according to the subject of the evaluation. How so? If a man evaluated a woman, he must pay the value of a woman. And if a woman evaluated a man, she must pay the value of a man. “And the evaluations [shall be paid according to the rate prescribed] at the time of the evaluation.” How so? If he evaluated one who was less than five years of age, and he became [meantime] older than five years of age, or if [he evaluated one] who was less than twenty years of age and he became twenty years old, he must pay [only] in accord with the age at the time of the valuation. The thirtieth day is considered to be under this age. The fifth year or twentieth year is considered to be under this age. For it says: “And if he is from sixty years old and upward” (Leviticus 27:7), thus we can learn thus with regard to all others from what is said about sixty years: just as the sixtieth year is considered to be under this age, so also the fifth and twentieth years are under this age. Is that so! Just because [the Torah] accounts the sixtieth year to be under this age, thereby being more stringent, shall we make the fifth or the twentieth year be considered under this age, in order to be lenient? Scripture says, “Years,” “years” as a gezerah shavah: just as with the sixtieth year the word “years” means that it is considered under this age, so the word “years” with the fifth and with the twentieth year are considered under this age, whether this results in being lenient or being stringent. Rabbi Elazar says: [this rule holds good] until they are a month and a day beyond the year.

“And the age is according to the subject of the vow:” How so? If a child evaluates an old man, he must pay the value of an old man. And if an old man evaluates a child he must pay the value of a child. The evaluation is according to the subject of the evaluation. How so? If a man evaluated a woman, he must pay the value of a woman. And if a woman evaluated a man, she must pay the value of a man. “And the evaluations [shall be paid according to the rate prescribed] at the time of the evaluation.” How so? If he evaluated one who was less than five years of age, and he became [meantime] older than five years of age, or if [he evaluated one] who was less than twenty years of age and he became twenty years old, he must pay [only] in accord with the age at the time of the valuation. The thirtieth day is considered to be under this age. The fifth year or twentieth year is considered to be under this age. For it says: “And if he is from sixty years old and upward” (Leviticus 27:7), thus we can learn thus with regard to all others from what is said about sixty years: just as the sixtieth year is considered to be under this age, so also the fifth and twentieth years are under this age. Is that so! Just because [the Torah] accounts the sixtieth year to be under this age, thereby being more stringent, shall we make the fifth or the twentieth year be considered under this age, in order to be lenient? Scripture says, “Years,” “years” as a gezerah shavah: just as with the sixtieth year the word “years” means that it is considered under this age, so the word “years” with the fifth and with the twentieth year are considered under this age, whether this results in being lenient or being stringent. Rabbi Elazar says: [this rule holds good] until they are a month and a day beyond the year.

The act of [sprinkling the] blood of most holy sacrifices may have either a lenient or a stringent effect, but with sacrifices of a lesser degree of holiness it has only a stringent effect. How so? With most holy sacrifices, before the sprinkling, the law of sacrilege applies both to the innards and to the flesh; after the sprinkling it applies to the innards but not to the flesh; In respect of both one is guilty of [transgressing the laws of] notar, iggul and defilement. It is thus found that with most holy sacrifices the act of sprinkling has a lenient as well as a stringent effect. With sacrifices of a lesser degree of holiness it has only a stringent effect. How so? With sacrifices of a lesser degree of holiness, before the sprinkling the law of sacrilege does not apply to the innards or to the flesh; after the sprinkling it applies to the innards but not to the flesh; In respect of both one is guilty of transgressing the laws of notar, piggul and defilement. It is thus found that with sacrifices of a lesser degree of holiness it has only a stringent effect.

The act of [sprinkling the] blood of most holy sacrifices may have either a lenient or a stringent effect, but with sacrifices of a lesser degree of holiness it has only a stringent effect. How so? With most holy sacrifices, before the sprinkling, the law of sacrilege applies both to the innards and to the flesh; after the sprinkling it applies to the innards but not to the flesh; In respect of both one is guilty of [transgressing the laws of] notar, iggul and defilement. It is thus found that with most holy sacrifices the act of sprinkling has a lenient as well as a stringent effect. With sacrifices of a lesser degree of holiness it has only a stringent effect. How so? With sacrifices of a lesser degree of holiness, before the sprinkling the law of sacrilege does not apply to the innards or to the flesh; after the sprinkling it applies to the innards but not to the flesh; In respect of both one is guilty of transgressing the laws of notar, piggul and defilement. It is thus found that with sacrifices of a lesser degree of holiness it has only a stringent effect.

Rabbi Ishmael says: [the law relating to] blood is lenient at the beginning [before it is offered] and stringent at the end; [the law relating to] libations is stringent at the beginning and lenient at the end. Blood at the beginning is not subject to the law of sacrilege, but is subject to it after it has flowed away to the Wadi Kidron. Libations at the beginning are subject to the law of sacrilege, but are exempted from it after they flowed down into the shitin.

Rabbi Ishmael says: [the law relating to] blood is lenient at the beginning [before it is offered] and stringent at the end; [the law relating to] libations is stringent at the beginning and lenient at the end. Blood at the beginning is not subject to the law of sacrilege, but is subject to it after it has flowed away to the Wadi Kidron. Libations at the beginning are subject to the law of sacrilege, but are exempted from it after they flowed down into the shitin.

Piggul and remnant do not combine with one another because they are of two different names. Sheretz and carrion, as well as carrion and the flesh of a corpse do not combine with one another to effect impurity, not even in respect of the more lenient of the two [grades] of defilement. Food contaminated through contact with a primary defilement can combine with that contaminated by a secondary defilement to affect uncleanness according to the lower degree of defilement of the two.

Sometimes they stated a smaller measure: Liquid and dry measures were measured with the Italian standard which was the one that was used in the wilderness. Sometimes they stated a measure that varied according to the individual concerned: One who takes the handful of a minhah, One who takes both hands full of incense, One who drinks a cheek full on Yom Kippur, And the two meals for an eruv, The quantity being the food one eats on weekdays and not on Shabbat, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah says: as on Shabbat and not as on weekdays. And both intended to give the more lenient ruling. Rabbi Shimon says: two thirds of a loaf, when three [loaves] are made of a kav. Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka says: not less than a loaf that is purchased for a pundium when the price of wheat is four se'ah for a sela’.

If a piece of cloth three [handbreadths] square [was found] in a rubbish heap it must be both sound and capable of wrapping up salt; But [if it was found] in the house it need only be either sound or capable of wrapping up salt. How much salt must it be capable of wrapping up? A quarter of a kav. Rabbi Judah says: this refers to fine salt, But the sages stated: it refers to coarse salt. Both intended to be lenient. Rabbi Shimon says: the law concerning a piece of cloth three [handbreadths] square found in a rubbish heap is the same as that for a piece of cloth that was three [fingerbreadths] square in a house.

The bright spot in a German appears as dull white, and the dull white spot in an Ethiopian appears as bright white. Rabbi Ishmael says: the children of Israel (may I be atonement for them!) are like boxwood, neither black nor white but of an intermediate shade. Rabbi Akiva says: painters have materials with which they portray figures in black, in white, and in an intermediate shade; let, therefore a paint of an intermediate shade be brought and applied around the outside of the nega, and it will then appear as on skin of intermediate shade. Rabbi Judah says: in determining the colors of negaim the law is to be lenient and not stringent; let,therefore, the negaim of the German be inspected on the color of his own body so that the law is lenient, and let that of the Ethiopian be inspected as if it were on the intermediate shade so that the law is also lenient. The sages say: both are to be treated as if the nega was on the intermediate shade.

The bright spot in a German appears as dull white, and the dull white spot in an Ethiopian appears as bright white. Rabbi Ishmael says: the children of Israel (may I be atonement for them!) are like boxwood, neither black nor white but of an intermediate shade. Rabbi Akiva says: painters have materials with which they portray figures in black, in white, and in an intermediate shade; let, therefore a paint of an intermediate shade be brought and applied around the outside of the nega, and it will then appear as on skin of intermediate shade. Rabbi Judah says: in determining the colors of negaim the law is to be lenient and not stringent; let,therefore, the negaim of the German be inspected on the color of his own body so that the law is lenient, and let that of the Ethiopian be inspected as if it were on the intermediate shade so that the law is also lenient. The sages say: both are to be treated as if the nega was on the intermediate shade.

The bright spot in a German appears as dull white, and the dull white spot in an Ethiopian appears as bright white. Rabbi Ishmael says: the children of Israel (may I be atonement for them!) are like boxwood, neither black nor white but of an intermediate shade. Rabbi Akiva says: painters have materials with which they portray figures in black, in white, and in an intermediate shade; let, therefore a paint of an intermediate shade be brought and applied around the outside of the nega, and it will then appear as on skin of intermediate shade. Rabbi Judah says: in determining the colors of negaim the law is to be lenient and not stringent; let,therefore, the negaim of the German be inspected on the color of his own body so that the law is lenient, and let that of the Ethiopian be inspected as if it were on the intermediate shade so that the law is also lenient. The sages say: both are to be treated as if the nega was on the intermediate shade.

If their color changed, whether to be lenient or stringent: How is it "to be lenient"? If it was white like snow and it became white like the lime of the Temple, or like wool or like the skin of an egg, or [as white] as the second shade of a rising or the second shade of bright white. How is it "to be stringent"? If it was the color of the skin of an egg and it became like white wool, the lime of the Temple or like snow. Rabbi Eliezer ben Azariah rules that they are clean. Rabbi Eliezer Hisma says: if the change was to be lenient it is clean, but if it was one to be stringent it must be inspected as if it were a new one. Rabbi Akiva says: whether the change was to be lenient or to be strict it must be inspected as if it were a new one.

If their color changed, whether to be lenient or stringent: How is it "to be lenient"? If it was white like snow and it became white like the lime of the Temple, or like wool or like the skin of an egg, or [as white] as the second shade of a rising or the second shade of bright white. How is it "to be stringent"? If it was the color of the skin of an egg and it became like white wool, the lime of the Temple or like snow. Rabbi Eliezer ben Azariah rules that they are clean. Rabbi Eliezer Hisma says: if the change was to be lenient it is clean, but if it was one to be stringent it must be inspected as if it were a new one. Rabbi Akiva says: whether the change was to be lenient or to be strict it must be inspected as if it were a new one.

If their color changed, whether to be lenient or stringent: How is it "to be lenient"? If it was white like snow and it became white like the lime of the Temple, or like wool or like the skin of an egg, or [as white] as the second shade of a rising or the second shade of bright white. How is it "to be stringent"? If it was the color of the skin of an egg and it became like white wool, the lime of the Temple or like snow. Rabbi Eliezer ben Azariah rules that they are clean. Rabbi Eliezer Hisma says: if the change was to be lenient it is clean, but if it was one to be stringent it must be inspected as if it were a new one. Rabbi Akiva says: whether the change was to be lenient or to be strict it must be inspected as if it were a new one.

If their color changed, whether to be lenient or stringent: How is it "to be lenient"? If it was white like snow and it became white like the lime of the Temple, or like wool or like the skin of an egg, or [as white] as the second shade of a rising or the second shade of bright white. How is it "to be stringent"? If it was the color of the skin of an egg and it became like white wool, the lime of the Temple or like snow. Rabbi Eliezer ben Azariah rules that they are clean. Rabbi Eliezer Hisma says: if the change was to be lenient it is clean, but if it was one to be stringent it must be inspected as if it were a new one. Rabbi Akiva says: whether the change was to be lenient or to be strict it must be inspected as if it were a new one.

If a woman was in hard labor during the eighty days prescribed for the birth of a female, all kinds of blood that she may observe are clean, until the fetus is born. But Rabbi Eliezer holds them to be unclean. They said to Rabbi Eliezer: if in a case where the law was stringent in regard to blood discharged in the absence of pain, it was nevertheless lenient in regard to blood discharged during hard labor, in a case where it was lenient in regard to blood discharged in the absence of pain is there not even more reason to be lenient in regard to blood discharged during hard labor? He replied: it is enough for the case inferred to be treated in the same manner as the one from which it is inferred. For in what way were you lenient upon her? From the uncleanness of a zivah, but she does have the uncleanness of a niddah.

If a woman was in hard labor during the eighty days prescribed for the birth of a female, all kinds of blood that she may observe are clean, until the fetus is born. But Rabbi Eliezer holds them to be unclean. They said to Rabbi Eliezer: if in a case where the law was stringent in regard to blood discharged in the absence of pain, it was nevertheless lenient in regard to blood discharged during hard labor, in a case where it was lenient in regard to blood discharged in the absence of pain is there not even more reason to be lenient in regard to blood discharged during hard labor? He replied: it is enough for the case inferred to be treated in the same manner as the one from which it is inferred. For in what way were you lenient upon her? From the uncleanness of a zivah, but she does have the uncleanness of a niddah.

If a woman was in hard labor during the eighty days prescribed for the birth of a female, all kinds of blood that she may observe are clean, until the fetus is born. But Rabbi Eliezer holds them to be unclean. They said to Rabbi Eliezer: if in a case where the law was stringent in regard to blood discharged in the absence of pain, it was nevertheless lenient in regard to blood discharged during hard labor, in a case where it was lenient in regard to blood discharged in the absence of pain is there not even more reason to be lenient in regard to blood discharged during hard labor? He replied: it is enough for the case inferred to be treated in the same manner as the one from which it is inferred. For in what way were you lenient upon her? From the uncleanness of a zivah, but she does have the uncleanness of a niddah.

If a woman was in hard labor during the eighty days prescribed for the birth of a female, all kinds of blood that she may observe are clean, until the fetus is born. But Rabbi Eliezer holds them to be unclean. They said to Rabbi Eliezer: if in a case where the law was stringent in regard to blood discharged in the absence of pain, it was nevertheless lenient in regard to blood discharged during hard labor, in a case where it was lenient in regard to blood discharged in the absence of pain is there not even more reason to be lenient in regard to blood discharged during hard labor? He replied: it is enough for the case inferred to be treated in the same manner as the one from which it is inferred. For in what way were you lenient upon her? From the uncleanness of a zivah, but she does have the uncleanness of a niddah.

It happened that a woman came in front of Rabbi Akiva and said. She said to him: I have seen a bloodstain. He said to her: Perhaps you had a wound? She said to him: Yes, but it has healed. He said to her: Perhaps it could have opened again and let out some blood." She said to him: Yes. And Rabbi Akiva declared her clean. He saw his disciples looked at each other in astonishment. He said to them: Why do you find this difficult, for the sages did not say this rule in order to be stringent but rather to be lenient, for it is said, "And if a woman have issue, and her issue in her flesh be blood" blood but not a bloodstain.

So we find that Rebbi Meïr disagreed with the Sages and did not act upon his opinion. We have stated: One rubs olentia on a sick person on the Sabbath; but only if it was mixed with oil and wine before Sabbath eve. But if he did not mix it before Sabbath eve it is forbidden. We have stated: Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar said: Rebbi Meïr did allow to mix wine and oil and to rub it onto a sick persion on Sabbath. When he fell sick, we wanted to prepare the same for him but he did not let us do it. We said to him: Our teacher, are you going to invalidate your words when your life is in danger? He said to us: even though I am lenient for others, I am stringent for myself because my colleagues disagree with me.

There we have stated: “A woman who inherited property before she was betrothed, the Houses of Shammai and Hillel both are of the opinion that she may sell or give away and her actions are valid. If she inherited after she was betrothed, the House of Shammai say, she may sell, but the House of Hillel say, she may not sell.” Rebbi Phineas asked before Rebbi Yose, why did we not state it with the leniencies of the House of Shammai and the stringencies of the House of Hillel? He said to him, the Mishnaiot come only for circumstances that are either stringent on both sides or lenient on both sides. But here it is a stringency on one side and a leniency on the other side. But did we not state: “The House of Shammai say, property abandoned to the poor is abandoned?” Is this not lenient for the poor and stringent for the householder, and it was stated! It is lenient for the poor and not stringent for the householder, since it was abandoned by his intent. He said to him, did we not state: “The sheaf that was near a closure, a stack, cattle, or vessels, if it was forgotten,” is this not lenient for the householder and stringent for the poor, and it was stated! He said to him, it is lenient for the householder but not stringent for the poor, because they did not acquire it yet. You may also say here, it is lenient for the woman and not stringent for the husband since he did not yet acquire property rights to it. He said to him, since he became betrothed to her, the inheritance fell to both of them.

There we have stated: “A woman who inherited property before she was betrothed, the Houses of Shammai and Hillel both are of the opinion that she may sell or give away and her actions are valid. If she inherited after she was betrothed, the House of Shammai say, she may sell, but the House of Hillel say, she may not sell.” Rebbi Phineas asked before Rebbi Yose, why did we not state it with the leniencies of the House of Shammai and the stringencies of the House of Hillel? He said to him, the Mishnaiot come only for circumstances that are either stringent on both sides or lenient on both sides. But here it is a stringency on one side and a leniency on the other side. But did we not state: “The House of Shammai say, property abandoned to the poor is abandoned?” Is this not lenient for the poor and stringent for the householder, and it was stated! It is lenient for the poor and not stringent for the householder, since it was abandoned by his intent. He said to him, did we not state: “The sheaf that was near a closure, a stack, cattle, or vessels, if it was forgotten,” is this not lenient for the householder and stringent for the poor, and it was stated! He said to him, it is lenient for the householder but not stringent for the poor, because they did not acquire it yet. You may also say here, it is lenient for the woman and not stringent for the husband since he did not yet acquire property rights to it. He said to him, since he became betrothed to her, the inheritance fell to both of them.

There we have stated: “A woman who inherited property before she was betrothed, the Houses of Shammai and Hillel both are of the opinion that she may sell or give away and her actions are valid. If she inherited after she was betrothed, the House of Shammai say, she may sell, but the House of Hillel say, she may not sell.” Rebbi Phineas asked before Rebbi Yose, why did we not state it with the leniencies of the House of Shammai and the stringencies of the House of Hillel? He said to him, the Mishnaiot come only for circumstances that are either stringent on both sides or lenient on both sides. But here it is a stringency on one side and a leniency on the other side. But did we not state: “The House of Shammai say, property abandoned to the poor is abandoned?” Is this not lenient for the poor and stringent for the householder, and it was stated! It is lenient for the poor and not stringent for the householder, since it was abandoned by his intent. He said to him, did we not state: “The sheaf that was near a closure, a stack, cattle, or vessels, if it was forgotten,” is this not lenient for the householder and stringent for the poor, and it was stated! He said to him, it is lenient for the householder but not stringent for the poor, because they did not acquire it yet. You may also say here, it is lenient for the woman and not stringent for the husband since he did not yet acquire property rights to it. He said to him, since he became betrothed to her, the inheritance fell to both of them.

There we have stated: “A woman who inherited property before she was betrothed, the Houses of Shammai and Hillel both are of the opinion that she may sell or give away and her actions are valid. If she inherited after she was betrothed, the House of Shammai say, she may sell, but the House of Hillel say, she may not sell.” Rebbi Phineas asked before Rebbi Yose, why did we not state it with the leniencies of the House of Shammai and the stringencies of the House of Hillel? He said to him, the Mishnaiot come only for circumstances that are either stringent on both sides or lenient on both sides. But here it is a stringency on one side and a leniency on the other side. But did we not state: “The House of Shammai say, property abandoned to the poor is abandoned?” Is this not lenient for the poor and stringent for the householder, and it was stated! It is lenient for the poor and not stringent for the householder, since it was abandoned by his intent. He said to him, did we not state: “The sheaf that was near a closure, a stack, cattle, or vessels, if it was forgotten,” is this not lenient for the householder and stringent for the poor, and it was stated! He said to him, it is lenient for the householder but not stringent for the poor, because they did not acquire it yet. You may also say here, it is lenient for the woman and not stringent for the husband since he did not yet acquire property rights to it. He said to him, since he became betrothed to her, the inheritance fell to both of them.

There we have stated: “A woman who inherited property before she was betrothed, the Houses of Shammai and Hillel both are of the opinion that she may sell or give away and her actions are valid. If she inherited after she was betrothed, the House of Shammai say, she may sell, but the House of Hillel say, she may not sell.” Rebbi Phineas asked before Rebbi Yose, why did we not state it with the leniencies of the House of Shammai and the stringencies of the House of Hillel? He said to him, the Mishnaiot come only for circumstances that are either stringent on both sides or lenient on both sides. But here it is a stringency on one side and a leniency on the other side. But did we not state: “The House of Shammai say, property abandoned to the poor is abandoned?” Is this not lenient for the poor and stringent for the householder, and it was stated! It is lenient for the poor and not stringent for the householder, since it was abandoned by his intent. He said to him, did we not state: “The sheaf that was near a closure, a stack, cattle, or vessels, if it was forgotten,” is this not lenient for the householder and stringent for the poor, and it was stated! He said to him, it is lenient for the householder but not stringent for the poor, because they did not acquire it yet. You may also say here, it is lenient for the woman and not stringent for the husband since he did not yet acquire property rights to it. He said to him, since he became betrothed to her, the inheritance fell to both of them.

There we have stated: “A woman who inherited property before she was betrothed, the Houses of Shammai and Hillel both are of the opinion that she may sell or give away and her actions are valid. If she inherited after she was betrothed, the House of Shammai say, she may sell, but the House of Hillel say, she may not sell.” Rebbi Phineas asked before Rebbi Yose, why did we not state it with the leniencies of the House of Shammai and the stringencies of the House of Hillel? He said to him, the Mishnaiot come only for circumstances that are either stringent on both sides or lenient on both sides. But here it is a stringency on one side and a leniency on the other side. But did we not state: “The House of Shammai say, property abandoned to the poor is abandoned?” Is this not lenient for the poor and stringent for the householder, and it was stated! It is lenient for the poor and not stringent for the householder, since it was abandoned by his intent. He said to him, did we not state: “The sheaf that was near a closure, a stack, cattle, or vessels, if it was forgotten,” is this not lenient for the householder and stringent for the poor, and it was stated! He said to him, it is lenient for the householder but not stringent for the poor, because they did not acquire it yet. You may also say here, it is lenient for the woman and not stringent for the husband since he did not yet acquire property rights to it. He said to him, since he became betrothed to her, the inheritance fell to both of them.

A person brought a back-pack of leeks to Rebbi Isaac bar Tevele. He asked Rebbi Joḥanan. He said to him, go and ask Ḥananiah ben Samuel who knows statements about this. He went and asked. He said, they did not show me a statement, but he told me an Amoraic tradition, since Rebbi Yasa said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi and Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon disagree: one says after its place of production, the other says, after its current stand. Rebbi Abbahu explained: Rebbi said, after its place of production and Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon, after its current stand. Rebbi Abbahu said that Rebbi said, after its place of production, and they taught him following Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon, after its current stand. This means for back packs, but for animal loads everybody agrees after its place of production. If its place of production and of current placement are free but he is going to transport it through forbidden territory, that forbidden territory is as if he did not traverse it. Rebbi Abba bar Cohen asked before Rebbi Yose: Did not Rebbi Ḥiyya say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, between Rebbi and his colleague, practice follows Rebbi. But Rebbi Jonah said, even Rebbi with Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon? He said to him, what do you want from Rebbi Joḥanan! Rebbi Joḥanan follows his own opinion, for Rebbi Joḥanan said, they were very lenient regarding the Sabbatical, which is of their words. Some want to say, the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan is added to that of Rebbi and they form a majority against Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon.

HALAKHAH: But is a single witness trustworthy? Rebbi Joḥanan said, they were very lenient for a guest because of the necessities of life.

Rebbi Yannai had made a proviso for certain produce. He asked the Great Rebbi Ḥiyya, may one fix this on the Sabbath? He said to him (Deut. 14:23): “That you should learn to fear the Eternal, your God, all the days,” including the Sabbath. How did you see a way to be so lenient, my initiative depends on me! He said to him, in the future you will carry leadership in Israel.

Rebbi Eliezer objected to the rabbis: Are you not lenient for one row and restrictive for rectangles? It is so, we find that the rabbis are lenient for one row and restrictive for rectangles, as it was stated: He who wants to make one row of vegetables in a grain field makes a row 10½ cubits long and six hand-breadths wide. Rebbi Joḥanan said, therein he sows only one kind. Rebbi Zeïra said, Rebbi Joḥanan agrees that if it is seven wide he sows one hand-breadth on one side, one on the other side, and the remaining five count for both sides, just as Rebbi Zeïra had explained Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion there.

Rebbi Eliezer objected to the rabbis: Are you not lenient for one row and restrictive for rectangles? It is so, we find that the rabbis are lenient for one row and restrictive for rectangles, as it was stated: He who wants to make one row of vegetables in a grain field makes a row 10½ cubits long and six hand-breadths wide. Rebbi Joḥanan said, therein he sows only one kind. Rebbi Zeïra said, Rebbi Joḥanan agrees that if it is seven wide he sows one hand-breadth on one side, one on the other side, and the remaining five count for both sides, just as Rebbi Zeïra had explained Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion there.

What did Rebbi Ismael say about the width? Now if Rebbi Aqiba, who encloses it from three sides, requires a full width, Rebbi Ismael who encloses it by two rows, not so much more? What does Rebbi Ismael say about a row of vegetables in a grain field? Now if Rebbi Aqiba, who is more lenient here, is restrictive there, Rebbi Ismael, who is more restrictive here, certainly will be restrictive there! No, this is not necessarily so. What does Rebbi Ismael say there about width? As we say there, there is no difference between Rebbi Aqiba and Rebbi Ismael in matters of width.

Why did they not object to him: If someone keeps single fresh stalks growing to produce seeds, must he not clear around them a bet rova‘ or fence them in by a fence of ten hand-breadths? For a row one is more lenient. Since they did not object to him, it follows that Rebbi Yose thinks that row and square are the same. For Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose the Galilean said in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina: He who keeps a single fresh stalk growing to produce seeds must clear around it a bet rova‘ or fence it in by a fence of ten hand-breadths, even if it is the same kind. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya objected before Rebbi Zeïra, did we not state: “If coriander was sown for its seeds, its greens are exempt?” He answered him, coriander is a special case since both the plant and its seeds are eaten.

Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rav: The seed is permitted but one is forbidden to sow. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rav: The practice is that one is permitted to sow. Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Rav: Practice follows Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon. Does it mean that the seed is permitted and one is permitted to sow, or that the seed is permitted but one is forbidden to sow? Since Rebbi Abba said: Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi measured the layout of my vineyard eight by eight; that means that the seed is permitted and one is permitted to sow. Rav Huna sowed leeks in his vineyard. Is that not forbidden because of kilaim? They were mixed up and a single vine needs no place to tend it, following the words of Rebbi Ismael; as Rebbi Ismael said, the words of the Sages are that a single vine needs no place to tend it. Rebbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Practice outside the Land follows the lenient opinion. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, there they stated: Practice outside the Land follows the lenient opinion.

Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rav: The seed is permitted but one is forbidden to sow. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rav: The practice is that one is permitted to sow. Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Rav: Practice follows Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon. Does it mean that the seed is permitted and one is permitted to sow, or that the seed is permitted but one is forbidden to sow? Since Rebbi Abba said: Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi measured the layout of my vineyard eight by eight; that means that the seed is permitted and one is permitted to sow. Rav Huna sowed leeks in his vineyard. Is that not forbidden because of kilaim? They were mixed up and a single vine needs no place to tend it, following the words of Rebbi Ismael; as Rebbi Ismael said, the words of the Sages are that a single vine needs no place to tend it. Rebbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Practice outside the Land follows the lenient opinion. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, there they stated: Practice outside the Land follows the lenient opinion.

Rebbi Jehudah in the name of Rav: Practice follows Rebbi Aqiba. Rebbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Practice outside the Land follows him who is lenient. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, there they stated: Practice outside the Land follows him who is lenient.

Rebbi Jehudah in the name of Rav: Practice follows Rebbi Aqiba. Rebbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Practice outside the Land follows him who is lenient. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, there they stated: Practice outside the Land follows him who is lenient.

We have stated: “Rebbi Jehudah said that is if he did not intend to improve his field; but if he intended to improve his field even more is permitted. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, that is if he did not intend to improve his field; but if he intended to improve his field even less is forbidden.” Rebbi Vivian said, Rebbi Assi taught following the Tanna who is lenient.

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, if he shows him the stump; then he pays him only the wages of his feet. Rebbi Joḥanan said, even if he did not show it to him it is as if he had. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, as it was stated: “If somebody hires a worker to bring wine for a sick person, or an apple for a sick person, if he delivered it, he must pay, otherwise he does not have to pay. But if he said to him, wine for a sick person from place X, or an apple for a sick person from place X, he has to pay him whether he delivered or not because he pays him the wages of his feet.” What does Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish do with this? He explains that he showed him. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan, as it was stated: “Nobody should say to his neighbor, here you have a denar and bring me gleanings today, bring me peah today. But he may say to him, for gleanings you will bring today, for peah you will bring today. The same rules apply to a Levite.” Here, he did not show him; is it considered as if he showed him? What does Rebbi Joḥanan dowith this? They were particularly lenient with the Sabbatical because it is rabbinical.

There we have stated: “Rebbi Yose says, in six matters are the House of Shammai lenient and the House of Hillel restrictive: Fowl may be served on the table together with cheese but cannot be eaten together according to the House of Shammai, but the House of Hillel say it may not be served or eaten. One gives heave from olives on oil and from grapes on wine according to the House of Shammai, but the House of Hillel say one may not.” Rebbi Mana said, it cannot be “from olives on oil” but “from oil on olives” because this is Rebbi Yose’s! For Rebbi Yose says it is heave and he has to give another heave; that is, if the first [heave] does no longer exist but if the first exists he gives it its name and that is enough.

MISHNAH: Rebbi Joshua says, black figs lift the white ones, and white ones the black. Large fig cakes lift small ones and small ones lift the large. Round fig cakes lift brick-shaped fig cakes and brick-shaped cakes lift round cakes. But Rebbi Eliezer forbids. Rebbi Aqiba says, if it is known what fell in, they do not lift one another, but if it is not known what fell in, they do lift one another. How is this? If there are 50 black figs and 50 white, if a black one fell, the black are forbidden but the white are permitted; if a white one fell, the white are forbidden but the black are permitted. If he does not know what fell, they lift one another. In the latter case, Rebbi Eliezer is stringent and Rebbi Joshua lenient. And so Rebbi Eliezer is lenient and Rebbi Joshua stringent in case somebody presses a pound of cut figs into the mouth of a pitcher and does not remember which. Rebbi Eliezer says, one considers it as if they were separate and the lower ones help to lift the upper ones. But Rebbi Joshua says one may not lift unless there are 100 pitchers.

MISHNAH: Rebbi Joshua says, black figs lift the white ones, and white ones the black. Large fig cakes lift small ones and small ones lift the large. Round fig cakes lift brick-shaped fig cakes and brick-shaped cakes lift round cakes. But Rebbi Eliezer forbids. Rebbi Aqiba says, if it is known what fell in, they do not lift one another, but if it is not known what fell in, they do lift one another. How is this? If there are 50 black figs and 50 white, if a black one fell, the black are forbidden but the white are permitted; if a white one fell, the white are forbidden but the black are permitted. If he does not know what fell, they lift one another. In the latter case, Rebbi Eliezer is stringent and Rebbi Joshua lenient. And so Rebbi Eliezer is lenient and Rebbi Joshua stringent in case somebody presses a pound of cut figs into the mouth of a pitcher and does not remember which. Rebbi Eliezer says, one considers it as if they were separate and the lower ones help to lift the upper ones. But Rebbi Joshua says one may not lift unless there are 100 pitchers.

Is Rebbi Eliezer stringent and Rebbi Joshua lenient in this case? Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is [a disagreement of] Tannaїm: “You must say that if it is known, it cannot be lifted, if it is not known it may be lifted, the words of Rebbi Eliezer. Rebbi Joshua says, whether it is known or unknown, it can be lifted, the words of Rebbi Meїr. Rebbi Jehudah says, whether it is known or unknown, it cannot be lifted, the words of Rebbi Eliezer; Rebbi Joshua says, whether it is known or unknown, it can be lifted. Rebbi Aqiba says, if it is known, it cannot be lifted; if it is unknown, it can be lifted.”

Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, only if it fell into five places, but if it fell into one place, even Rebbi Eliezer agrees. Rebbi Joḥanan said, even if all fell into one place, there is disagreement. Ḥilfai said on that of Rebbi Eliezer, the lower profane produce becomes inert. But Rebbi Eleazar also said, the lower profane produce becomes inert. What is the difference between Rebbi Eliezer and the rabbis? Is one more restrictive with a lifted seah out of 100 or is one more lenient, following what Rebbi Joḥanan said, if a seah of heave fell into 100 of profane produce, anything will make it insignificant?

MISHNAH: Rebbi Eliezer says, one repays from one kind for another kind which is not the same, on condition that he repay with better quality for worse, but Rebbi Aqiba says, one only repays from one kind for its own. Therefore, if one ate green melon of the year before the Sabbatical, he should wait for green melons of the year following the Sabbatical and repay from them. From the verse which Rebbi Eliezer reads to be lenient, from there Rebbi Aqiba is restrictive, since it is said (Lev. 22:14): “He hands over the consecrated food to the Cohen,” anything that may be consecrated, the words of Rebbi Eliezer. But Rebbi Aqiba says, “he hands over the consecrated food to the Cohen,” the consecrated food he himself ate.

MISHNAH: Rebbi Simeon says, one does not rub himself with oil of Second Tithe in Jerusalem but the Sages permit it. They said to Rebbi Simeon, if He made it easy for the important heave, should we not be lenient for the lightweight Second Tithe? He said to them, this is no good. He was lenient for the important heave as He was lenient for vetch and fenugreek; how can we be lenient for Second Tithe where He was not lenient for vetch and fenugreek? Fenugreek of Second Tithe should be eaten as sprouts. Of Heave, the House of Shammai say it must always be handled in purity except for shampooing. But the House of Hillel say, it may be handled in impurity except in soaking. Vetch of Second Tithe should be eaten as sprouts; it may enter Jerusalem and leave. If it became impure, Rebbi Ṭarphon says it should be divided into pieces of dough, but the Sages say it should be redeemed. If it is heave, the House of Shammai say, one soaks and cleans in purity and feeds in impurity, but the House of Hillel say, one soaks in purity and cleans and feeds in impurity. Shammai says, it should be eaten dry. Rebbi Aqiba says, all its processing is done in impurity.

MISHNAH: Rebbi Simeon says, one does not rub himself with oil of Second Tithe in Jerusalem but the Sages permit it. They said to Rebbi Simeon, if He made it easy for the important heave, should we not be lenient for the lightweight Second Tithe? He said to them, this is no good. He was lenient for the important heave as He was lenient for vetch and fenugreek; how can we be lenient for Second Tithe where He was not lenient for vetch and fenugreek? Fenugreek of Second Tithe should be eaten as sprouts. Of Heave, the House of Shammai say it must always be handled in purity except for shampooing. But the House of Hillel say, it may be handled in impurity except in soaking. Vetch of Second Tithe should be eaten as sprouts; it may enter Jerusalem and leave. If it became impure, Rebbi Ṭarphon says it should be divided into pieces of dough, but the Sages say it should be redeemed. If it is heave, the House of Shammai say, one soaks and cleans in purity and feeds in impurity, but the House of Hillel say, one soaks in purity and cleans and feeds in impurity. Shammai says, it should be eaten dry. Rebbi Aqiba says, all its processing is done in impurity.

MISHNAH: Rebbi Simeon says, one does not rub himself with oil of Second Tithe in Jerusalem but the Sages permit it. They said to Rebbi Simeon, if He made it easy for the important heave, should we not be lenient for the lightweight Second Tithe? He said to them, this is no good. He was lenient for the important heave as He was lenient for vetch and fenugreek; how can we be lenient for Second Tithe where He was not lenient for vetch and fenugreek? Fenugreek of Second Tithe should be eaten as sprouts. Of Heave, the House of Shammai say it must always be handled in purity except for shampooing. But the House of Hillel say, it may be handled in impurity except in soaking. Vetch of Second Tithe should be eaten as sprouts; it may enter Jerusalem and leave. If it became impure, Rebbi Ṭarphon says it should be divided into pieces of dough, but the Sages say it should be redeemed. If it is heave, the House of Shammai say, one soaks and cleans in purity and feeds in impurity, but the House of Hillel say, one soaks in purity and cleans and feeds in impurity. Shammai says, it should be eaten dry. Rebbi Aqiba says, all its processing is done in impurity.

MISHNAH: Rebbi Simeon says, one does not rub himself with oil of Second Tithe in Jerusalem but the Sages permit it. They said to Rebbi Simeon, if He made it easy for the important heave, should we not be lenient for the lightweight Second Tithe? He said to them, this is no good. He was lenient for the important heave as He was lenient for vetch and fenugreek; how can we be lenient for Second Tithe where He was not lenient for vetch and fenugreek? Fenugreek of Second Tithe should be eaten as sprouts. Of Heave, the House of Shammai say it must always be handled in purity except for shampooing. But the House of Hillel say, it may be handled in impurity except in soaking. Vetch of Second Tithe should be eaten as sprouts; it may enter Jerusalem and leave. If it became impure, Rebbi Ṭarphon says it should be divided into pieces of dough, but the Sages say it should be redeemed. If it is heave, the House of Shammai say, one soaks and cleans in purity and feeds in impurity, but the House of Hillel say, one soaks in purity and cleans and feeds in impurity. Shammai says, it should be eaten dry. Rebbi Aqiba says, all its processing is done in impurity.

MISHNAH: Rebbi Simeon says, one does not rub himself with oil of Second Tithe in Jerusalem but the Sages permit it. They said to Rebbi Simeon, if He made it easy for the important heave, should we not be lenient for the lightweight Second Tithe? He said to them, this is no good. He was lenient for the important heave as He was lenient for vetch and fenugreek; how can we be lenient for Second Tithe where He was not lenient for vetch and fenugreek? Fenugreek of Second Tithe should be eaten as sprouts. Of Heave, the House of Shammai say it must always be handled in purity except for shampooing. But the House of Hillel say, it may be handled in impurity except in soaking. Vetch of Second Tithe should be eaten as sprouts; it may enter Jerusalem and leave. If it became impure, Rebbi Ṭarphon says it should be divided into pieces of dough, but the Sages say it should be redeemed. If it is heave, the House of Shammai say, one soaks and cleans in purity and feeds in impurity, but the House of Hillel say, one soaks in purity and cleans and feeds in impurity. Shammai says, it should be eaten dry. Rebbi Aqiba says, all its processing is done in impurity.

HALAKHAH: How were they lenient for heave? As we have stated: “A Cohen may rub himself with heave oil and bring his daughter’s son by an Israel and roll him on his belly without qualms.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, here they retorted with rabbinic words against the word of the Torah.

Is our Mishnah Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel’s? “Also produce enters and leaves”! It is the opinion of everybody. Here they were very lenient for vetch, but only dough of vetch, only dough of Second Tithe.

MISHNAH: One may not buy heave with tithe money because he would restrict its edibility, but Rebbi Simeon permits. Rebbi Simeon said to them: If He was lenient with well-being sacrifices when that could bring them to be piggul, leftover, or impure, would He not be lenient with heave? They answered him but no, if He was lenient with well-being sacrifices that are permitted to outsiders, can we be lenient with heave which is forbidden to outsiders?

MISHNAH: One may not buy heave with tithe money because he would restrict its edibility, but Rebbi Simeon permits. Rebbi Simeon said to them: If He was lenient with well-being sacrifices when that could bring them to be piggul, leftover, or impure, would He not be lenient with heave? They answered him but no, if He was lenient with well-being sacrifices that are permitted to outsiders, can we be lenient with heave which is forbidden to outsiders?

MISHNAH: One may not buy heave with tithe money because he would restrict its edibility, but Rebbi Simeon permits. Rebbi Simeon said to them: If He was lenient with well-being sacrifices when that could bring them to be piggul, leftover, or impure, would He not be lenient with heave? They answered him but no, if He was lenient with well-being sacrifices that are permitted to outsiders, can we be lenient with heave which is forbidden to outsiders?

MISHNAH: One may not buy heave with tithe money because he would restrict its edibility, but Rebbi Simeon permits. Rebbi Simeon said to them: If He was lenient with well-being sacrifices when that could bring them to be piggul, leftover, or impure, would He not be lenient with heave? They answered him but no, if He was lenient with well-being sacrifices that are permitted to outsiders, can we be lenient with heave which is forbidden to outsiders?