load

HALAKHAH: “If two persons were riding on an animal,” etc. Rebbi Ḥuna said: It was stated there: “A woman comes riding on an animal and two men lead her. She says: these are my slaves; the donkey and the load are mine. Each of them says: this is my wife, the other is my slave, and the donkey and the load are mine. She needs a bill of divorce from both of them and has to manumit both of them. They have to manumit one another. In the donkey and the load they are equal co-owners.

HALAKHAH: “If two persons were riding on an animal,” etc. Rebbi Ḥuna said: It was stated there: “A woman comes riding on an animal and two men lead her. She says: these are my slaves; the donkey and the load are mine. Each of them says: this is my wife, the other is my slave, and the donkey and the load are mine. She needs a bill of divorce from both of them and has to manumit both of them. They have to manumit one another. In the donkey and the load they are equal co-owners.

HALAKHAH: “If two persons were riding on an animal,” etc. Rebbi Ḥuna said: It was stated there: “A woman comes riding on an animal and two men lead her. She says: these are my slaves; the donkey and the load are mine. Each of them says: this is my wife, the other is my slave, and the donkey and the load are mine. She needs a bill of divorce from both of them and has to manumit both of them. They have to manumit one another. In the donkey and the load they are equal co-owners.

MISHNAH: What is a lost animal? If he found a donkey or a cow grazing on the road, this is no lost animal. A donkey whose gear is upside-down or a cow running in a vineyard are lost animals. If he returned it but it ran away, returned it but it ran away even four or five times, he is obligated to return it since it is said: “Return it returning.” If he was losing time worth a tetradrachma, he cannot say, give me a tetradrachma but [the owner] may pay him at the rate of an unemployed worker. If there is a court, he can stipulate with him before the court. If there is no court, before whom could he stipulate? His own comes first. If one found it in the cow-shed, he has no obligation; in the public domain he is obligated. But if it was between graves, he may not defile himself. If his father told him to defile himself, or told him not to return it, he should not listen to him. If he unloaded and loaded, unloaded and loaded even four or five times, he is obligated since it is said: “restoring restore”. If he sat down and said, since it is your religious obligation, if you want to unload, unload, he is free since it is said: “with him”. It is a religious obligation to unload, but not to load; Rebbi Simeon says, also to load. Rebbi Yose the Galilean said, if the load was more than the ordinary, he need not do anything since it is said: “under its load,” a load which it can carry.

MISHNAH: What is a lost animal? If he found a donkey or a cow grazing on the road, this is no lost animal. A donkey whose gear is upside-down or a cow running in a vineyard are lost animals. If he returned it but it ran away, returned it but it ran away even four or five times, he is obligated to return it since it is said: “Return it returning.” If he was losing time worth a tetradrachma, he cannot say, give me a tetradrachma but [the owner] may pay him at the rate of an unemployed worker. If there is a court, he can stipulate with him before the court. If there is no court, before whom could he stipulate? His own comes first. If one found it in the cow-shed, he has no obligation; in the public domain he is obligated. But if it was between graves, he may not defile himself. If his father told him to defile himself, or told him not to return it, he should not listen to him. If he unloaded and loaded, unloaded and loaded even four or five times, he is obligated since it is said: “restoring restore”. If he sat down and said, since it is your religious obligation, if you want to unload, unload, he is free since it is said: “with him”. It is a religious obligation to unload, but not to load; Rebbi Simeon says, also to load. Rebbi Yose the Galilean said, if the load was more than the ordinary, he need not do anything since it is said: “under its load,” a load which it can carry.

MISHNAH: What is a lost animal? If he found a donkey or a cow grazing on the road, this is no lost animal. A donkey whose gear is upside-down or a cow running in a vineyard are lost animals. If he returned it but it ran away, returned it but it ran away even four or five times, he is obligated to return it since it is said: “Return it returning.” If he was losing time worth a tetradrachma, he cannot say, give me a tetradrachma but [the owner] may pay him at the rate of an unemployed worker. If there is a court, he can stipulate with him before the court. If there is no court, before whom could he stipulate? His own comes first. If one found it in the cow-shed, he has no obligation; in the public domain he is obligated. But if it was between graves, he may not defile himself. If his father told him to defile himself, or told him not to return it, he should not listen to him. If he unloaded and loaded, unloaded and loaded even four or five times, he is obligated since it is said: “restoring restore”. If he sat down and said, since it is your religious obligation, if you want to unload, unload, he is free since it is said: “with him”. It is a religious obligation to unload, but not to load; Rebbi Simeon says, also to load. Rebbi Yose the Galilean said, if the load was more than the ordinary, he need not do anything since it is said: “under its load,” a load which it can carry.

MISHNAH: What is a lost animal? If he found a donkey or a cow grazing on the road, this is no lost animal. A donkey whose gear is upside-down or a cow running in a vineyard are lost animals. If he returned it but it ran away, returned it but it ran away even four or five times, he is obligated to return it since it is said: “Return it returning.” If he was losing time worth a tetradrachma, he cannot say, give me a tetradrachma but [the owner] may pay him at the rate of an unemployed worker. If there is a court, he can stipulate with him before the court. If there is no court, before whom could he stipulate? His own comes first. If one found it in the cow-shed, he has no obligation; in the public domain he is obligated. But if it was between graves, he may not defile himself. If his father told him to defile himself, or told him not to return it, he should not listen to him. If he unloaded and loaded, unloaded and loaded even four or five times, he is obligated since it is said: “restoring restore”. If he sat down and said, since it is your religious obligation, if you want to unload, unload, he is free since it is said: “with him”. It is a religious obligation to unload, but not to load; Rebbi Simeon says, also to load. Rebbi Yose the Galilean said, if the load was more than the ordinary, he need not do anything since it is said: “under its load,” a load which it can carry.

MISHNAH: What is a lost animal? If he found a donkey or a cow grazing on the road, this is no lost animal. A donkey whose gear is upside-down or a cow running in a vineyard are lost animals. If he returned it but it ran away, returned it but it ran away even four or five times, he is obligated to return it since it is said: “Return it returning.” If he was losing time worth a tetradrachma, he cannot say, give me a tetradrachma but [the owner] may pay him at the rate of an unemployed worker. If there is a court, he can stipulate with him before the court. If there is no court, before whom could he stipulate? His own comes first. If one found it in the cow-shed, he has no obligation; in the public domain he is obligated. But if it was between graves, he may not defile himself. If his father told him to defile himself, or told him not to return it, he should not listen to him. If he unloaded and loaded, unloaded and loaded even four or five times, he is obligated since it is said: “restoring restore”. If he sat down and said, since it is your religious obligation, if you want to unload, unload, he is free since it is said: “with him”. It is a religious obligation to unload, but not to load; Rebbi Simeon says, also to load. Rebbi Yose the Galilean said, if the load was more than the ordinary, he need not do anything since it is said: “under its load,” a load which it can carry.

“if you hit upon.” I could think, really if you hit upon him; the verse says, “if you see.” Concerning “if you see,” I could think even at a distance of a hundred mil? The verse says, “if you hit upon.” How is this? The Sages estimated one in 7 1/2 of a mil, i. e., a stadion. Putting in order you shall put in order,” this is unloading. “Uplifting you shall uplift,” this is loading. Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai says, just as his unloading is [an obligation] from the Torah, so his loading is from the Torah. If the donkey was a Jew’s but the load a Gentile’s, everybody says that he unloads and loads. If the donkey was a Gentile’s but the load a Jew’s, according to the Sages one neither unloads nor loads. According to Rebbi Simeon one unloads but does not load.

“if you hit upon.” I could think, really if you hit upon him; the verse says, “if you see.” Concerning “if you see,” I could think even at a distance of a hundred mil? The verse says, “if you hit upon.” How is this? The Sages estimated one in 7 1/2 of a mil, i. e., a stadion. Putting in order you shall put in order,” this is unloading. “Uplifting you shall uplift,” this is loading. Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai says, just as his unloading is [an obligation] from the Torah, so his loading is from the Torah. If the donkey was a Jew’s but the load a Gentile’s, everybody says that he unloads and loads. If the donkey was a Gentile’s but the load a Jew’s, according to the Sages one neither unloads nor loads. According to Rebbi Simeon one unloads but does not load.

“if you hit upon.” I could think, really if you hit upon him; the verse says, “if you see.” Concerning “if you see,” I could think even at a distance of a hundred mil? The verse says, “if you hit upon.” How is this? The Sages estimated one in 7 1/2 of a mil, i. e., a stadion. Putting in order you shall put in order,” this is unloading. “Uplifting you shall uplift,” this is loading. Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai says, just as his unloading is [an obligation] from the Torah, so his loading is from the Torah. If the donkey was a Jew’s but the load a Gentile’s, everybody says that he unloads and loads. If the donkey was a Gentile’s but the load a Jew’s, according to the Sages one neither unloads nor loads. According to Rebbi Simeon one unloads but does not load.

MISHNAH: Somebody who rented a donkey to use it to transport wheat but transported barley, grain but transported straw, is liable. How much did one add to the load that he became liable? Symmachos said in the name of Rebbi Meïr: one se’ah for a camel, three qab for a donkey.

HALAKHAH: “Somebody who rented a donkey,” etc. “How much did one add to the load that he became liable? Symmachos said in the name of Rebbi Meïr: one se’ah for a camel, three qab for a donkey, one qab for a porter, and three se‘ah for a cart. But a ship according to its size”.

“If a ship encounters a calamity and one lightens its load, one computes according to weight and value but not according to persons. But one who rents a carriage or a ship from another person computes according to load and persons but not according to value.”

“If a ship encounters a calamity and one lightens its load, one computes according to weight and value but not according to persons. But one who rents a carriage or a ship from another person computes according to load and persons but not according to value.”

MISHNAH: He who sells a ship sold the mast, and the sail, and the anchors, and all steering gear, but he neither sold the slaves, nor the storage bags, nor the load. If he said, “it and all that is in it,” all is sold. He who sold a truck did not sell the mules; he who sold the mules did not sell the truck. He who sold the yoke did not sell the cattle; he who sold the cattle did not sell the yoke. Rebbi Jehudah says, the price is an indicator. How is that? If he said to him, sell me your yoke and harness for 200 denars, it is obvious that yoke and harness are not worth 200 denars. But the Sages say, the price is no indicator. He who sells a donkey did not sell its gear. Nahum the Mede says, he sold the gear. Rebbi Jehudah says, sometimes it is sold, sometimes it is not sold. How is this? If a donkey was standing there with his gear on it and he said, sell me this donkey, his gear is sold; your donkey, for this one the gear is not sold. He who sells a donkey sold the foal; he who sold a cow did not sell its young. He who sold a dungheap sold the manure; he who sold a cistern sold its water. He who sold a beehive sold the bees; he who sold the dovecote sold the pigeons. He who bought the yield of a dovecote leaves the first brood to fledge, of a beehive takes three swarms and then intermittently, honeycombs leaves two honeycombs, olive trees to cut down leaves two handbreadths.

Rebbi Perira brought before Rebbi Jehudah the Prince two radishes between New Year’s Day and the Fast. It was the year after a Sabbatical, and they were a camel’s load. He said to him, rabbi, are they not forbidden? Are they no aftergrowth? He said to him, they were sown after the end of the Sabbatical year. At that moment did Rebbi permit to buy vegetables immediately after the end of the Sabbatical year.

HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Meïr said,” etc. We have stated קַלֵּינִי. Some Tannaïm state קַל אָנִי. He who says קַלֵּינִי uses only an expression of lightness. He who says קַל אָנִי uses a language of load.

HALAKHAH: “There are two kinds of oaths which are four kinds,” etc. Two which are four for liability and two which are four for no liability, or four for liability and four for no liability? Let us hear from the following: “There are two kinds of oaths which are four kinds,” etc. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah says so, “there are two kinds of oaths which are four kinds,” not because of liability? And similarly, “there are two kinds of export on the Sabbath which are four kinds,” because there is liability. Rebbi Abba said, there all are about liability, but here we come to state both liability and no liability. This implies four of liability and four of no liability. But did we not state, the doors of the Temple hall were two which are four? Can you say, liability and no liability? Should we state twelve cases of no liability? We come to state cases of no liability which correspond to cases of no liability. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, what is this “no liability” which we stated here? Permitted! Rebbi Yose said, the poor man and the rich man are one but the Sages counted them as two. Exporting or importing are two but the Sages counted them as one. Exporting on the Sabbath does not include importing; if one exports from a domain this does not include importing. If one who exports from one domain to the other, does this not include the one who imports? In addition, from what Rebbi Yasa said in the name if Rebbi Joḥanan: Somebody who imports half the size of a dried fig and exports half the size of a dried fig is liable. And from where that exporting is called work? Rebbi Samuel in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: “Moses ordered, they made a public proclamation in the camp,” etc. The people refrained from taking objects out from their houses to give them to the collectors, who also did not take out anything from them to import into the office. Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Aḥa understood it from the following: “do not bring out any load from your houses on the Sabbath day, and perform no work.”

MISHNAH: If one’s house was connected to a house of pagan worship and collapsed, it is forbidden to rebuild it. What should he do? He restricts himself to his property and builds. If it was his and the idolatry’s, it is judged half by half Its stones, its wood, and its dust make impure like a crawling animal, as it is said, you shall treat it as an abomination. Rebbi Aqiba says like a menstruating woman as it is said, you shall throw it away like feeling miserable; you will call it excrement. Since the menstruating makes impure by load, also idolatry makes impure by load.

MISHNAH: If one’s house was connected to a house of pagan worship and collapsed, it is forbidden to rebuild it. What should he do? He restricts himself to his property and builds. If it was his and the idolatry’s, it is judged half by half Its stones, its wood, and its dust make impure like a crawling animal, as it is said, you shall treat it as an abomination. Rebbi Aqiba says like a menstruating woman as it is said, you shall throw it away like feeling miserable; you will call it excrement. Since the menstruating makes impure by load, also idolatry makes impure by load.

HALAKHAH: “If one’s house was connected to a house of pagan worship,” etc. There is written abomination about the menstruating women, abomination about vermin, abomination about idolatry. About the menstruating woman, for anybody who would commit any of these abominations. About vermin, do not eat any abomination. About idolatry, and do not bring any abomination into your house. But I do not know for which purpose it was compared. Rebbi Aqiba says, it was compared to abomination regarding the menstruating woman. As the menstruating woman imparts impurity by load, also idolatry imparts impurity by load. Or since the menstruating woman imparts impurity through a cover stone, does idolatry impart impurity through a cover stone? Rebbi Zeriqa in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina, but some say in the name of Rav Ḥisda: Rebbi Aqiba agrees with the Sages that idolatry does not impart impurity through a cover stone. But the rabbis say it was compared to abominations of vermin. As vermin imparts impurity by motion, so also idolatry imparts impurity by motion. Or as vermin in the size of a lentil imparts impurity does also idolatry in the size of a lentil impart impurity? Rebbi Zeˋira, Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman, Rebbi Eleazar, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They were yoked to Baal Peor and ate sacrifices to the dead. As the dead in the size of an olive impart impurity so idolatry in the size of an olive imparts impurity. Or since a corpse imparts impurity once a person puts his finger tips in, could I think that idolatry imparts once a person puts his finger tips in? Tearing down, tearing down one infers from the leprous house. Since in a leprous house when he entered with his head and most of his body, so idolatry when he entered with his head and most of his body. Rebbi Ḥanina said, this means that the impurity of idolatry is not consistent. For otherwise, why does one compare if for the facile [impurity] and does not compare for the strict? Rebbi Mana said, it is consistent. Why was it compared to a corpse and to vermin? To inform in both cases about the facile [impurity] attached to it. This is for a broken idol. But an entire one even in the most minute size, as Rebbi Yose hen Rebbi Abun said, Rav Ḥama bar Gorion in the name of Rav: Baal was the penis gland in the form of a bean. What is the reason? They selected the Baal of circumcision as god.

HALAKHAH: “If one’s house was connected to a house of pagan worship,” etc. There is written abomination about the menstruating women, abomination about vermin, abomination about idolatry. About the menstruating woman, for anybody who would commit any of these abominations. About vermin, do not eat any abomination. About idolatry, and do not bring any abomination into your house. But I do not know for which purpose it was compared. Rebbi Aqiba says, it was compared to abomination regarding the menstruating woman. As the menstruating woman imparts impurity by load, also idolatry imparts impurity by load. Or since the menstruating woman imparts impurity through a cover stone, does idolatry impart impurity through a cover stone? Rebbi Zeriqa in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina, but some say in the name of Rav Ḥisda: Rebbi Aqiba agrees with the Sages that idolatry does not impart impurity through a cover stone. But the rabbis say it was compared to abominations of vermin. As vermin imparts impurity by motion, so also idolatry imparts impurity by motion. Or as vermin in the size of a lentil imparts impurity does also idolatry in the size of a lentil impart impurity? Rebbi Zeˋira, Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman, Rebbi Eleazar, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They were yoked to Baal Peor and ate sacrifices to the dead. As the dead in the size of an olive impart impurity so idolatry in the size of an olive imparts impurity. Or since a corpse imparts impurity once a person puts his finger tips in, could I think that idolatry imparts once a person puts his finger tips in? Tearing down, tearing down one infers from the leprous house. Since in a leprous house when he entered with his head and most of his body, so idolatry when he entered with his head and most of his body. Rebbi Ḥanina said, this means that the impurity of idolatry is not consistent. For otherwise, why does one compare if for the facile [impurity] and does not compare for the strict? Rebbi Mana said, it is consistent. Why was it compared to a corpse and to vermin? To inform in both cases about the facile [impurity] attached to it. This is for a broken idol. But an entire one even in the most minute size, as Rebbi Yose hen Rebbi Abun said, Rav Ḥama bar Gorion in the name of Rav: Baal was the penis gland in the form of a bean. What is the reason? They selected the Baal of circumcision as god.

Abbai said: This only applies when the building has no other entrance ; but should it have another entrance, we can have no objection ; further it applies only when there is no other Synagogue [in the town], but should there be another Synagogue, we can have no objection ; further it applies only to one who is not carrying a load, or is not running, or is not wearing Tefillin ; but in any of such cases, we can have no objection.

But this last is only meant when he is not carrying a load ; should he, however, be carrying a load, there is no objection. It is only meant when there is no other entrance ; but should there be another entrance, there is no objection. It is further only meant when he is not riding upon an ass ; but should he be riding upon an ass, there is no objection. It is likewise only meant when he is not wearing Tefillin ; but if he is wearing Tefillin, there is no objection.

But this last is only meant when he is not carrying a load ; should he, however, be carrying a load, there is no objection. It is only meant when there is no other entrance ; but should there be another entrance, there is no objection. It is further only meant when he is not riding upon an ass ; but should he be riding upon an ass, there is no objection. It is likewise only meant when he is not wearing Tefillin ; but if he is wearing Tefillin, there is no objection.

It was told of Nahum of Gamzo that he was blind in both eyes, stumped in both hands, crippled in both legs, that his whole body was covered with sores and his bed stood in four basins of water to prevent ants climbing up (the legs of the bed). Once he was lying in a ruinous house and his disciples desired to remove him, but he said to them: "Remove first the furniture and then remove my bed, for you can be sure that as long as I am in the house, the house will not fall in." They removed the furniture and then the bed, and immediately after the house fell in. His disciples then asked him: "Master! Since thou art so wholly righteous, why did all this come upon thee?" "I caused it myself", he replied. "Once I was going to the house of my father-in-law and had with me a load carried by three asses, one part consisting of food, another of drinks and the third of all sorts of delicacies. Suddenly there appeared before me a man, who said to me: 'Master, give me something to eat.' I said to him, 'Wait until I alight from the ass.' After I had alighted, I turned around and found that the man was dead. I then threw myself upon him and said: 'My eyes that had no pity upon thine eyes shall become blind; my hands that had no pity upon thy hands shall become stumped; and my feet that had no pity upon thy feet shall become crippled.' But even then my mind was not set at rest until I said: 'May my body become covered with sores.'" Said they to him: "Woe unto us that we must see thee in such a condition!" Nahum, however, replied: "Woe would it be to me if you did not see me in this condition."

The Rabbis did not know the meaning of, “Cast upon the Lord your yehav” (Psalms 55:23) Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said: One day I was travelling with a certain Arab and was carrying a load, and he said to me, “Lift up your yehav and put it on [one of] the camels.”

Rav Chanina and Rav Hoshiah were siting and asking, [If one had maaser sheni] at the entrance to Jeraslem, what would the law be? It's obvious if he was outside and his load was inside, that the boundaries had already swallowed it, but if he is inside and his load outside, what would be the law?

Rav Chanina and Rav Hoshiah were siting and asking, [If one had maaser sheni] at the entrance to Jeraslem, what would the law be? It's obvious if he was outside and his load was inside, that the boundaries had already swallowed it, but if he is inside and his load outside, what would be the law?

A certain elder taught in the academy of Rebbi Shimon ben Yochai, (Duetermony 14,24) "For the place is far from him" which means from his load.