mattaniah

And the king of Babylon made Mattaniah his father’s brother king in his stead, and changed his name to Zedekiah.

And Bakbakkar, Heresh, and Galal, and Mattaniah the son of Micah, the son of Zichri, the son of Asaph;

Of Heman: the sons of Heman: Bukkiah, Mattaniah, Uzziel, Shebuel, and Jerimoth, Hananiah, Hanani, Eliathah, Giddalti, and Romamtiezer, Joshbekashah, Mallothi, Hothir, and Mahazioth:

The ninth to Mattaniah, he, his sons, and his brethren, were twelve:

Then upon Jahaziel the son of Zechariah, the son of Benaiah, the son of Jeiel, the son of Mattaniah, a Levite of the sons of Asaph, came the Spirit of the LORD in the midst of the congregation;

And of the sons of Elizaphan; Shimri, and Jeiel: and of the sons of Asaph; Zechariah, and Mattaniah:

And of the sons of Elam; Mattaniah, Zechariah, and Jehiel, and Abdi, and Jeremoth, and Eliah.

And of the sons of Zattu; Elioenai, Eliashib, Mattaniah, and Jeremoth, and Zabad, and Aziza.

And of the sons of Pahathmoab; Adna, and Chelal, Benaiah, Maaseiah, Mattaniah, Bezaleel, and Binnui, and Manasseh.

Mattaniah, Mattenai, and Jaasau,

And Mattaniah the son of Micha, the son of Zabdi, the son of Asaph, was the principal to begin the thanksgiving in prayer: and Bakbukiah the second among his brethren, and Abda the son of Shammua, the son of Galal, the son of Jeduthun.

The overseer also of the Levites at Jerusalem was Uzzi the son of Bani, the son of Hashabiah, the son of Mattaniah, the son of Micha. Of the sons of Asaph, the singers were over the business of the house of God.

Moreover the Levites: Jeshua, Binnui, Kadmiel, Sherebiah, Judah, and Mattaniah, which was over the thanksgiving, he and his brethren.

Mattaniah, and Bakbukiah, Obadiah, Meshullam, Talmon, Akkub, were porters keeping the ward at the thresholds of the gates.

And certain of the priests’ sons with trumpets; namely, Zechariah the son of Jonathan, the son of Shemaiah, the son of Mattaniah, the son of Michaiah, the son of Zaccur, the son of Asaph:

And I made treasurers over the treasuries, Shelemiah the priest, and Zadok the scribe, and of the Levites, Pedaiah: and next to them was Hanan the son of Zaccur, the son of Mattaniah: for they were counted faithful, and their office was to distribute unto their brethren.

Rebbi Abin bar Ḥiyya investigated: The recitation of Shema‘ with its benedictions, it (the recitation of Shema‘) without its benedictions, its benedictions without it? If he interrupted after a third, interrupted after a second third? Does one estimate by the reader’s speed or by the average speed of all men? Rebbi Mattaniah said, it seems reasonable by the reader’s.

Rebbi Lia, Rebbi Yasa in the name of the great Rebbi Aḥa: If he prayed and he found himself in “He Who hears prayer”, he may assume that he prayed with intent. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: If he prayed without intent and he knows that the second time he will pray with intent, he may pray a second time; otherwise he should not pray. The great Rebbi Ḥiyya said: I never managed to pray with intent, but one time I made an effort to concentrate and I started to think and said to myself, who enters first before the king, the ἀργαπέτης or the Resh Galuta? Samuel said: I counted chicks. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said: I counted stone rows. Rebbi Mattaniah said: I an thankful to my head that when I come to modim it bends down by itself.

There, we have stated: “Any real estate is subject to peah and first fruits.” What is the use of “any” real estate? Rebbi Mattaniah said, explain it if it had space for one stalk but a pearl was hidden in it.

Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan (Lev. 25:2): “The land shall observe a Sabbath for the Eternal.” The sanctity of the Sabbatical year falls on anything that is the Eternal’s. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba asked before Rebbi Mana: It is impossible to eat it without redemption since Temple property cannot exit without redemption. If one redeems and eats it, it would be as if one bought an axe with money from the Sabbatical! He said to him, the treasurer exchanges it through a third person. Rebbi Mattaniah said, why do we not explain it according to everybody, as Rebbi Joḥanan said: The words of Rebbi Yose: because his vow precedes his declaration of abandonment. And here, because his vow of abandonment precedes his dedication.

We have stated ḥallah between First and Second Tithes. Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Zeïra: This means that ḥallah is not subject to “do not give too late.” Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Zeïra: The Mishnah is not formulated in sequence, do we not deal with demay? Did not Rebbi Abba, son of Rebbi Ḥiyya, say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan that the Mishnah deals with demay; hence, not with certain produce? And here we deal with demay. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: Also for certain. On that, Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Zeïra said, this means that ḥallah is not subject to “do not give too late.” Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Zeïra: The Mishnah is not formulated in sequence, should not ḥallah precede the First Tithe? Then ḥallah should be subject to tithes but not tithes to ḥallah, because everything that precedes another, the other is obligated for it. And we have stated in this respect: “He who makes dough from ṭevel, whether he takes ḥallah before heave or heave before ḥallah, what he did is done. Ḥallah should not be eaten until he take heave for it, heave should not be eaten until he separate ḥallah for it.” But why does First Tithe have precedence? Because it started at the threshing floor. But does the Second Tithe not start at the threshing floor? Rebbi Mattaniah said, it would have been logical that ḥallah should precede everything else. Why does First Heave have precedence? Because it started at the threshing floor and it is called “beginning.” Second Tithe, even though it started at the threshing floor, is not called “beginning.”

“Rebbi Simeon forbids for heave of the tithe and permits for ḥallah.” Then Rebbi Jehudah forbids for ḥallah. Does it not become ṭevel at his place? But perhaps he borrows impure sour dough to make his bread-dough. Even so, does it not become ṭevel at his place? But perhaps he borrows an impure loaf to fill up his oven. If he borrows an impure loaf to fill up his oven, must he then not tithe every single loaf? That is for Rebbi Joḥanan, since Rebbi Joḥanan said, there if he works in purity, here if he works in impurity. But for Rebbi Eleazar, who says that in both cases if he works in purity? Rebbi Yudan, the father of Rebbi Mattaniah said, we refer to one who works in impurity and it becomes ṭevel at his place, and Rebbi Jehudah also agrees. We have stated accordingly: “Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Simeon forbid for heave of the tithe and permit for ḥallah.” Hence, Rebbi Jehudah forbids for heave of the tithe and permits for ḥallah; Rebbi Simeon forbids for heave of the tithe and permits for ḥallah. What is the difference between them? In the opinion of Rebbi Jehudah, one may not separate from today’s for yesterday’s or from yesterday’s for today’s, but one may separate from one oven batch on another oven batch. In the opinion of Rebbi Simeon, even from one oven batch on another one may not separate.

Does Rebbi Judah say that in this case it is not kilaim? Rebbi Zeïra said, Rebbi Jehudah follows his own opinion, since Rebbi Jehudah said, in the case of a vegetable field one hand-breadth. Rebbi Yose said, he who wants to question this statement of Rebbi Zeïra might deduce the opinion of Rebbi Jehudah from that of the rabbis. Just as the rabbis say, in the case of the prohibition of bet rova‘ one needs six-by-six to whip, so Rebbi Judah said in the case of the prohibition of six-by-six that one needs a hand-breadth to whip. But did we not state, Rebbi Judah permits it? Then it is difficult: what is the reason of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? Since he threw it out from his hand as seed, he is guilty. But did we not state that “Rebbi Jehudah says, it is not kilaim?” Explain it, until the moment that it comes to rest. But was it not stated that Rebbi Judah permits it? Even if it came to rest, Rebbi Jehudah permits it. Rebbi Illaï said, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish follows his own opinion, since Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said in the name of Ḥizqiah: A vertex from a dry spot is permitted. Then it also should be thus in the case of two wheat grains and one of barley? That is correct. But did we not state, “unless there are two wheat kernels and one barley kernel, or one wheat kernel and two barley kernels, or one each of wheat, barley, and spelt?” Explain it if there is a grain of wheat on each side, a fence on each side, and the grain of barley caught in the middle. Rebbi Mattaniah said, that is only if there is no dry spot, but if there is a dry spot there, it is permitted.

Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac asked: Does the border wall save vegetables from melons? If the border wall does not save different kinds of grains that are saved by 10.5 cubits, does this not apply a fortiori to melons that are saved only by twelve cubits? Does planting melon save on top of the border wall? If different kinds of grains that are saved by 10.5 cubits are not saved on top of the border wall, does this not apply a fortiori to melons that are saved by eight cubits? Rebbi Judan, the father of Rebbi Mattaniah, said, is that a reasoning a fortiori? It must be as follows: If different kinds of grains that are saved by 12.5 cubits are not saved on top of the border wall, does this not apply a fortiori to melons that are saved only by twelve cubits?

HALAKHAH: “They established a comprehensive principle for the Sabbatical,” etc. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Zeïra: Human and animal food is mentioned in the paragraph. What reason do you have to say that from human food one cannot make a wound dressing but from animal feed one may make a wound dressing? He said to him (Lev. 25:6): “The Land’s Sabbath shall be for you as food”, an exclusion. It excludes human food that cannot be made into wound dressing. It also excludes animal feed! Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, any interpretation you give which contradicts the prior interpretation is not valid. Rebbi Yose did not say so, but (Lev. 25:6): “The Land’s Sabbath shall be for you as food”, an exclusion, “for you, your slave, and your handmaid”, an exclusion after an exclusion, to add that human food cannot be made into wound dressing. He added animal feed! As Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, any interpretation you give which contradicts the prior interpretation is not valid. Rebbi Mattaniah said, when you did exclude, you excluded from human food; when you included, you included animal feed.

If somebody established a lien for another person on his field and then went and sold it; Rebbi Aḥa said, it is temporarily sold. Rebbi Yose said, even temporarily it is not sold. The strength of Rebbi Yose is from the following: He may induce his ox to flee; he cannot induce his field to flee. Think about it, if [the field] was sold to a violent person! Rebbi Yudan, the father of Rebbi Mattaniah, said: Violent persons are apt to fall.

According to Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, what is between these Tannaïm and those rabbis? Rebbi Judan said, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish [is the one] who said following Rebbi Meïr, who said he is flogged and pays. Rebbi Ḥananiah said, he who puts fire to the grain stack of his neighbor on a holiday is between them. These Tannaïm think, since there is no extirpation, he pays. Those rabbis think, since there is flogging he does not pay. But then “these are the girls” cannot follow the rabbis! Rebbi Mattaniah said, he who sleeps with a bastard girl is between them.

‘If he found a harvesting basket in a place where most people bring to market, it is forbidden to eat a snack from them and he must put it in order as demay. In a place where most people bring to their houses, it is permitted to eat a snack from them and he must put it in order as certain. Half and half, he puts in order as demay but if he brings it to his house he must put it in order as certain.’ Rebbi Jonah asked, does demay create ṭevel for certain? If you would say so, does he not invert the order? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun, Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Yoẓadaq, he must spell out a condition and say: “If this is from those who bring to market, what I did is valid, otherwise, I did not do anything,” so that heave of the tithe should not contain ṭevel of the Great Heave. ‘Half and half on the field he puts in order as demay but if he brings it to his house he must put it in order as certain.’ Should one not be afraid that it was from those who bring to their houses and its Great Heave would contain ṭevel of heave of the tithe? Rebbi Mattaniah said, if he gives a name to his tithes.

What is between them? Rebbi Jonah said, pulling out of water is between them. The House of Shammai say, one pulls out of the water with pure hands but the House of Hillel say, one pulls out of the water with impure hands. It is stated: “These are the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the words of Rebbi Jehudah, he says that 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 pulling it out of water.” What is between them? Rebbi Mattaniah said, softening is between them. The House of Shammai say, one softens with pure hands but the House of Hillel say, one softens with impure hands.

It was stated: Rebbi Jehudah ben Bathyra says after it was made into separate cuttings. What is Rebbi Jehudah ben Bathyra’s reason? (Num. 15:20) “You shall lift it like the heave of the threshing floor.” Since heave of the threshing floor is taken after the end of processing, so this also is taken after the end of processing. Then after it was baked? Rebbi Mattaniah: It is compared to heave only for doughmaking.

Was is left? Rav Huna said, if you say that oats are a kind of spelt, they combine with wheat; foxtail is a kind of barley which does not combine with wheat! “Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, the remaining kinds all combine with one another.” There are Tannaїm who state: “All kinds combine with one another.” In the opinion of that outside Tanna, what is the difference between bitten and mixed? Rebbi Yudan, the father of Rebbi Mattaniah said, when he split and then added; it is obligated when biting, exempt when mixed.

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan and Rav Ḥisda, both say: they differ in the uninformed case. What are we dealing with? If it is certain that it lives off the old tree, everybody agrees it is permitted. If it is certain that it lives off the young tree, everybody agrees it is forbidden. We must be dealing with the uninformed case. How could one know? Rebbi Vivian in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: If the leaves are turned towards the young tree one may be sure that it lives from the old one; if the leaves are turned towards the old tree one may be sure that it lives from the young one. Rebbi Yudan bar Ḥanin said, a sign: He who eats from his neighbor’s is ashamed to look at him. Rebbi Yudan, the father of Rebbi Mattaniah said, explain it if the leaves have fallen off.

An ‘orlah walnut which one planted, and similarly, an egg of idol worship which turned into a chick. Rebbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rebbi Josia: Ḥizqiah and Cahana differ. Cahana said it is permitted, Ḥizqiah said it is forbidden. In the opinion of Ḥizqiah it should be impossible for an egg of idol worship to become a chick. What is this about? If someone squashed it, there is no chick. If he brought it inside the lattice enclosure, come and look: If he worshipped it it is not forbidden; because he brought it inside the grating should it be forbidden? Rebbi Yudan the father of Rebbi Mattaniah said, explain it if he used it to fence in the idol.

HALAKHAH: Mishnah: “One does not give hides to the tannery worker,” etc. How long? It should come like what Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Onias, the time needed to walk four miles. And here, if he gave his clothing to the Gentile fuller and found him treating them on the Sabbath, it is forbidden. Rebbi Yudan said, he should tell him not to do it. Rebbi Yudan, the father of Rebbi Mattaniah said, that is, for goodwill. But for a fee, he looks after his work.

If it was uncovered when it still was daylight he may cover it when it still is daylight. If it was uncovered after dark he may cover if after dark. If it was uncovered when it still was daylight and the day became holy for him? It was stated: One does not store hot water away after dark but one may add over it garments and vessels. How much must be on them that it be permitted to cover them? Rebbi Zeriqan in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: Even a handkerchief. Rebbi Zeˋira said, but only something of use. Rebbi Ḥinena said, everything is useful. Rebbi Mattaniah said, this is correct. If somebody would take a rag and put it on his head in the cold, would this not conquer the cold?

All categories of work they learned from the Tabernacle. What kind of ploughing was in the Tabernacle? They ploughed to plant dyestuff. How much does one have to plough to become liable? Rebbi Mattaniah said, enough to plant a leek. Rebbi Aḥa bar Rav said, enough to plant a wheat sprout. There, we have stated: “Two green melon seeds make liable, two squash seeds, two Egyptian bean seeds.” It was stated, two Median wheat kernels. Rebbi Samuel in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira: Since wheat was so much appreciated they treated it like garden vegetables that are not eaten. For everything which improves the soil one is liable because of ploughing: One who digs, who cuts, who inserts, who deposits dung, who hoes, who fertilizes, who sweeps, who sprinkles, who splits blocks, who clears forests, who sets fire to reed thickets or palm swamps, and following Rebbi Zeˋira a water canal prepares its banks for sowing, who removes stones, who builds terraces, who fills the rifts under olive trees, and who makes depressions for vines, and for anything which improves the soil one is liable because of ploughing.

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

“Rebbi Jehudah says, also one who brings out a dead locust in the most minute amount.” Therefore pure in the amount of a dried fig whether alive or dead. Rebbi Jehudah follows his own opinion since Rebbi Jehudah says one does not play with pure food. But is there not written, would you play with him as with a bird? Is it not permitted out of a prohibition? But is it not written, as with a bird? Rebbi Mattaniah said, since it is lacking slaughter it is as if impure.

HALAKHAH: 2. What kind of ploughing was in the Tabernacle? They ploughed to plant dyestuff. How much does one have to plough to become liable? Rebbi Mattaniah said, enough to plant a leek. Rebbi Aḥa bar Rav said, enough to plant a wheat sprout.

He shall write, not engrave. And he shall write, not dropping points. He shall write, not pouring. He shall write, not engrave; some Tannaïm state, he even may engrave. Rab Ḥisda said, he who says not to engrave, if the writing stands out as on a denar. He who says even to engrave, as on a writing tablet. And he shall write, not dropping points; Rebbi Yudan ben Rebbi Shalom and Rebbi Mattaniah: One said, if he did not connect the points; the other said, even if he connected the points. And he shall write, not pouring. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, those Orientals are very sophisticated. If one of them wants to write a secret letter to another, he writes with juice of gall-nuts. The recipient pours ink without gall over it, which is absorbed at the place of writing. If one did that on the Sabbath, what? Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both said, only if he wrote ink on ink and vermilion on vermilion. But if he wrote ink on vermilion or vermilion on ink, he is liable. Rebbi Isaac bar Mesharshia in the name of the rabbis there: He is liable twice, for erasing and for writing.

HALAKHAH: “One may add water to the yeast,” etc. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Jehudah in the name of Rav: Only he should not make it like a bosom. There is a question about the following: May one turn it over that the bosom is made by itself? Rebbi Mattaniah said, one may turn it on its side on condition not to do it on the Sabbath the way he does it on a weekday.

Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish were staying in Rebbi Isaac’s street. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish carried, according to his opinion, Rebbi Joḥanan did not carry, according to his opinion. Rebbi Joḥanan neither forbade nor carried; he said, let the dwellers in the alley be in error, lest they be intentional. What, did he carry or did he not carry? If you say that he carried, then Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion did change. If you say that he did not carry, it should be forbidden to the dwellers in the alley. Rebbi Joḥanan annulled his rights. Rebbi Aḥa said, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish forced Rebbi Joḥanan and he carried. Rebbi Mattaniah said, this is correct. What is Rebbi Meïr’s reason? They considered him as unintentional compared to intentional. What is the rabbis’ opinion? Since they are suspected of carrying they are as if intentional. They told him, if this be so then the haters of Rebbi Joḥanan should be considered like a Sadducee for the dwellers in the alley and it should become forbidden for the dwellers in the alley. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, a Sadducee is suspected of carrying; here what can you say? What is the difference between them? If it was built like a χ. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he puts a beam or a lath on one side and makes a door frame on the other side. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, even many beams do not make it permitted.

Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Amram, Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: Practice follows Rebbi Jehudah ben Bava. Rebbi Jehudah the father of Rebbi Mattaniah said, the Mishnah says so, “one makes planks for wells,” not for cisterns. But did we not state, “but for a private cistern one makes a partition of ten hand-breadths, the words of Rebbi Aqiba”? But therefore we must deal with public cisterns, and similarly “one makes planks for wells,” for public wells.

Rebbi Jehudah ben Shalom, Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazy in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan. They formulated the symphon according to Rebbi Meïr in Qiddušin. Rebbi Jeremiah: Rebbi Ḥananiah, the colleague of the rabbis, asked: Why does it have to follow Rebbi Meïr but not also the rabbis? Did not Rebbi Abbahu say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The following is the contract text: “I, X son of Y, contract a preliminary marriage with you, Z, daughter of U, on condition that I shall give you property A and definitively marry you by day B. If that day should pass without me having taken you in, I shall have no claim on you.” Why can he not say “on condition” but not double his stipulation? If he did not double his stipulation, could this eliminate the preliminary marriage? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, everywhere Rebbi Meïr holds that from “no” you infer “yes”, except here? Rebbi Mattaniah said, one is more restrictive in matters of incest and adultery.

When Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa went to a hostelry, when it was possible for him to put it in order, he did it. Otherwise he would spread out his clothing. He would put his staff at one place, his sandals at another, his wallet at another. Rabbi Mattaniah said, this you are saying if the hostel keeper was a Gentile. But if the hostel keeper was an Israel, he is not suspected to carry.

Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba asked before Rebbi Mana: It is impossible to eat without redemption since Temple property cannot leave without redemption. If one redeems and eats it, it would be as if one bought an axe with Sabbatical money. He said to him, the treasurer exchanges it through a third person. Rebbi Mattaniah said, why do we not explain it according to everybody, as Rebbi Joḥanan said, the words of Rebbi Yose because his vow precedes his declaration of abandonment. But here the vow of abandonment precedes his dedication. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it happened that they gave instructions following Rebbi Yose.

May one witness be believed? It is different here since one cannot control him; should we not worry and say, by the time somebody climbs up and goes out it will shine? The matter can be verified. If one witness says, this male was born on the Sabbath, one circumcises him on his word. Rebbi Immi was carrying on the result of elapsed time. Rebbi Mattaniah was carrying on the saying of the moon shining. Rebbi Immi was (carrying) [circumcising] on the saying of women, the sun was over Hippos.

Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, Rebbi Eleazar asked: If bulls and he-goats to be burned were taken out and brought back? It is obvious for us that in returning they do not make garments impure. What our problem is, do they make garments impure from the moment they started to be brought out? Rebbi Abba objected, did we not state: “They were carrying them on yokes. If the front carriers left the walls of the Temple courtyard while the back carriers did not yet leave, the front carriers make garments impure while the back carriers do not make garments impure until they also leave. After they left, these and those make garments impure.” Rebbi Yudan, Rebbi Mattaniah’s father, said, there is a difference, for it is written, then he shall take out, until he completely leave the domain from which it is taken out.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, Joḥanan is Joaḥaz. But is it not written: The first born Joḥanan, the first in kingdom. Rebbi Joḥanan said, Shallum is Sedekiah. But is it not written, the third Sedekiah, the fourth Shallum? Sedekiah, the third in birth, the fourth in kingdom. Sedekiah, because he accepted the judgment on himself, Shallum, because in his days the dynasty of David was completed. His name was neither Shallum nor Sedekiah but Mattaniah. That is what is written: The king of Babylon made his uncle Mattaniah king in his stead and changed his name into Sedekiah.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, Joḥanan is Joaḥaz. But is it not written: The first born Joḥanan, the first in kingdom. Rebbi Joḥanan said, Shallum is Sedekiah. But is it not written, the third Sedekiah, the fourth Shallum? Sedekiah, the third in birth, the fourth in kingdom. Sedekiah, because he accepted the judgment on himself, Shallum, because in his days the dynasty of David was completed. His name was neither Shallum nor Sedekiah but Mattaniah. That is what is written: The king of Babylon made his uncle Mattaniah king in his stead and changed his name into Sedekiah.

Rebbi Eleazar said, this follows the Elders of Galilea, for the Elders of Galilea say, it is forbidden to hand over food for two meals to a person suspect in matters of Sabbatical. Rebbi Mattaniah said, explain it as opinion of everybody, in case that etrogim are sold at an elevated price. As the following: The cedrats were scarce there when Rav Naḥman bar Jacob gave an etrog as gift to his son and told him, if you have acquired it and fulfilled its obligation, return it to me.

May one witness be believed? It is different here since one cannot control him; should we not worry and say, by the time somebody climbs up and goes out it will shine? The matter can be verified. If one witness says, this male was born on a Sabbath, one circumcises him on his word. It is dark at the end of the Sabbath, one carries (him) on his word. Rebbi Immi was carrying on the result of elapsed time. Rebbi Mattaniah was carrying on the saying of the moon shining. Rebbi Immi was circumcising on the saying of women, the sun was over Hippos.

Rav Huna instructed the Head of the Dispersion to go out in a chair. Rav Ḥisda asked, was it not stated, one does not go out in a chair, whether men or women? Even a student of the Sages does not err in this matter, and Rebbi Huna erred? Rebbi Jeremiah instructed Bar Gerontios the healer to be carried on a sheet when going visiting the sick on the Sabbath. Miasha the grandson of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi was carried on a sheet when going preaching in public on the Sabbath. Rebbi Zeriqan said to Rebbi Ze`ira, when you go to the South, ask about this. It was asked from Rebbi Simon. Rebbi Simon told them in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, not only for the needs of the public but also for a possible need of the public. Example: Rebbi Eliezer, Rebbi Abba Mari, and Rebbi Mattaniah instructed {to bring} bread to Ursicinus on the Sabbath, for a possible need of the public.

“Nor sail on water” Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: This implies that it is forbidden to set something under sail to send it away from him. And similarly, it is forbidden to set something under sail to bring it to him. Rebbi Abba Mari and Rebbi Mattaniah were sitting. They saw a person splitting the water to both sides and drinking. Rebbi Abba Mari said to Rebbi Mattaniah, this is what Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi in the name of Rebbi Abbahu, a person is forbidden to set something under sail to send it away from him. He answered, it is what we have stated, “a person may break open an amphora to eat dried figs from it”

“Nor sail on water” Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: This implies that it is forbidden to set something under sail to send it away from him. And similarly, it is forbidden to set something under sail to bring it to him. Rebbi Abba Mari and Rebbi Mattaniah were sitting. They saw a person splitting the water to both sides and drinking. Rebbi Abba Mari said to Rebbi Mattaniah, this is what Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi in the name of Rebbi Abbahu, a person is forbidden to set something under sail to send it away from him. He answered, it is what we have stated, “a person may break open an amphora to eat dried figs from it”

Rav Jehudah bar Ezechiel said, so was my father Ezechiel used to recite for rainfall: May Your Name be magnified, sanctified, praised, and elevated, our King, for every drop that You bring down to us, and you make them refrain one from the other. [As it is said,] for He reduces water drippings; they combine as rain for a flood, as one says, the valuation will be reduced. Rebbi Yudan, the father of Rebbi Mattaniah, said, not only that, but He brings them down in measure, as it is said: Water He determined by measure.” Rebbi Yose bar Jacob went to visit Rebbi Yudan from Migdal. While he was there, rain started to come down and he heard his voice saying: Thousands of thousands we are obliged to thank Your Name, our King, for every drop that You bring down to us, for You do good things for the guilty ones. He said to him: From where do you have this? He said to him: This is the benediction that Rebbi Simon recited for rainfall.

“And the public assembly.” Rebbi Abba, son of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, said, because of horn blowing. Rebbi Isaac ben Rebbi Ḥiyya said, because of the platform. Could they not make it the day before? Not to compress the courtyard. Rebbi Mattaniah said, because of you shall not plant any wooden Ashera.

According to Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, what is between these Tannaim and those rabbis? Prohibitions without extirpation. Rebbi Judan said, he who sleeps with a bastard girl is between them. Rebbi Ḥananiah said, he who puts fire to the grain stack of his neighbor on a holiday is between them. These Tannaim think, since there is no extirpation, he pays. Those rabbis think, since there is flogging he does not pay. But then “these are the adolescent girls who can claim a fine” cannot follow the rabbis! Rebbi Mattaniah said, explain it according to everybody if it refers to a bastard male who sleeps with a bastard girl But is his brother’s wife not his sister-in-law? Explain it that the man’s brother had children and had performed the preliminary wedding with a woman when he died and his brother came and raped her.

Rebbi Mana said in the name of Rebbi Jehudah who said in the name of Rebbi Yose the Galilean: If one interrupted so that he would have been able to read all of it, he did not fulfill his duty. Rebbi Abba, Rav Jeremiah in the name of Rav: The practice follows Rebbi Mana who said in the name of Rebbi Jehudah who said in the name of Rebbi Yose the Galilean, “if one interrupted.”. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Josadaq: The same applies to Hallel and the Esther Scroll. Abba bar Rav Huna and Rav Ḥisda sat together and said, the same rule applies to blowing the Shofar. They went up to (Rebbi’s) <rav’s> Yeshivah and heard Rav Ḥuna in the name of Rav: Even if one heard it in up to nine hours he fulfilled his obligation. Rebbi Ze`ira said: When I was there, this was a problem for me. When I came here, I heard Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Even if one heard it during an entire day, one has fulfilled one’s obligation. But only if one heard it in the correct order. Rebbi Yose investigated: If one needed to hear the initial simple tone and another one the final simple tone, one blow of the Shofar serves the requirements of both of them. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya investigated: The recitation of Shema` with its benedictions, the recitation of Shema` without its benedictions, its benedictions without it? If he interrupted after a third, interrupted after a second third? Does one estimate by the reader’s speed or by the average speed of all men? Rebbi Mattaniah said, is it not reasonable by the reader’s?

“And for the Red Cow if his hands became impure so became his body.” Rebbi Ḥanina said, not that they introduced new impurities for the Red Cow but they said, he who becomes impure in an easy impurity is like one who became impure in severe impurity. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: And it shall be collected by a man, why does the verse say, pure? Think of it. Even if you collect it by a shovel, the Torah requires pure. Where do we hold? If a metal shovel, but also flat metal implements are subject to impurity. If a wooden shovel, is it not held together because of something subject to impurity? Rav Hoshaia said, explain it if he collects it with a plank. Then it is impossible that he should not carry it. Rebbi Yudan, the father of Rebbi Mattaniah, said, explain it if he collects it with a coarse cross-beam. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal asked before Rebbi Immi: what is the difference between a person pure for the Red Cow and an empty vessel pure for the Red Cow? He answered him, And it shall be collected by a pure, why does the the verse say, man? Only to prescribe extraordinary purity to the man to handle the water for ashes of the Red Cow and the ashes of the Red Cow. Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: The moving which I declared pure for you for crawling animals I declared impure for you here.

Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked: may a fistful be offered from two vessels? Rebbi Ḥanin objected, did we not state, “the vessel combines”? If you would say that a fistful can be offered from two vessels, for which purpose did we state “the vessel combines”? Rebbi Eleazar the Southerner said, did not Rebbi Yose bar Zamina say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, why did they say, leftovers of flour-offerings do combine together? Because they need their vessel. Here also because they have to be in their vessel. Rebbi Mattaniah said, are not fine flour, and incense, and frankincense, and coals offered in many vessels? Nevertheless you are saying, “the vessel combines”; and here “the vessel combines”. Cahana asked the rabbis there, a flour-offering split in the mixing bowl, if one became impure did the other become impure? They said to him, if one became impure the other became impure. Did impurity jump? They said to him, impurity did jump. Even if another {vessel} was in between? They said to him, even if another {vessel} was in between. Taking a fistful from one on the other? They said to him, we did not hear any tradition, we studied a Mishnah, as what we did state there, “if two flour offerings from which no fistfuls were taken were combined together, if he is able to take a fistful from one separately and from the other separately they are qualified, otherwise disqualified.” Do not the remainders of one interrupt between one and the other? There came Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If a fistful was taken from one for the other, if one became impure he other became impure. Anything in-between did not become impure. Was it not stated, “one cup? Which makes its contents one.” Rebbi Ḥinena said, a vessel combines only what is tied to it.

“A woman does adorn herself on the holiday.” The following are women’s adornments: She braids, and puts on kohl, and combs her hair, and removes hair and fingernails, and moves a grating instrument over her face. Rebbi Yudan the father of Rebbi Mattaniah said, the baraita is in clean language.

Rebbi Yudan, the father of Rebbi Mattaniah said: Explain it when they died without having repudiated since there is a Mishnah: “If a woman could repudiate but did not do so, her co-wife performs ḥalîṣah but cannot be married in levirate.” So is the Mishnah: “If a woman could repudiate but did not dies, her co-wife performs ḥalîṣah but cannot be married in levirate.” Rebbi Abba Mari said, you may even say if she still lives; explain it if her father is the only levir.

Rav said: In all cases where the female is forbidden by the Torah, the wife of the corresponding male is forbidden. The father’s sister is forbidden as female; the wife of the father’s brother, the corresponding male, is forbidden. The mother’s sister is forbidden as female; the wife of the mother’s brother, the corresponding male, is forbidden His son’s daughter is forbidden as female; the wife of his son’s son, the corresponding male, is forbidden His daughter’s daughter is forbidden as female; the wife of his daughter’s son, the corresponding male, is forbidden Rebbi Jacob the Southerner said before Rebbi Yose, there are another two. His mother is biblical. His mother’s mother is secondary to her. They forbade his father’s mother because of his mother’s mother. His son’s wife is biblical. His son’s son’s wife is secondary to her. They forbade his daughter’s son’s wife because of his son’s son’s wife. Rebbi Mattaniah said, there are another two. His father’s wife is biblical. His paternal grandfather’s wife is secondary to her. They forbade his maternal grandfather’s wife because of his paternal grandfather’s wife. His father’s paternal brother’s wife is biblical. His father’s maternal brother’s wife is secondary to her. They forbade his mother’s maternal halfbrother’s wife because of his father’s maternal brother’s wife.

HALAKHAH: “Four brothers, two of whom are married to two sisters,” etc. If there were four brothers, two of whom are married to unrelatedwomen, would they not be subject to levirate? There is a difference, since here there is the prohibition of sisters. In that case, they should not need ḥalîṣah from them! Rebbi Mattaniah said, it is because of candidacy and the prohibition of sisters is not clear.

How do we hold? If he came to her immediately after her husband’s death, and the fetus was recognized after two months, one should have stated: A nine-month child of either one of them or a seven-month of either one of them! But it may be that he came to her after two months and the fetus was recognized after three months, one should have stated: The sister-in-law should not perform ḥalîṣah or be married in levirate until after five months! But it must be that he came to her after 40 days and the fetus was recognized after 50 days. That would be complete months for [a child of] the first [brother] and incomplete ones for the second. This implies that a woman may give birth after full months. This implies that there are two creations. This implies that a woman may give birth after incomplete months. This implies that a woman may become pregnant repeatedly. This implies that a woman cannot become pregnant simultaneously from two men. And it disagrees with the sermonizing rabbis, since the sermonizing rabbis say “the middleman” “from the orders of the Philistines”, from 100 prepuces of Philistines, that 100 prepuces of Philistines touched her. Rebbi Mattaniah said, there is no disagreement. As long as the semen is not spoiled, a woman can become pregnant from several men simultaneously. After the semen is spoiled, a woman cannot become pregnant from several men simultaneously.

“He acquired her and there is no difference between intercourse and intercourse.” What did he acquire? Samuel said, he acquired only the things spelled out in the paragraph: To inherit the deceased’s property, (to be betrothed by a brother), and to permit her co-wife to the outside. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he acquired everything. Rebbi Isaac ben Eleazar said, when do they disagree? If he touched her. But if he completed the intercourse, everybody agrees that he acquired everything. Rebbi Mattaniah said, when do they disagree? If he had intercourse with her still in her father’s house. But if he had intercourse with her still in her husband’s house, everybody agrees that he acquired everything. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah said: If he married her, she is his wife in every respect.

“The deaf-and-dumb disables.” Did not Rebbi Ḥiyya state: “The wife of the deaf-and-dumb or the insane immerses herself from her husband’s bosom and eats”? Rebbi Abba Mari and Rebbi Mattaniah, one said, a disqualified deaf-and-dumb, the other said, a deaf-and-dumb levir.

HALAKHAH: “A slave disables because of intercourse,” etc. From where that the intercourse with a slave disables? Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Ismael: “If a Cohen’s daughter becomes a widow or a divorcee without issue,” from [a man] with whom she has widowhood or divorce she returns, from [a man] with whom she has no relation of widowhood or divorce she does not return. Rebbi Jeremiah objected: But if a widow whored she has no widowhood or divorce and she returns! Rebbi Yose did not say so, but [he held] that the argument of Rebbi Joḥanan is reversed. In Giṭṭin he says, why are Samaritans disqualified? Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Ismael: Because if a Gentile or a slave has intercourse with a Jewish woman, the child is a bastard. In Qiddushin one says, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both say, the child is a bastard. Here he says it in his own name but there he says it in the name of Rebbi Ismael! For also according to the words of the Sages the child is a bastard. Rebbi Ḥizqiah did not say so, but: the argument of Rebbi Joḥanan is reversed. In Giṭṭin he says, why are Samaritans disqualified? Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Ismael: Because if a Gentile or slave has intercourse with a Jewish woman, the child is a bastard. In Qiddushin one says, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both say, the child is a bastard. Here he says, from [a man] with whom she has widowhood or divorce she returns, from [a man] with whom she has no relation of widowhood or divorce she does not return. Rebbi Mattaniah said, I went to Seḥora and heard: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Ismael the sons of Jesua: “If a Cohen’s daughter becomes a widow or a divorcee without issue,” from [a man] with whom she has widowhood or divorce she returns, from [a man] with whom she has no relation of widowhood or divorce she does not return. And I said, that is correct, there is no bastard, following Rebbi Joshua, for a bastard is only from a woman which is for him under an incest prohibition and for whom one is punished by divine extirpation.

Rebbi Mattaniah said, they made a fence about situations that occur frequently but not about rare situations. A man frequently travels overseas; it is infrequent that a woman travels overseas.

Rebbi Yudan, the father of Rebbi Mattaniah said: Explain it when they died and did not repudiate since there is a Mishnah: “If a woman could repudiate but did not do so and died, her co-wife performs ḥalîṣah but cannot be married in levirate.” Rebbi Eudaimon said, you may even say if she still lives; explain it if there is no levir besides her father.

“One who says, I am impure” Is it not like a purification offering whose owners died? And for a purification offering whose owners died, the money should be thrown into the Dead Sea. It is compared to a hung reparation offering. If it is compared to a hung reparation offering, even if it was sanctified in a Temple vessel! Rebbi Mattaniah said, it is compared to a hung reparation offering that was slaughtered, as we stated there: “If it became clear to him after it was slaughtered, the blood has to be poured out and the meat has to be taken out to the burning place.”

Rebbi Joḥanan said, Joḥanan is Joaḥaz. But is it not written: “The first born Joḥanan”? The first in kingdom. Rebbi Joḥanan said, Shallum is Sedekia. But is not written: “The third Sedekiah, the fourth Shallum”? The third to be born, the fourth in kingdom. “Sedekiah” because he accepted the judgment on himself. “Shallum” because in his days the dynasty of David was completed. His name was neither Shallum nor Sedekiah but Mattaniah. That is what is written: “The king of Babylon made his uncle Mattaniah king in his stead and changed the latter’s name to Sedekiah.”

Rebbi Joḥanan said, Joḥanan is Joaḥaz. But is it not written: “The first born Joḥanan”? The first in kingdom. Rebbi Joḥanan said, Shallum is Sedekia. But is not written: “The third Sedekiah, the fourth Shallum”? The third to be born, the fourth in kingdom. “Sedekiah” because he accepted the judgment on himself. “Shallum” because in his days the dynasty of David was completed. His name was neither Shallum nor Sedekiah but Mattaniah. That is what is written: “The king of Babylon made his uncle Mattaniah king in his stead and changed the latter’s name to Sedekiah.”

If he performed the preliminary marriage in the bridal chamber, these strictures do not apply. They said that Rebbi Mattaniah acted thus for his daughter. In the opinion of Rebbi Eleazar, could she be married any day at a place where courts are in session every day? And at a place where there are no courts (every day) could she never be married? One does not want to abolish the time of Wednesday. Why does one not want to abolish the time of Wednesday? Because he also accepts what Bar Qappara stated. Bar Qappara said, because a blessing is written there. Could she not be married on Sunday, that he might quickly go to court on Monday? Some want to say, not to abolish the time of Wednesday; some want to say, because of what Bar Qappara stated, for Bar Qappara said, because a blessing is written there.

According to Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, what is between these Tannaïm and those rabbis? Prohibitions without extirpation. Rebbi Judan said, he who sleeps with a bastard girl is between them. Rebbi Ḥananiah said, he who puts fire to the grain stack of his neighbor on a holiday is between them. These Tannaïm think, since there is no extirpation, he pays. Those rabbis think, since there is flogging he does not pay. But then “these are the adolescent girls who can claim a fine” cannot follow the rabbis! Rebbi Mattaniah said, explain it according to everybody if it refers to a bastard male who sleeps with a bastard girl.

So far payments that are consequences of sexual relations. If somebody injured her, blinded one of her eyes, cut off one of her hands, broke one of her legs? To whom does he pay, to her or to her father? Rebbi Joḥanan said, he pays to her father; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he pays to her. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is of the opinion that her earnings belong to her even before she becomes an adult. Rebbi Joḥanan says, only after she comes of age. Rebbi Abin in the name of Rebbi Hila: They disagree before she comes of age, but after she is an adult everybody agrees that all belongs to her. A baraita supports either one of them. A baraita supports Rebbi Joḥanan: If somebody injures somebody else’s daughter or son, the payments for the son must be given immediately; those for the daughter shall be held as property value. Rebbi Yudan, the father of Rebbi Judah the father of Rebbi Mattaniah, said that some state it so that beginning and end support Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: If somebody injures his own underage daughter, diminution of value belong to her and he is free from paying for shame and diminution of value. If others injure her, diminution of values belong to her, the rest shall be transformed into property value, but payments for shame and diminution of value belong to her father.

What is the situation of grandchildren? Rebbi Mana said, [grandchildren are like children. Rebbi Yose said, grandchildren are not like children.] Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina and Rebbi Mattaniah were sitting together. They wanted to say, the same situation applies to grandchildren here as there. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina said to him, inheritance by biblical law jumped on grandchildren.

“If she had compromised her ketubah, she shall not be able to collect without an oath,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: One pays from an orphan’s property only a document on which interest is due, and some say, also a woman’s ketubah. Rebbi Yannai said, because of her sustenance. Rebbi Mattaniah said, who is worried about sustenance? Rebbi Simeon! Since Rebbi Simeon said, it depends on the collection. What about it? For attraction, that everybody should jump to marry her. Some say, also for robbery and torts. Rebbi Yose said, we stated both of these. Robbery from the following: “If it was mortgageable, he has to pay.” For torts from the following: “One pays from an orphan’s property only from the least valuable.” So is the Mishnah: One pays for torts from an orphan’s property only from the least valuable. But was it not stated: If the son took his father’s place, one estimates torts from the most valuable land, creditors from average quality, and a woman’s ketubah from the least valuable. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, here about an adult orphan, there about an underage orphan.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody was married to two wives,” etc. Rebbi Yose said, this means that if somebody borrowed from two persons and the second comes and says to him, get up and let us settle, and [the borrower] says, will not in the end the first hear of it and come to foreclose, he [the second lender] may say let us settle, and if he forecloses, he forecloses. If he settled, one may assume that the first will come and foreclose. If he settled with the first, Rebbi Phineas said, such a case came before Rebbi Jeremiah who said, he settled. Rebbi Yose said, did he not write “what I shall acquire”? It happens only with an heir. Rebbi Ḥanina said, even with a creditor it can happen if he did not write “anything I shall acquire”, or if he said, “you shall not be paid except from this.” Rav Mattaniah said, this follows him who said, for ketubah but not for stipulations. But for him who said, for ketubah and for stipulations, does it not return?

It was stated: šĕbutâ, šĕquqâ; Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: šĕbuqa, šĕqu‘â, šĕqurâ. “A vow”, when he made a vow by Moy, by the oath which Moses vowed, “and Moses accepted the curse.” Rebbi Jonah asked, why do we not say, by the oath which Saul vowed, “Saul menaced the people with a curse”? By my right hand, that is a vow, by my left hand, that is a vow. Rebbi Mattaniah said, for it is written: “He lifted his right hand and his left hand to the Heavens and swore by the Eternally Living.”

Did not the snake of king Sapor swallow camels and carts? When they wanted to kill it, they filled camel bags with straw and put glowing coals inside; it swallowed them and died. Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi said, I saw a snake skin which filled the space between two columns. Rebbi Samuel bar Jacob said, I saw a snake skin which covered the genii of government. Samuel said, square. Could you say it was not square, why must it be large? Even if it was small! Rebbi Mattaniah said, it is the way of this Tanna to speak only about large things. You should know that it is so, for we have stated: “A flying camel”. Could he not have stated “a flying rat”?

“Both are forbidden to put a grindstone or an oven up there, or to raise chickens there.” This is needed for Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob, for what he states about “partners who mutually made vows not to have usufruct from one another.” Because they mutually made vows not to have usufruct from one another, does this imply that if they had not made vows not to have usufruct from one another, they would be presumed to concede one to the other? Rebbi Jeremiah said, partners have the custom to concede one to the other in these matters. There, we have stated: “The following establish presumption of ownership.” Rebbi Eleazar said, if somebody raises chickens in a courtyard in which he does not dwell, this establishes presumption of ownership. Rebbi Yose said, this is correct. As you look at it, if he had the right to raise them, he raised them. If he had no right to raise them, he established a presumption of ownership. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Benaiah: Partners can veto any activity of the other party in a courtyard except for washing, for the honor of the daughters of Israel. Rebbi Mattaniah said, that is, at a place where women wash, but not at a place where men wash. And what you say except for washing in the courtyard [applies to] the entire courtyard except for the four cubits of that party where one cannot hinder anything. But if the place was at an incline, one can veto even within the four cubits of another party since one might say to him, you pour out and it flows down to my place. It was stated: The place of an oven or a hearth does not establish a presumption of ownership, but roofing of any size on top of them establishes a presumption of ownership. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, only if the wall is useful for the oven.

“I am” is a handle for nezirut, “I am obligated” is a handle for qorban. Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaiah: one catches him because of a handle for qorbān. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked, if he said, I shall not eat from you, does one catch him because of a handle of an oath? Rebbi Yose said, people usually say “an oath that I shall not eat from yours;” do they ever say “that I shall not eat from yours, an oath”? Rebbi Mattaniah said, people usually say “handle of an axe”; do they ever say “axe of a handle”?

If he is still there, Rebbi Joḥanan said, one warns him about everything for every possible leaving, and he is whipped. Rebbi Eleazar said, he does not accept [warning] unless he leaves and returns. Rebbi Abba said: So did Rebbi Joḥanan answer Rebbi Eleazar: Is it not written, “he shall not come” and “he may not defile himself”? He said to him, if they warned him because of “he shall not come”, he is whipped; because of “he shall not defile himself” he is not whipped. Rebbi Hila said, Rebbi Joḥanan learned from prostrating, as we have stated there: “If he prostrated himself or stayed there long enough to prostrate himself.” Rebbi Mattaniah said, we thought that was where they do disagree? About lashes, but not about a sacrifice. Since Rebbi Hila said, Rebbi Joḥanan learned from prostrating, that means that lashes and sacrifices are one and the same. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “A nazir who drank wine the entire day is guilty only once.” He explains it, that his throat was never empty. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “If he was defiling himself for the dead the entire day, he is guilty only once.” He explains it about one who waits before every leaving, who is whipped. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: If a Cohen was standing in a cemetery and they were handing another corpse to him, could he accept? The verse says, “the husband shall be defiled for his family.” If he accepted it, I could think that he was guilty. The verse says, “to be profaned”. One who adds impurity to the impurity; that excludes him who does not add impurity to his impurity. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, Rebbi Neḥemiah said, “to be profaned”, that excludes him who does not add impurity to his impurity, lest he say, because I became defiled for my father I may go and collect the bones of X. “To be profaned”, at the time of death; Rebbi said, also “in their death.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, they disagree. It follows that Rebbi Simeon bar Abba follows Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. When Simeon bar Abba was dying, he said, this should be taken out here, that should be taken out there.

HALAKHAH: “A woman who had made a vow of nazir,” etc. Does this mean it became holy by dedication? But if a third person gave her a gift and said, on condition that your husband have no right of disposition over it, then it is hers. Rebbi Mattaniah said, if he gave her power over his properties. If he comes to protest, it did not become holy; otherwise, it became holy.

There, we have stated: “Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah says, He made error equal to intent for substitution, but not for sacrifices.” Ḥizqiah said, in error: a prohibition, the one who substitutes: a prohibition. If he wants to say “profane” but said “an elevation sacrifice”, it is sanctified. If he wants to say “an elevation sacrifice” but said “profane”, it is not sanctified. It follows that Rebbi Joḥanan, interpreting Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah, parallels Rebbi Jeremiah’s explanation regarding the House of Shammai on sacrifices. In Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion, may one understand that “He made error equal to intent for substitution, but not for sacrifices,” if somebody dedicates a firstling? Can it be dedicated? Did not Rebbi Ḥiyya, Rebbi Aḥa, and Rebbi Yasa say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If somebody dedicated a firstling and it was brought to the altar, it is not sanctified even for its money’s worth. If somebody dedicated a blemished animal for the altar, even as a substitute it is not sanctified. But if somebody dedicated an animal with a temporary blemish. Is that consistent with whipping? Rebbi Yudan, Rebbi Mattaniah’s father, said, explain it if he gave unblemished animals for the upkeep of the Temple.

Do stillbirths generate “decay”? For him who says that their blood induces impurity by a quartarius they generate “decay”; for him who says that their blood does not induce impurity by a quartarius, do they generate “decay”? Let us hear from the following: “Why is the dust from small heaps impure? Because women bury there their stillbirths.” Rebbi Yudan, the father of Rebbi Mattaniah, said: Would it not be reasonable otherwise, that lepers bury their limbs there? You must say that it is because of “decay”, not because a bone the size of a lentil, since it was stated: “If he took some dust from it and replaced it, [the small heap] is pure.” Explain it following Tannaïm, as it was stated: If one removed it, it remains impure; Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel declares it pure.

HALAKHAH: “One writes with anything,” etc. “He shall write”, not engrave. “He shall write”, not dropping points. “He shall write”, not pouring. “He shall write”, not engrave; some Tannaïm state, he even may engrave. Rav Ḥisda said, he who says not to engrave, if the writing stands out as on a denar. He who says even to engrave, as on a writing tablet. “He shall write”, not dropping points; Rebbi Yudan bar Shalom and Rebbi Mattaniah: One said, if he did not connect the points; the other said, even if he connected the points. “He shall write”, not pouring. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, those Orientals are very sophisticated. If one of them wants to write a secret letter to another, he writes with juice of gall-nuts. The recipient pours ink without gall over it, which is absorbed at the place of the writing. If one did that on the Sabbath, what? There, we have stated: “Writing on top of writing is not prosecutable.” Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both said, only if he wrote ink on ink or vermilion on vermilion. But if he wrote ink on vermilion or vermilion on ink, he is guilty. Rebbi Isaac bar Mesharshia in the name of the rabbis from there: He is doubly guilty, once for erasing and once for writing.

HALAKHAH: “One cannot collect for usufruct,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: One pays from an orphan’s property only a document on which interest is due, and some say, also a woman’s ketubah. Rebbi Yannai said, because of her sustenance. Rebbi Mattaniah said, who is worried about sustenance? Rebbi Simeon! Since Rebbi Simeon said, it depends on the collection. What about it? For attraction, that everybody should be eager to marry her. Some say, also for robbery and torts. Rebbi Yose said, we stated both of these. Robbery from the following: “If it was mortgageable, he has to pay.” For torts from the following: “One pays from an orphan’s property only from the least valuable.” So is the Mishnah: One pays for torts from an orphan’s property only from the least valuable. But was it not stated: If the son took his father’s place, one estimates torts from the most valuable land, creditors from average quality, and a woman’s ketubah from the least valuable. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, there about an adult orphan, here about an underage orphan.

What is the situation of grandchildren? Rebbi Mana said, grandchildren are like children. Rebbi Yose said, grandchildren are not like children. Rebbi Samuel, son of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina and Rebbi Mattaniah were sitting together. They wanted to say, the same situation applies to grandchildren here as there. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina said to them, inheritance by biblical law jumped on grandchildren.

HALAKHAH: “A Hebrew slave is acquired by money,” etc. It is written: “If your Hebrew brother or sister be sold to you,” he bracketed the male Hebrew with the female. Since the female Hebrew can be acquired by money or contract, also the male Hebrew can be acquired by money or contract. One understands money since it is written: “She leaves gratis, without money [due].” From where by contract? The female Hebrew is inferred from the free woman, and the male Hebrew from the female. This is a combination of inferences. That follows Rebbi Aqiba who accepts combination of inferences. Following Rebbi Ismael who rejects combination of inferences? It was found that Rebbi Ismael stated: In the case of the word חֻפְשָׁה, “free” is inferred from חֻפְשָׁה. Everywhere Rebbi Ismael rejects combination of inferences and here, he accepts combination of inferences? Rebbi Ismael stated it in the name of the Sages. From where is it derived for Rebbi Ismael? “Sending away, sending away.” Since “sending away” mentioned there means by a contract, also “sending away” here means by a contract. But it does not compare. There it is to gain autonomy, here it is to be acquired by others! Rebbi Mattaniah said, “sale, sale”. Since “sale” mentioned there means by a contract, “sale” here also means by a contract. But since there it is possible by possession, then here it should be possible by possession. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, the male Hebrew is like the female Hebrew.

“By money”. “The money of his sale price shall be;” he can be redeemed by money, not by produce nor by vessels. Everywhere you treat money’s worth like money, but here you do not treat money’s worth like money. Rebbi Abba Mari said, there is a difference, because the verse repeated “money, of money”. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, but if he wants to reduce, he can leave for the reduced amount even for produce, even for vessels. Rebbi Yudan, Rebbi Mattaniah’s father, said that this is only if he did not give them their money’s worth. But if he gave them their money’s worth, it is like money.

“As a slave girl.” Only as a slave girl: this teaches that he may sell her on condition that he not have the right of allotment over her, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, he did not do anything, for he stipulated against what is written in the Torah, “and the stipulation of anybody who stipulates against what is written in the Torah is invalid.” But does Rebbi Meïr not agree that “the stipulation of anybody who stipulates against what is written in the Torah is invalid”? He accepts it if it is impossible to keep the stipulation in the end, but here it is possible to keep the stipulation in the end. Do the rabbis not agree about a stipulation which it is possible to keep in the end? They agree to it in money matters, but this is a personal matter. But did we not state: A person may marry a woman and stipulate with her that she have no claim on him for food, clothing, or marital relations? One understands food and clothing. But are marital relations not a personal matter? Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, explain it for an underage girl. How can that Tanna explain “as a slave girl”? He may sell her as a widow to the High Priest, as a divorcee or one who received ḥălîṣah to a common priest. How can that Tanna explain “as a servant”? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, explain it by a widow from preliminary marriage. But was it not stated: A person may sell his daugher into marriage and repeat, into servitude and repeat, into marriage after servitude, but not into servitude after marriage? Rebbi Joḥanan said, these are different Tannaïm. He who states “a widow to the High Priest” agrees to servitude after marriage; he who does not state “a widow to the High Priest” does not agree to servitude after marriage. How does the latter Tanna explain “as a servant”? Rebbi Mattaniah said, explain it if [the master] was married to her sister.

“But the Sages say, small animals are taken possession of by drawing near.” What is the reason of the rabbis? “Draw near and take for yourselves small animals for your families.” As Rav Jehudah sent to ask: By what means is possession of large animals established? He answered, by handing over; and asked, is that not the Mishnah? There are Tannaïm who switch the attributions. Rav Jehudah asked Rebbi Eleazar: If a firstborn became “torn” within thirty days? He answered, he is as if dead and free from the five tetradrachmas of a son. Rav Jehudah sent and asked Rebbi Eleazar: A placenta which was delivered partially today and partially tomorrow? He answered, for pure blood she counts from the first day, for impure blood from the second day. Rebbi Mattaniah said, that is, if no child was produced with it. But if there was a child, both for pure and impure blood she counts only from the moment of birth of the child.

There, we have stated: “Any real estate is subject to peah and first fruits, the words of Rebbi Aqiba.” What is the use of “any” real estate? Rebbi Mattaniah said, explain it if it had space for one stalk but a pearl was hidden in it.

Rebbi Jehudah bar Sisin, Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazy in the name of Rebbi Aḥa. They formulated the symphōn according to Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Ḥananiah, the colleague of the rabbis, asked: Why does it have to follow Rebbi Meïr but not also the rabbis? Did not Rebbi Abbahu say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The following is the contract text: “I, X son of Y, contract a preliminary marriage with you, Z, daughter of U, on condition that I shall give you property A and definitively marry you by day B. If that day should pass without me having taken you in, I shall have no claim on you.” Why can he not say “on condition” but not double his stipulation? If he did not double his stipulation, could this eliminate the preliminary marriage? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, everywhere Rebbi Meïr holds that from “no” you infer “yes”, except here? Rebbi Mattaniah said, one is more restrictive in matters of incest and adultery.

Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Banaiah. Everything the co-owners can prevent one another from doing in the courtyard except laundering because of the honor of the daughters of Israel. Rebbi Mattaniah said, this is at a place where women do the laundering, but not at a place where men do the laundering. And what was said, except laundering because of the honor of the daughters of Israel, only that in his own four cubits he may prevent it. And what was said, everything the co-owners can prevent one another from doing in the courtyard, in the entire courtyard except in the other person’s own four cubits where he cannot prevent him. But if the place was at an incline, even in the other person’s own four cubits he can prevent him, since he may tell him: you are pouring out in your domain but it flows down into mine.

If she fell sick and was healed, the medical costs are on the estate. It was stated: “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, for any hurt which has a fixed medical fee, she is healed from her ketubah; if it does not have a fixed medical fee, she is healed from the estate.” As the following: The eye of a female relative of Rebbi Simeon bar Abba hurt. She came to Rebbi Joḥanan. He asked her: Did your doctor mention a fixed fee? If [the fee] is fixed, from your ketubah, if it is not fixed, your husband will give it to you. But did we not state: “Do not turn yourself into a pleader”, and did not Rebbi Ḥaggai say in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, it is forbidden to disclose a judgment to a party? They said, Rebbi Joḥanan knew her to be an honest woman; therefore, he disclosed it to her. If her husband wants a treatment at a fixed rate, but she wants one without fixed rate, does one not listen to her husband? Rebbi Mattaniah said, only if the case not be before him. But if the case be before him, he has to tell it as it is.

There, we have stated: “Rebbi Aqiba says, any real estate …” Rebbi Mattaniah said, explain it if it had space for one stalk but a pearl was hidden in it.