meir

If a man fell into water, whether it had [a visible] end or not, his wife is forbidden [to marry again]. Rabbi Meir said: it once happened that a man fell into a large cistern and came out after three days. Rabbi Yose: it once happened that a blind man descended into a cave to immerse and his guide went down after him; and after waiting long enough for their souls to depart, permission was given to their wives to marry again. Another incident occurred at Asia where a man was lowered into the sea, and only his leg was brought up, and the Sages ruled: [if the recovered leg contained the part] above the knee [the man’s wife] may marry again, [but if it contained only the part] below the knee, she may not marry again.

When an adult has had sexual intercourse with a young girl, or when a small boy has had intercourse with an adult woman, or a girl who was injured by a piece of wood [in all these cases] their kethubah is two hundred [zuz], the words of Rabbi Meir. But the Sages say: a girl who was injured by a piece of wood her kethubah is a maneh.

Although [the Sages] have said: a virgin collects two hundred and a widow one maneh, if he wishes to add, even a hundred maneh, he may do so. If she was widowed or divorced, either after betrothal or after marriage, she is entitled to collect the entire amount. Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah says: [a woman widowed or divorced] after marriage receives the entire amount; After betrothal [but before marriage], a virgin collects two hundred zuz and a widow only one maneh, for the man wrote her [the additional amount] in order to marry her. Rabbi Judah says: if he wishes he may write for a virgin a document for two hundred zuz and she writes “I have received from you a maneh”, or for a widow [he may write a document for] a maneh and she writes, “I have received from you fifty zuz”. Rabbi Meir says: Any man who gives a virgin less than two hundred zuz or a widow less than a maneh is engaging in licentious sex.

If a man consecrated his wife’s handiwork, she continues to work and to consume [that which she makes]. [Concerning the] surplus: Rabbi Meir says: it is consecrated. Rabbi Yohanan Hasandlar says: it is unconsecrated.

If a man deposited a sum of money with an agent for his daugher, and [after she was betrothed] she says, “I trust my husband”, the trustee must act in accordance with the condition of his trust, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yose says: were [the trust] a field and she wished to sell it, it would be as if it was sold immediately! To whom does this apply? To [a daughter] who has reached majority age, but in the case of a minor, there is no validity at all to the act of a minor.

If she had bodily defects while she was still in her father’s house, her father must produce proof that these defects arose after she had been betrothed and that [consequently] it was the husband’s field that was flooded. If she was brought into her husband’s domain, [and the defects were discovered there] the husband must produce proof that these defects existed before she had been betrothed and [that consequently] his bargain was made in error the words of Rabbi Meir. The Sages say: To what does this apply? Only to concealed defects; but with regard to defects that are exposed he cannot make any claim. And if there was a bath-house in the town he cannot make any claim even about concealed defects, because he [is assumed to have had her] examined by his female relatives.

These are the ones who are forced to divorce [their wives]: one who is afflicted with boils, one who has a polypus, a gatherer [of dog feces for the treatment of hides], a coppersmith or a tanner whether they were [in such a condition] before they married or whether they arose after they had married. And concerning all these Rabbi Meir said: although the man made a condition with her [that she accept him despite these defects] she may nevertheless say, “I thought I could accept him, but now I cannot accept him.” The Sages say: she must accept [such a person] against her will, the only exception being a man afflicted with boils, because she [by her intercourse] will enervate him. It once happened at Sidon that a tanner died, and he had a brother who was also a tanner. The Sages said: she may say, “I was able to accept your brother but I cannot accept you.”

[If a married woman] came into the possession of money, land should be bought with the money and the husband is entitled to the usufruct. [If she came into the possession of] produce that was detached from the ground, land should be bought and the husband is entitled to the usufruct. [If it was] produce attached to the ground Rabbi Meir says, the land is to be valued as to how much it is worth with the produce and how much without the produce, and with the difference land should be bought and the husband is entitled to the usufruct. The Sages say: produce attached to the ground belongs to the husband and produced detached from it belongs to the wife; [with the proceeds from the latter] land should be bought and the husband is entitled to the usufruct.

If his brother left money, land shall be bought with it and he enjoys the usufruct. Rabbi Meir says, the land is to be valued as to how much it is worth with the produce and how much without the produce, and with the difference land should be bought and the husband is entitled to the usufruct. [If the his brother left] produce that was detached from the ground, land shall be bought [out of the proceeds] and he enjoys the usufruct. The Sages say: produce attached to the ground belongs to the husband but that which is detached from the ground belongs to the first person who takes it: [If it was] produce attached to the ground: If he [seized it] first he acquires ownership; and if she [seized it] first land shall be bought with it and he enjoys the usufruct. If he married her she is his wife in every respect save that her ketubah remains a debt on her first husband’s estate.

As long as she lives in her father’s house she may collect her kethubah at any time. As long as she lives in her husband’s house she may recover her ketubah, only within twenty-five years, because in the course of twenty-five years she has sufficient opportunities to give favors equal [in value to the amount of] her ketubah, the words of Rabbi Meir who spoke in the name of Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel. The Sages say: as long as she lives in her husband’s house she may collect her ketubah at any time. As long as she lives in her father’s house she may collect her ketubah only within twenty-five years. If [the widow] died, her heirs must mention her ketubah within twenty-five years.

If one says “A korban”, “A wholly burnt-offering”, “A meal-offering”, “A sin-offering”, “A thanksgiving-offering”, “A peace-offering, should be that which I eat from you” he is bound [by his vow]. Rabbi Judah permitted [him]. [If he says] “The korban”, “like a korban”, “korban”, should be that which I eat from you he is bound [by his vow]. If he says, “That which I shall not eat of yours should be a korban”, Rabbi Meir forbids [him]. If one says to his fellow, “Konam be my mouth which speaks with you”, “My hands which work for you” [or] “My feet which walk with you,’ he is forbidden.

Unspecified vows are interpreted strictly, but if specified [they are interpreted] leniently. How so? If one says, “Behold! This is to me as salted meat”; or “As wine of libation” If he vowed by that which is to Heaven, his vow is valid. If by that which is idolatrous, his vow is invalid. And if it was unspecified, his vow is valid. [If he says], “Behold! This is to me as herem” If as a herem to Heaven, his vow is valid; If as a herem to the priests, his vow is invalid. If it was unspecified, his vow is valid. “Behold! This is to me as a tithe” If he vowed, as tithes of beasts, his vow is valid. If as grain tithes, his vow is invalid. If unspecified, his vow is valid. “Behold! This is to me as terumah” If he vowed, as the terumah of the Temple-chamber, his vow is valid. If as the terumah of the threshing-floor, his vow is invalid. If unspecified, his vow is valid. The words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah says: An unspecified reference to terumah in Judea is a valid vow, but not in Galilee, because the Galileans are unfamiliar with the terumah of the Temple-chamber. Unspecified references to haramim in Judea are not binding but in Galilee they are, because the Galileans are unfamiliar with priestly haramim.

If one vows by herem, and says, “I vowed only by a herem (a of the sea”; [If he says] “By a korban”, and then says, “I vowed only by korbanot (gifts) of kings”; [If he says] “Behold! I myself (atzmi) am a korban”, and then says, “I vowed only by the etzem (bone) which I keep for the purpose of vowing”; [If he says,] “Konam be any benefit my wife has from me”, and then says, “I spoke only of my first wife, whom I have divorced” Regarding none of these [vows] should they inquire [of a sage in order to break them], but if they inquire about them, they are punished and treated strictly, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the Sages say: they are given an opening on other grounds, in order that they should not act lightly with vows.

One who vows [not to benefit] from those born may [benefit] from those to be born; from those to be born, he may not [benefit] from those born. Rabbi Meir permits [him to benefit] even from those to be born; But the Sages say: he meant all whose nature it is to be born.

If one is forbidden to benefit from his neighbor, and he pays him a visit [in sickness] he must stand, but not sit. He may afford him a cure of life, but not a cure of money. He may bathe together with him in a large bath, but not in a small one. He may sleep in a bed with him. Rabbi Judah said: in summer, but not in winter, because he thereby benefits him. He may [nevertheless] recline with him on a couch. [He may] eat at the same table with him but not out of the same bowl; but he may eat with him out of a bowl which returns. He may not eat with him out of the food trough put before laborers. He may not work with him on the same furrow, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the Sages say: he may work at a distance from him.

He who vows abstinence from grain is forbidden dry Egyptian beans, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the Sages say: only the five species of grain are forbidden him. Rabbi Meir says: He who vows abstinence from produce (tevuah) is forbidden only the five species; but one who vows abstinence from grain (dagan), is forbidden all; yet he is permitted the fruits of the tree and vegetables.

He who vows abstinence from grain is forbidden dry Egyptian beans, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the Sages say: only the five species of grain are forbidden him. Rabbi Meir says: He who vows abstinence from produce (tevuah) is forbidden only the five species; but one who vows abstinence from grain (dagan), is forbidden all; yet he is permitted the fruits of the tree and vegetables.

One who vows not to benefit from a house is permitted the upper story, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the Sages say: the upper story is included in “house”. He who vows not to benefit from the upper story is permitted the use of the house.

One who vows abstinence from a bed is permitted a couch, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the Sages say: A couch is included in “bed”. If he vows abstinence from a couch, he is permitted the use of a bed. One who vows not to benefit from a town, may enter the town’s [Shabbat] border but may not enter its outskirts. But one who vows not to benefit from a house, is forbidden [only] from the door-stop and inwards.

[If one vows,] “Until Pesach,” he is forbidden until it arrives; “Until it is [Pesach],” he is forbidden until it is completed. “Until before Pesach,”: Rabbi Meir says: he is forbidden until it arrives; Rabbi Yose says: he is forbidden until it is completed.

[If one vows,] “Until the rains,” [or], “Until the rains shall be”, [he is forbidden] until the second rainfall descends. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: until the [normal] time for the [second] rainfall is reached. [If one vows,] “Until the rains cease,” [he is forbidden] until all of Nisan is completed, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah says: Until Pesach is over. [If one vows,] “Konam that I taste not wine for a year”, if the year is intercalated, he is forbidden during the year and its extension. [If one says,] “Until the beginning of Adar,” [he is forbidden] until the beginning of the first Adar; “Until the end of Adar,” until the end of the first Adar. Rabbi Judah says: [If one vows, “Konam that I taste no wine until Pesach shall be,” he is forbidden only until Pesach night, for he meant until the hour when people usually drink wine.

If one says to his neighbor “Konam, what I benefit from you, if you do not come and take for your sons a kor of wheat and two barrels of wine,” the latter may annul his vow without the release of a sage, by declaring, “Did you vow for any other purpose but to honor me? This [refusal] is my honor.” Similarly, if one says to his neighbor, “Konam, what you benefit from me, if you do not give my son a kor of wheat and two barrels of wine”: Rabbi Meir says: he is forbidden until he gives; But the Sages say: he too can annul his vow without the release of a sage, by saying to him, “I regard it as though I have received it.” If they were urging him to marry his sister’s daughter, and he said, “Konam, what she benefits from me forever”; Likewise, if he is divorcing his wife and he said, “Konam, what my wife benefits from me forever,” they are permitted to benefit from him, because he meant only marriage. If he was urging his neighbor to eat at his house, and he replied, “Konam be your house which I do not enter,” or, “The drop of water that I do not drink,” he may enter his house and drink cold water because he only meant eating and drinking in general.

Rabbi Meir says: Some things are similar to a new fact, and yet are not [treated] as new; but the Sages do not agree with him. How so? If one says, “Konam that I do not marry so and so, because her father is wicked,” and [then] they say to him “He is dead,” or, “He has repented,”; “Konam is this house which I will not enter, because it contains a wild dog,” or, “because there is a snake in it,” and [then] they say to him, “The dog is dead,” or, “The serpent has been killed,” behold these are like new facts, yet actually not [treated] as new facts. But the sages do not agree with him.

Rabbi Meir also said: They release [the vow] by using what is written in the Torah, and they say to him, “Had you known that you were violating [the prohibitions]:“You shall not avenge” (Leviticus 19:18), “You shall not bear a grudge” (ibid.), “You shall not hate your kinsfolk in your heart (ibid., v., “Love your neighbor as yourself” (ibid., v., “Let him live by your side” (ibid. 25:37), for he might become poor and you would not be able to provide for him, [would you have vowed]?”. And should he reply, “Had I known that this is so, I would not have vowed,” he is permitted [the vow is absolved].

“Konam is the one that I taste, because wine is damaging to the stomach.” They said to him, “But mature wine is beneficial to the stomach.” He is released in respect of mature wine, and not only in respect of mature wine, but of all wine. “Konam the onions that I taste, because they are damaging to the heart.” They said to him, “But village onions are good for the heart,” He is released in respect of village onions, and not only of village onions, but of all onions. Such a case happened before Rabbi Meir, and he permitted all onions.

[If the husband declares,] “I knew that there were vows, but I did not know that they could be annulled”, he may annul them [now]. [But if he says:] “I knew that I could annul them, but I did not know that this was a vow,” Rabbi Meir says: he cannot annul it, But the Sages say: he can annul.

All the substitutes for vows have the validity of vows. If one says, “I shall be [one]” he is a nazirite. “I shall be comely”, he is a nazirite. “A nazik”, “a naziah”, “a paziah”, he is a nazirite. [If one says,] “Behold I shall be like this one,” or “Behold I shall curl [my hair]” or “Behold, I shall tend [my hair]” or “Behold, I shall grow my hair long,” he is a nazirite. [If one says] “Behold, I shall [bring] birds [as offerings]” Rabbi Meir says he is a nazirite, but the sages say he is not a nazirite.

[If one says,] “I take it upon myself to bring the hair offering of half of another nazirite,” and his friend heard and said, “I too take it upon myself to bring the hair offering of half of another nazirite,” –, this one brings a full hair offering and this one brings a full hair offering, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the Sages say: each brings half a hair offering.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: if he brought three animals without specifying [what they were for], the one suitable for a sin offering is sacrificed as a sin offering, for a burnt offering as a burnt offering, and for a well-being offering as a well-being offering. He would then take the hair of his nazirite head and threw it under the cauldron. If he shaved in the province he [also] would throw it under the cauldron. With regard to what was this said? With regard to shaving in ritual purity, whereas in shaving [after] ritual defilement he does not throw it under the cauldron. Rabbi Meir says: all [nazirites] throw it under the cauldron, except for the defiled nazirite [who shaved] in the provinces.

Rabbi Eliezer said in the name of Rabbi Joshua: for every defilement [conveyed] by a corpse on account of which a nazirite must shave, people are liable for entering the sanctuary, and for every defilement [conveyed] by a corpse on account of which a nazirite does not shave, people are not liable for one entering the sanctuary. Rabbi Meir said: such [defilement] should not be less serious than [defilement through] a dead creeping thing. Rabbi Akiba said: I argued in the presence of Rabbi Eliezer: Now if on account of a barley-corn’s bulk of bone which does not defile a man by overshadowing, a nazirite shaves should he touch it or carry it, then surely a quarter-log of blood which defiles a man by overshadowing, should cause a nazirite to shave should he touch it or carry it? He replied: What is this Akiva! We do not make here an ‘all the more so’ (a kal vehomer) argument. When I afterwards went and recounted these words to Rabbi Joshua, he said to me, “You spoke well, but thus they have ruled the halakhah.”

Gentiles are not subject [to the laws] of naziriteship. Women and slaves are subject [to the laws] of naziriteship. The nazirite vow is more stringent in the case of women than in the case of slaves, for a man can compel his slave [to break his vow] but he cannot compel his wife [to do so]. [The nazirite vow] is more stringent in the case of slaves than in the case of women, for he can void the vows of his wife, but he cannot void the vows of his slaves. If he voids his wife’s [vow], it is void for ever, but if he voids his slave’s vow, [if] the slave becomes free he must complete his naziriteship. When [the slave] passes from [his master's] presence: Rabbi Meir says: he may not drink [wine]. Rabbi Yose says: he may drink [wine].

To what does she respond “Amen, amen”?“Amen” over the curse and “amen” over the oath; “Amen” with respect to this man and “amen” with respect to any other man. “Amen” that I did not go astray as a betrothed girl or married woman or a shomeret yavam or a woman taken into [her yavam’s] house. “Amen” that I have not been defiled and if I have, may [these curses] come upon me. Rabbi Meir says: “Amen” that I have not been defiled and the “amen” that I will not become defiled in the future.

[A wife] who was pregnant by a former husband or was nursing a child by a former husband does not drink and does not receive the ketubah, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages says: he may separate her [from himself] and take her back after the period [of two years]. An aylonit [who is incapable of giving birth], an old woman, and one who is unfit to bear children do not drink and do not receive the ketubah. Rabbi Eliezer says: he may marry another wife and be fruitful and multiply with her. All other women either drink or do not receive the ketubah.

When Rabbi Meir died, the composers of fables ceased. When Ben Azzai died, the diligent students [of Torah] ceased. When Ben Zoma died, the expounders ceased. When Rabbi Joshua died, goodness ceased from the world. When Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel died, locusts come and troubles multiplied. When Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah died, the sages ceased to be wealthy. When Rabbi Akiba died, the glory of the Torah ceased. When Rabbi Hanina ben Dosa died, men of wondrous deeds ceased. When Rabbi Yose Katnuta died, the pious men (hasidim) ceased and why was his name called Katnuta? Because he was the youngest of the pious men. When Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai died, the splendor of wisdom ceased. When Rabban Gamaliel the elder died, the glory of the torah ceased, and purity and separateness perished. When Rabbi Ishmael ben Fabi died, the splendor of the priesthood ceased. When Rabbi died, humility and fear of sin ceased. Rabbi Phineas ben Yair says: when Temple was destroyed, scholars and freemen were ashamed and covered their head, men of wondrous deeds were disregarded, and violent men and big talkers grew powerful. And nobody expounds, nobody seeks, and nobody asks. Upon whom shall we depend? Upon our father who is in heaven. Rabbi Eliezer the Great says: from the day the Temple was destroyed, the sages began to be like scribes, scribes like synagogue-attendants, synagogue-attendants like common people, and the common people became more and more debased. And nobody seeks. Upon whom shall we depend? Upon our father who is in heaven. In the footsteps of the messiah insolence (hutzpah) will increase and the cost of living will go up greatly; the vine will yield its fruit, but wine will be expensive; the government will turn to heresy, and there will be no one to rebuke; the meeting-place [of scholars] will be used for licentiousness; the Galilee will be destroyed, the Gablan will be desolated, and the dwellers on the frontier will go about [begging] from place to place without anyone to take pity on them; the wisdom of the learned will rot, fearers of sin will be despised, and the truth will be lacking; youths will put old men to shame, the old will stand up in the presence of the young, “For son spurns father, daughter rises up against mother, daughter-in-law against mother-in-law a man’s own household are his enemies” (Micah 7:6). The face of the generation will be like the face of a dog, a son will not feel ashamed before his father. Upon whom shall we depend? Upon our father who is in heaven. Rabbi Pinchas ben Yair says, “Heedfulness leads to cleanliness, cleanliness leads to purity, purity leads to separation, separation leads to holiness, holiness leads to modesty, modesty leads to fear of sin, fear of sin leads to piety, piety leads to the Holy Spirit, The Holy Spirit leads to the resurrection of the dead, and the resurrection of the dead comes from Elijah, blessed be his memory, Amen.”

Rabbi Judah says: From Rekem eastwards, Rekem being like the east; from Ashkelon southwards, Ashkelon being like the south; and from Acco northwards, Acco being like the north. Rabbi Meir says: Acco counts as the land of Israel in the matter of bills of divorce.

If a man says: “Give this get to my wife or this writ of emancipation to my slave”, if he wants he may change his mind on either document, the words of Rabbi Meir. The Sages say: he may change his mind in the case of the get but not in the case of the writ of emancipation, since a benefit may be conferred on a person not in his presence but a disability may be imposed on him only in his presence; for if he does not want to maintain his slave he is permitted, but if he does not want to maintain his wife he is not permitted. Rabbi Meir said to them: behold, he disqualifies his slave from eating terumah [by emancipating him] in the same way that he disqualifies his wife [by divorcing her]? They said to him: [the slave is disqualified] because he is the priest’s property. If a man says, “Give this get to my wife or this writ of emancipation to my slave”, and dies [before they are given], they do not give [the documents] after his death. [If he said], “Give a maneh to so-and-so” and died, the money should be given after his death.

If a man says: “Give this get to my wife or this writ of emancipation to my slave”, if he wants he may change his mind on either document, the words of Rabbi Meir. The Sages say: he may change his mind in the case of the get but not in the case of the writ of emancipation, since a benefit may be conferred on a person not in his presence but a disability may be imposed on him only in his presence; for if he does not want to maintain his slave he is permitted, but if he does not want to maintain his wife he is not permitted. Rabbi Meir said to them: behold, he disqualifies his slave from eating terumah [by emancipating him] in the same way that he disqualifies his wife [by divorcing her]? They said to him: [the slave is disqualified] because he is the priest’s property. If a man says, “Give this get to my wife or this writ of emancipation to my slave”, and dies [before they are given], they do not give [the documents] after his death. [If he said], “Give a maneh to so-and-so” and died, the money should be given after his death.

If a man divorces his wife because of ill-repute, he cannot remarry her. If because of a vow, he cannot remarry her. Rabbi Judah says: [if he divorces her] for vows which she made in front of many people, he may not remarry her, but if for vows which she did not make in front of many people, he may remarry her. Rabbi Meir says: [if he divorces her] for a vow which requires the investigation of a sage, he may not remarry her, but if for one which does not require the investigation of a sage, he may remarry her. Rabbi Eliezer says: they only forbid that one because of that one. Rabbi Yose son of Rabbi Judah said: a case happened in Sidon of a man who said to his wife, “Konam, if I do not divorce you”, and he did divorce her, and the Sages permitted him to remarry her because of tikkun olam.

Damages are paid out of [property of] the best quality; A creditor is paid out of land of medium quality, And a ketubah is paid out of land of the poorest quality. Rabbi Meir says that a ketubah is also paid out of medium quality land.

If a man said to two people, “Give a get to my wife”, or to three people, “Write a get and give it to my wife”, they must write it and give it. If he said to three persons, “Give a get to my wife”, they may tell others to write the get because he has made them into a court, the words of Rabbi Meir. And this is the halakhah which Rabbi Hanina a man of Ono brought from prison: “I have received a tradition that if a man says to three persons, ‘Give a get to my wife’, they may tell others to write it, because he has made them into a court. Rabbi Yose said: We said to the messenger, we also have a tradition that even were he to say to the great court in Jerusalem, ‘Give a get to my wife’, they must learn [to write] and write the get and give it. If a man says to ten persons, “Write a get”, one writes, and two sign as witnesses. [If he said,] “All of you write”, one writes and all sign. Therefore, if one of them dies, the get is invalid.

A Canaanite slave is acquired by money, deed, or by possession, And acquires himself by money through the agency of others, and by document through his own agency, the words of Rabbi Meir. The Sages say: by money, through his own agency, and by document, through the agency of others, providing that the money comes from others.

Large animals are acquired by being handed over and small animals by lifting, the words of Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Eliezer. The sages say: small animals are acquired by being led.

If he [a priest] betroths [a woman] with his portion, whether it is of higher holiness or of lower holiness, she is not betrothed. [If one betroths] with second tithe, whether unwittingly or deliberately, he has not betrothed [her]: the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah says: if unwittingly, he has not betrothed [her]; if deliberately, he has betrothed [her]. [If] with sanctified property, if deliberately, he has betrothed her; if unwittingly, he has not betrothed [her], the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah says: if unwittingly, he has betrothed her; if deliberately, he has not betrothed her.

If he [a priest] betroths [a woman] with his portion, whether it is of higher holiness or of lower holiness, she is not betrothed. [If one betroths] with second tithe, whether unwittingly or deliberately, he has not betrothed [her]: the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah says: if unwittingly, he has not betrothed [her]; if deliberately, he has betrothed [her]. [If] with sanctified property, if deliberately, he has betrothed her; if unwittingly, he has not betrothed [her], the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah says: if unwittingly, he has betrothed her; if deliberately, he has not betrothed her.

Rabbi Meir says: every stipulation which is not like that of the children of Gad and the children of Reuben is not a [valid] stipulation, as it say, “And Moses said to them, ‘If the children of Gad and the children of Reuben will pass [with you over the Jordan, then you shall give them the land of Gilead for a possession].” and it is also written, “But if they will not pass over with you armed, [then they shall have possessions among you in the land of Canaan]” (Numbers 32:29-30). Rabbi Hanina ben Gamaliel says: the matter had to be stated, for had it not been stated it would have implied that even in Canaan they should not inherit.

If one has two groups of daughters by two wives, and he declares, “I have given in betrothal my eldest daughter, but I do not know whether the eldest of the seniors or the eldest of the juniors, or the youngest of the seniors who is older than the eldest of the juniors,” all are forbidden [to marry other men], except the youngest of the juniors, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yose says: they are all permitted, except the eldest of the seniors. “I have betrothed my youngest daughter, but I do not know whether the youngest of the juniors or the youngest of the seniors, or the eldest of the juniors who is younger than the youngest of the seniors,” they are all forbidden, except the eldest of the seniors, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yose says: they are all permitted, except the youngest of the juniors.

If one has two groups of daughters by two wives, and he declares, “I have given in betrothal my eldest daughter, but I do not know whether the eldest of the seniors or the eldest of the juniors, or the youngest of the seniors who is older than the eldest of the juniors,” all are forbidden [to marry other men], except the youngest of the juniors, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yose says: they are all permitted, except the eldest of the seniors. “I have betrothed my youngest daughter, but I do not know whether the youngest of the juniors or the youngest of the seniors, or the eldest of the juniors who is younger than the youngest of the seniors,” they are all forbidden, except the eldest of the seniors, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yose says: they are all permitted, except the youngest of the juniors.

Rabbi Judah said: an unmarried man must not tend cattle, nor may two unmarried men sleep together under the same cover. But the sages permit it. One whose business is with women must not be alone with women. And one should not teach his son a woman’s trade. Rabbi Meir says: one should always teach his son a clean and easy profession, and pray to Him to whom wealth and property belong. For a profession does not contain [the potential for] poverty and wealth, for poverty is not due to one’s profession nor is wealth due to the profession, but all depends on merit. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: have you ever seen a wild beast or a bird with a profession? Yet they are sustained without trouble. Now, were they not created only to serve me, while I was created to serve my master: surely then I should make a living without trouble! But my evil acts have done me in and withheld my livelihood. Abba Gurion a man of Sidon says in the name of Abba Guria: one should not teach his son [to be] a donkey-driver, camel-driver, wagon-driver, sailor, shepherd, or shopkeeper, because their profession is the profession of robbers. Rabbi Judah says in his name: most donkey-drivers are wicked, while most camel-drivers are worthy men; and most sailors are pious. The best of doctors are destined for Gehenna, and the worthiest of butchers is Amalek’s partner. Rabbi Nehorai says: I will abandon every profession in the world and I will not teach my son anything but Torah, for a person enjoys its reward in this world while the principal remains for him in the world to come. But all other professions are not so; for when a man comes to sickness or old age or suffering and cannot engage in his profession, he must die of starvation, whereas the Torah is not so, for it guards him from all evil in his youth and gives him a future and hope in his old age. Of his youth what is said? “But they that wait upon the Lord shall renew their strength” (Isaiah 40:31). Of his old age what is said? “They shall still bring forth fruit in old age” (Psalms 92:15). And it is also said of our father Abraham, “And Abraham was old … And the Lord blessed Abraham with everything” (Genesis 24:1). We find that Abraham our father observed the whole Torah before it was given, for it is said, “Because Abraham obeyed My voice, and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes, and My laws” (Genesis 26:5).

Which kind of animal is accounted harmless and which is an attested danger (muad)? An attested danger is one that people have given testimony about [that it damaged] for three days. A harmless one is one that has refrained from damage for three days. This is according to Rabbi Judah. Rabbi Meir says, An attested danger is one that people have given testimony about three times. A harmless one is one that children can touch and it will not gore.

If an ox worth 100 gored an ox worth 200, and the carcass is not worth anything, [the owner of the gored ox] takes the [live] ox. If an ox worth 200 gored an ox worth 200 and the carcass is not worth anything, Rabbi Meir said, “If thus it was written, ‘they shall sell the live ox and divide its price, they shall also divide the dead animal’. Rabbi Judah said to him: “Such indeed is the halachah, but you have fulfilled the verse ‘they shall sell the live ox and divide its price’, and you have not fulfilled the verse ‘they shall also divide the dead animal’. What case is this? If an ox worth 200 gored an ox worth 200 and the corpse is worth 50, this one takes half of the live ox and half of the dead ox, and this one takes half of the live ox and half of the dead ox.

[If] an ox has gored four or five other oxen, this one after this one: the owner shall pay to [the owner of] the last ox injured. If money remains, it will go to the [the owner of] the previously [injured ox]. If money still remains, it will go to the [the owner of the ox injured] previous to the previously [injured ox]. [The owner of] the last [injured ox] benefits, according to Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Shimon says, “[If] an ox worth 200 gores an ox worth 200 and the carcass is not worth anything, this one gets 100 and this one gets 100. [If] it injures another ox worth 200, the [owner of the] ox last injured receives 100 and the owner of the previously injured ox receives 50. [If] it injures another ox worth 200, the [owner of the] ox last injured receives 100, the [owner of the] previously injured ox receives 50, and the first two receive 25.

[If] an ox of a person of sound senses gored the ox of a deaf-mute, an insane person, or a minor, [its owner] is obligated. [If] an ox of a deaf-mute, an insane person or a minor, gored the ox of a person of sound senses, [its owner] is exempt. [If] an ox a deaf-mute, an insane person or a minor gored, the court appoints a guardian over them, and [their oxen] are testified against in the presence of the guardian. [If] the deaf-mute became of sound senses, or the insane person recovered his reason, or the minor came of age, [the ox] is thereupon deemed harmless once more, according to Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yose says, “It remains as it was before.” An ox from the stadium is not liable to be put to death, as it says, “When it will gore” (Exodus 21:28), and not “When others cause it to gore.”

If one handed it to an unpaid guardian, or to a borrower, or to a paid guardian, or to a hirer, they take the place of the owners; if the beast was an attested danger he pays full damages, and if it was accounted harmless he pays half damages. If its owner had tied it with a halter, or locked it up properly, but it came out and caused damage, the owner is liable, whether it was an attested danger or accounted harmless, these are the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah says: “If it was accounted harmless he is liable, but if it was an attested danger he is exempt, as it says, “and its owner did not guard it”, but this one has been guarded. Rabbi Eliezer says: “Its only guarding is the knife.”

If he stole a beast and it grew old, or slaves and they grew old, he makes restitution according to [their value at] the moment of the theft. Rabbi Meir says: “As for slaves the thief may say to the owner, ‘Here is what is yours before you.’” If he stole a coin and it cracked, fruit and it rotted, wine and it turned into vinegar, he must make restitution according to [the value] at the moment of the theft. But if he stole a coin and it went out of use, or “Heave offering” (terumah) and it became ritually unclean, or leaven and the time of Passover arrived, or a beast and it was used for a transgression, or became unfit to be offered or it was condemned to be stoned, he may say to the other, “Here is what is yours before you.”

If a man gave wool to a dyer and the cauldron burned it, he must repay him the value of the wool. If he dyed it badly: if the improvement was worth more than the cost of the dying, he must pay him the cost of the dying; if the cost of the dying was worth more than the improvement, he must pay only [the value of the] improvement. If he told him to dye it red and he dyed it black; black and he dyed it red: Rabbi Meir says: “[The dyer] must pay the cost of the wool.” Rabbi Judah says: “If the improvement was worth more than the cost of the dying, he must pay him the cost of the dying; if the cost of the dying was worth more than the improvement, he must pay only [the value of the] improvement.

If a man found debt documents he should not return them [to the creditor] if they recorded a lien on the [debtor’s] property, since the court would exact repayment from the property. But if they did not record a lien on the [debtor’s] property he may return them, since the court would not exact payment from the property, according to Rabbi Meir. But the Sages say: “In either case he should not return them, since [in either case] the court would exact payment from the property.”

Which found objects belong to the finder and which ones must be proclaimed [in the lost and found]? These found objects belong to the finder: if a man found scattered fruit, scattered money, small sheaves in the public domain, cakes of figs, bakers’ loaves, strings of fish, pieces of meat, wool shearings [as they come] from the country of origin, stalks of flax and strips of purple wool, according to Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah says: “Anything which has in it something unusual, must be proclaimed. How is this so? If he found a fig cake with a potsherd in it or a loaf with coins in it [he must proclaim them].” Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: “New merchandise need not be proclaimed.”

For how long must a man proclaim [what he has found]? Until all of his neighbors know of it, according to Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah says: “At the three Pilgrimage Festivals and for seven days after the lest festival, to allow him three days to go back to his house, three days to return and one day on which to proclaim his loss.”

If a man left coins with a money-changer: If they were tied up [in a bag], he may not use them. Therefore, if they were lost, he is not responsible. If they were loose, he may use they were. Therefore, they were was lost, he is responsible. [If a man left coins] with a householder, Whether they were loose or tied up, he may not use them. Therefore, if they were lost he his not responsible. A shopkeeper is like a householder, according to Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah says a shopkeeper is like a money-changer.

How much may be missing from a sela and still not fall within the rule of fraud? Rabbi Meir says: “Four issars, one issar per dinar.” Rabbi Judah says: “Four pondions, one pondion per dinar.” Rabbi Shimon says: “Eight pondions, two pondions per dinar.”

If one hired a donkey to carry wheat and he used it to carry [a like weight] of barley, he is liable [if the donkey was injured]. [If he hired it to carry] grain and he used it to carry [a like weight of] chopped straw he is liable, since the greater bulk is more difficult to carry. [If he hired it to carry] a letech of wheat and it carried a letech of barley he is not liable. But if he increased the weight, he is liable. What increase in weight renders him liable? Symmachos says in the name of Rabbi Meir: “One seah for a camel and three kavs for a donkey.”

If one wolf [attacked the flock that he was watching] it does not count as an unavoidable accident [for which no blame is placed on the guardian]. Two wolves do count as an unavoidable accident. Rabbi Judah says: “In a time where wolves are commonly attacking the settlements, even one wolf is considered to be an unavoidable accident.” Two dogs do not count as an unavoidable accident. Yadua the Babylonian said in the name of Rabbi Meir says: “If [two dogs came] from one direction they do not count as an unavoidable accident, but if [they came] from two directions they count as an unavoidable accident. A bandit counts as an unavoidable accident. A lion or a bear or a leopard or a panther or a serpent counts as an unavoidable accident. When [is this so]? When they come of themselves. But if he took the flock to a place of wild animals or bandits they do not count as an unavoidable accident.

If there were two gardens [in terraces] one above the other and vegetables grew between them: Rabbi Meir says: “They belong to the upper garden.” Rabbi Judah says: “They belong to the lower garden.” Rabbi Meir said: “If [the owner of] the upper garden wished to remove his soil there would be no vegetables.” Rabbi Judah said: “If [the owner of] the lower garden wished to fill up his garden [with soil] there would be no vegetables. Rabbi Meir said: “Since each is able to thwart the other, we should consider from where these vegetables derive their life.” Rabbi Shimon said: “Whatever [the owner of ] the upper garden can take by stretching out his hand belongs to him, and the rest belongs to [the owner of] the lower garden.

If there were two gardens [in terraces] one above the other and vegetables grew between them: Rabbi Meir says: “They belong to the upper garden.” Rabbi Judah says: “They belong to the lower garden.” Rabbi Meir said: “If [the owner of] the upper garden wished to remove his soil there would be no vegetables.” Rabbi Judah said: “If [the owner of] the lower garden wished to fill up his garden [with soil] there would be no vegetables. Rabbi Meir said: “Since each is able to thwart the other, we should consider from where these vegetables derive their life.” Rabbi Shimon said: “Whatever [the owner of ] the upper garden can take by stretching out his hand belongs to him, and the rest belongs to [the owner of] the lower garden.

If there were two gardens [in terraces] one above the other and vegetables grew between them: Rabbi Meir says: “They belong to the upper garden.” Rabbi Judah says: “They belong to the lower garden.” Rabbi Meir said: “If [the owner of] the upper garden wished to remove his soil there would be no vegetables.” Rabbi Judah said: “If [the owner of] the lower garden wished to fill up his garden [with soil] there would be no vegetables. Rabbi Meir said: “Since each is able to thwart the other, we should consider from where these vegetables derive their life.” Rabbi Shimon said: “Whatever [the owner of ] the upper garden can take by stretching out his hand belongs to him, and the rest belongs to [the owner of] the lower garden.

If a man bought two trees in his fellow’s field, he has not bought the ground [in which they grow]. Rabbi Meir says: “He has bought the ground”. When they grow (branches), he (the seller) may not trim them. What comes up from the stem belongs to him (the buyer) but what comes up from the roots belongs to the seller. And if they die, the ground is not his [to replant new trees]. If he bought three trees, he has bought the ground [between them]. When they grow he may trim them, And what comes up whether from the stem or from the roots belongs to him (the buyer). And if they die the ground is his.

If a man who lies dying wrote over his property to others [as a gift] and kept back any land whatsoever, his gift remains valid [even should he not die]. If he did not keep back any land whatsoever, his gift does not remain valid [if he should not die]. If it was not written in the document, “who lies dying”, but he said that [he had written the document] while he lay dying and they (those who received the gift) said that he was healthy [when he wrote the document], he must bring proof that he had been dying, according to Rabbi Meir. But the sages say: “He who makes a claim against his fellow bears the burden of proof.”

Cases concerning property [are decided] by three. Cases concerning robbery or personal injury, by three. Claims for full damages or half-damages, twofold restitution, or fourfold or fivefold restitution, by three. Claims against a rapist, a seducer and one who defames [a virgin are decided] by three, according to Rabbi Meir. The Sages say: “One who defames [a virgin is decided] by twenty-three, for there may arise from it a capital case.

[Cases concerning offenses punishable by] beating [are decided] by three. In the name of Rabbi Yishmael they said twenty-three. The intercalation of the month and intercalation of the year [are decided] by three, according to Rabbi Meir. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: “The matter is begun by three, discussed by five, and decided upon by seven. But if they decided upon it with three, the intercalation is valid.”

The High Priest can judge and be judged; he can testify and others can testify against him. He can perform halitzah for another’s wife and others can perform halitzah for his wife or contract levirate marriage with his widow, but he cannot contract levirate marriage since he is forbidden to marry a widow. If any of his near kin die he may not follow after the bier, rather when the bearers are not visible, he is visible, when they are visible he is not visible, and he may go out with them as far as the city gate, according to Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah says, “He may not leave the Temple, as it says, “Nor shall he go out of the Sanctuary”. And when he comforts other mourners the custom is for all of the people to pass by, the one after the other, while the appointed [priest] stands between him and the people. And when he receives comfort from others, all the people say to him, “Let us be your atonement”, and he says to them, “May you be blessed by Heaven.” When they feed him the funeral meal all the people sit around on the ground and he sits on a stool.

Cases concerning property [are decided] by three [judges]. This [litigant] chooses one and this [litigant] chooses one and then the two of them choose another, according to Rabbi Meir. But the Sages say: “The two judges choose the other judge.” This [litigant] can invalidate this one’s judge, and this [litigant] can invalidate this one’s judge, according to Rabbi Meir. But the Sages say: “When is this so? When they bring proof against them that they are relatives or otherwise invalid; but if they are valid and experts, he cannot invalidate them. This [litigant] may invalidate this one’s witnesses and this [litigant] may invalidate this one’s witnesses, according to Rabbi Meir. But the Sages say: “When is this so? When they bring proof against them that they are relatives or otherwise invalid; but if they are valid, he cannot invalidate them.

Cases concerning property [are decided] by three [judges]. This [litigant] chooses one and this [litigant] chooses one and then the two of them choose another, according to Rabbi Meir. But the Sages say: “The two judges choose the other judge.” This [litigant] can invalidate this one’s judge, and this [litigant] can invalidate this one’s judge, according to Rabbi Meir. But the Sages say: “When is this so? When they bring proof against them that they are relatives or otherwise invalid; but if they are valid and experts, he cannot invalidate them. This [litigant] may invalidate this one’s witnesses and this [litigant] may invalidate this one’s witnesses, according to Rabbi Meir. But the Sages say: “When is this so? When they bring proof against them that they are relatives or otherwise invalid; but if they are valid, he cannot invalidate them.

Cases concerning property [are decided] by three [judges]. This [litigant] chooses one and this [litigant] chooses one and then the two of them choose another, according to Rabbi Meir. But the Sages say: “The two judges choose the other judge.” This [litigant] can invalidate this one’s judge, and this [litigant] can invalidate this one’s judge, according to Rabbi Meir. But the Sages say: “When is this so? When they bring proof against them that they are relatives or otherwise invalid; but if they are valid and experts, he cannot invalidate them. This [litigant] may invalidate this one’s witnesses and this [litigant] may invalidate this one’s witnesses, according to Rabbi Meir. But the Sages say: “When is this so? When they bring proof against them that they are relatives or otherwise invalid; but if they are valid, he cannot invalidate them.

If one litigant said to the other, “I accept my father as trustworthy”, or “I accept your father as trustworthy”, or “I accept three herdsman as trustworthy”, Rabbi Meir says, “He may retract.” But the Sages say, “He cannot retract.” If one must take an oath before his fellow, and his fellow said to him, “Vow to me by the life of your head”, Rabbi Meir says, “He may retract.” But the Sages say, “He cannot retract.”

If one litigant said to the other, “I accept my father as trustworthy”, or “I accept your father as trustworthy”, or “I accept three herdsman as trustworthy”, Rabbi Meir says, “He may retract.” But the Sages say, “He cannot retract.” If one must take an oath before his fellow, and his fellow said to him, “Vow to me by the life of your head”, Rabbi Meir says, “He may retract.” But the Sages say, “He cannot retract.”

R. Meir said: “When man suffers, what expression does the shechinah (God’s presence) use? “My head is too light (a euphemism for heavy) for me, my arm is too light (a euphemism for heavy) for me.” If god is so grieved over the blood of the wicked that is shed, how much more so over the blood of the righteous! And not only of this one [a criminal did the sages not to leave him overnight] but whosoever lets his dead lie over night transgresses a negative commandment. If he kept him over night for the sake of his honor, to procure for him a coffin or a shroud, he does not transgress. And they did not bury him [the executed person] in his ancestral tomb, but two burial places were prepared by the court, one for those who were decapitated or strangled, and the other for those who were stoned or burned.

He who desecrates the Sabbath [is stoned], providing that it is an offence punished by “kareth” if deliberate, and by a sin-offering if unwitting. One who curses His father or his mother is not punished unless he curses them by the divine name. If he cursed them by a nickname, Rabbi Meir held him liable, but the Sages ruled that he is exempt.

[If they say]: “We testify that so and so owes his friend two hundred zuz”, and they are found to be perjurers, they are flogged and ordered to make restitution, because the count which brings upon them the flogging is not the count that brings upon them the necessity to make restitution, these are the words of Rabbi Meir. But the Sages say: “Anyone who makes restitution is not flogged.”

[If they say:] “We testify that so and so is liable to a flogging of forty lashes, and they are found to be perjurers, they receive eighty lashes, because of, “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor” (Exodus 20:13) and “You shall do to him as he schemed to do to his fellow” (Deuternomy 19:19), these are the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say, “They receive only forty lashes.” Monetary impositions are shared among the offenders, but the lashes are not shared among the offenders. How so? If they testified that he owed his friend two hundred zuz, and they were found to be perjurers, they divide the corresponding damages proportionately between them. But if they testified that he was liable to a flogging of forty lashes and were found to be perjurers, each one receives forty lashes.

The father goes into banishment for [the death of] his son, and the son goes into banishment for [that of] his father. All go into banishment for [the death of] an Israelite, and Israelites go into banishment on their account, except for a resident alien. And a resident alien does not go into banishment except for [the death of another] resident alien. A blind person does not go into banishment, the words of Rabbi Judah. Rabbi Meir says: “He goes into banishment.” An enemy does not go into banishment. Rabbi Yose bar Judah says: “An enemy is executed, for it is as if he has been warned.” Rabbi Shimon says: “There is an enemy that goes into banishment and there is an enemy that does not go into banishment: wherever it can be said that he had killed [his victim] wittingly, he goes not into banishment, and where he had slain unwittingly, he goes into banishment.

And direct roads were made leading from one to the other, as it says, “You shall prepare the way and divide the borders of your land into three parts” (Deut. 19:3). And they delegate to him two disciples of the Sages [as escorts] in case anyone attempted to slay him on the way, and that they might speak to him. Rabbi Meir says: “He may [even] plead his cause himself, as it says, “And this is the word of the manslayer” (Deut. 19:4).

A manslayer who went to his city of his refuge and the men of that city wished to do him honor, should [refuse] by saying to them, “I am a manslayer!”. If they say to him, “Nevertheless” he should accept from them [the proffered honor], as it is said: “and this is the word of the manslayer.” They used to pay rent to the Levites, according to the words of Rabbi Judah. Rabbi Meir says: “They did not pay them rent.” And [on his return home] he returns to the office he formerly held, according to the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah says: “He does not return to the office he formerly held.”

A manslayer who went to his city of his refuge and the men of that city wished to do him honor, should [refuse] by saying to them, “I am a manslayer!”. If they say to him, “Nevertheless” he should accept from them [the proffered honor], as it is said: “and this is the word of the manslayer.” They used to pay rent to the Levites, according to the words of Rabbi Judah. Rabbi Meir says: “They did not pay them rent.” And [on his return home] he returns to the office he formerly held, according to the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah says: “He does not return to the office he formerly held.”

Where there is no knowledge [of the impurity] either at the beginning or at the end, the goats offered as sin-offerings on festivals and new months bring atonement, the words of Rabbi Judah. Rabbi Shimon says: “The festival goats atone [for such sins] and not the new moon goats. And for what do the new month goats bring atonement? For a pure man who ate impure holy food.” Rabbi Meir says: “All the goats have equal powers of atonement for imparting impurity to the Temple and holy food. Rabbi Shimon used to say: “The new month goats bring atonement for a pure man who ate impure holy food; and the festival goats atone for transgression of the laws of impurity where there was no knowledge either at the beginning or at the end; and the ‘outer’ goat of the Day of Atonement atones for transgression of these laws where there was no knowledge at the beginning but there was knowledge at the end. They said to him: “Is it permitted to offer up the goat set apart for one day on another?” He said to them: “Let it be offered.” They said to him: “Since they are not equal in the atonement they bring how can they take each other's place?” He replied: “They are all at least equal [in the wider sense] in that they bring atonement for transgressions of the laws of impurity in connection with the temple and holy food.”

The oath of testimony applies to men and not to women, to non-relatives and not to relatives, to those qualified [to bear witness] and not to those unqualified. And it applies only to those eligible to bear witness. Whether [uttered] in front of the court or not in front of the court, if [uttered] with his own mouth; [but if adjured] by the mouth of others he is not liable unless he denies it before the court, these are the words of Rabbi Meir. But the Sages say: “Whether [uttered] with his own mouth or [adjured] by the mouth of others he is not liable unless he denies it before the court.”

[If he said]: "I adjure you"; "I command you"; "I bind you"; they are liable. "By heaven and earth!", they are exempt. "By Alef Daleth"; "By Yod He"; "By God Almighty"; "By The Lord of Hosts; "By the Merciful and Gracious one"; "By the Long Suffering One"; "By the One Abounding in Kindness"; or by any of the substitutes [for the name], they are liable. He who blasphemes by any of them is liable, according to the words of Rabbi Meir. And the Sages exempt him. He who curses his father or mother by any of them is liable according to the words of Rabbi Meir. And the Sages exempt him. He who curses himself or his neighbor by any of them transgresses a negative precept. [If he said,] "May God smite you"; or "Yea, may God smite you"; this is the curse written in the Torah. "May [God] not smite you"; or "May he bless you"; Or "May he do good unto you [if you bear testimony for me]": Rabbi Meir makes [them] liable, and the Sages exempt [them].

[If he said]: "I adjure you"; "I command you"; "I bind you"; they are liable. "By heaven and earth!", they are exempt. "By Alef Daleth"; "By Yod He"; "By God Almighty"; "By The Lord of Hosts; "By the Merciful and Gracious one"; "By the Long Suffering One"; "By the One Abounding in Kindness"; or by any of the substitutes [for the name], they are liable. He who blasphemes by any of them is liable, according to the words of Rabbi Meir. And the Sages exempt him. He who curses his father or mother by any of them is liable according to the words of Rabbi Meir. And the Sages exempt him. He who curses himself or his neighbor by any of them transgresses a negative precept. [If he said,] "May God smite you"; or "Yea, may God smite you"; this is the curse written in the Torah. "May [God] not smite you"; or "May he bless you"; Or "May he do good unto you [if you bear testimony for me]": Rabbi Meir makes [them] liable, and the Sages exempt [them].

[If he said]: "I adjure you"; "I command you"; "I bind you"; they are liable. "By heaven and earth!", they are exempt. "By Alef Daleth"; "By Yod He"; "By God Almighty"; "By The Lord of Hosts; "By the Merciful and Gracious one"; "By the Long Suffering One"; "By the One Abounding in Kindness"; or by any of the substitutes [for the name], they are liable. He who blasphemes by any of them is liable, according to the words of Rabbi Meir. And the Sages exempt him. He who curses his father or mother by any of them is liable according to the words of Rabbi Meir. And the Sages exempt him. He who curses himself or his neighbor by any of them transgresses a negative precept. [If he said,] "May God smite you"; or "Yea, may God smite you"; this is the curse written in the Torah. "May [God] not smite you"; or "May he bless you"; Or "May he do good unto you [if you bear testimony for me]": Rabbi Meir makes [them] liable, and the Sages exempt [them].

The oath of deposit applies to men and women, to non-relatives and relatives, to those qualified [to bear testimony] and those unqualified; before the court and not before the court, [if uttered] from his own mouth. And [if adjured] by the mouth of others, he is not liable unless he denies it before the court, according to the words of Rabbi Meir. But the Sages say, whether [uttered] from his own mouth or [adjured] by the mouth of others since he denied it, he is liable. And he is liable for intentional transgression of the oath, and for its unintentional transgression coupled with intentional [denial of having received the] deposit, but he is not liable for unintentional transgression. And what is he liable for the intentional transgression of the oath? A guilt offering of [the value of] two shekels of silver.

If five claimed from him, and said to him: “Give us the deposit that we have in your possession,” [and he replied:] “I swear that you have nothing in my possession,” he is liable only once. [If he said:] “I swear that you have nothing in my possession, nor you, nor you,” he is liable for each one. Rabbi Eliezer says: “Only if he says, ‘I swear’ at the end.” Rabbi Shimon says: “Only if he says, ‘I swear’ to each one.” “Give me the deposit, loan, theft, and lost object that I have in your possession,” [and he replied], “I swear that you do not have these in my possession,” he is liable only once. “I swear that you do not have in my possession a deposit, a loan, a theft, and a lost object,” he is liable for each one. “Give me the wheat, barley, and spelt that I have in your possession”, [and he replied], “I swear that you do not have these in my possession,” he is liable only once. “I swear that you do not have in my possession wheat, barley, and spelt,” he is liable for each one. Rabbi Meir said: “Even if he said, ‘... A grain of wheat, barley and spelt,’ he is liable for each one.

Rabbi Meir says: “There are things which are [attached] to land, but are not like land.” But the sages do not agree with him. How so? [If one says,] “Ten vines laden with fruit I delivered to you” and the other says, “There were only five”; Rabbi Meir makes him take an oath; But the Sages say: “All that is attached to land is like land.” An oath is imposed only for a thing [defined] by size, weight, or number. How so? [If one says,] “A store room full [of produce] I delivered to you,” or “A purse full [of money] I delivered to you” – and the other says, “I do not know; but what you left you may take,” he is exempt. If one says, “[I gave you produce reaching] up to the moulding [above the window],” and the other says, “Only up to the window,” he is liable.

Rabbi Meir says: “There are things which are [attached] to land, but are not like land.” But the sages do not agree with him. How so? [If one says,] “Ten vines laden with fruit I delivered to you” and the other says, “There were only five”; Rabbi Meir makes him take an oath; But the Sages say: “All that is attached to land is like land.” An oath is imposed only for a thing [defined] by size, weight, or number. How so? [If one says,] “A store room full [of produce] I delivered to you,” or “A purse full [of money] I delivered to you” – and the other says, “I do not know; but what you left you may take,” he is exempt. If one says, “[I gave you produce reaching] up to the moulding [above the window],” and the other says, “Only up to the window,” he is liable.

“He whose opponent is suspected of taking a false oath,” How so? Whether it be the oath of testimony, or the oath of deposit, or even a vain oath. If one [of the litigants] was a dice-player, or usurer, or pigeon-flyer, or dealer in the produce of the seventh year, his opponent takes the oath and collects [his claim]. If both are suspect, the oath returns to its place, these are the words of Rabbi Yose. Rabbi Meir says: “They divide [the claim].”

One who changes for a sela copper coins from second tithe: Beth Shammai says: “Copper coin for the whole sela.” And Beth Hillel say: “Silver for one shekel and copper coin for one shekel.” Rabbi Meir says: “Silver and fruits may not be substituted for silver.” But the sages allow it.

[In the case of] all things which cause defilement in a “tent”, if they [the pieces of the corpse] were divided and brought into the house, Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas pronounces [everything under the same roof-space] clean, but the Sages pronounce it unclean. How so? He who touches as much as two halves of an olive [in quantity] of an animal’s carcass or carries them; or in the case of a [human] corpse, he who touches as much as half an olive and stands over as much as half an olive; or touches as much as half an olive and as much as half an olive is above him; or if he stands over as much as two halves of an olive; or if he stands over as much as half an olive and as much as half an olive is above him Rabbi Dosa b. Harkinas pronounces him clean, and the Sages pronounce him unclean. But if he touches as much as half an olive [in quantity] and another thing was over him and over as much as half an olive; or if he stood over as much as half an olive and another thing was over him and over as much as half an olive, he is clean. Rabbi Meir said: “Also in this case Rabbi Dosa pronounces him clean and the sages pronounce him unclean. In all such cases a man is unclean unless there is an act of touching and also an act of carrying, or an act of carrying and also [the fact of] being under the same roof-space.” This is the general rule: in whatever case the means of causing defilement are of one category, he is unclean; if they are of two categories, he is clean.”

These are the festivities of the idolaters: Kalenda, Saturnalia, Kratesis, the anniversary of accession to the throne and birthdays and anniversaries of deaths, according to Rabbi Meir. But the Sages say: a death at which burning [of articles of the dead] takes place is attended by idolatry, but where there is not such burning there is no idolatry. But the day of shaving ones beard and lock of hair, or the day of landing after a sea voyage, or the day of release from prison, or if an idolater holds a banquet for his son the prohibition only applies to that day and that particular person.

The following things are forbidden to be sold to idolaters: iztroblin, bnoth-shuah with their stems, frankincense, and a white rooster. Rabbi Judah says: it is permitted to sell a white rooster to an idolater among other roosters; but if it be by itself, one should clip its spur and then sell it to him, because a defective [animal] is not sacrificed to an idol. As for other things, if they are not specified their sale is permitted, but if specified it is forbidden. Rabbi Meir says: also a “good-palm”, hazab and niklivas are forbidden to be sold to idolaters.

One should not make jewelry for an idol [such as] necklaces, ear-rings, or finger-rings. Rabbi Eliezer says, for payment it is permitted. One should not sell to idolaters a thing which is attached to the soil, but when cut down it may be sold. R. Judah says, one may sell it on condition that it be cut down. One should not let houses to them in the land of Israel; and it is not necessary to mention fields. In Syria houses may be let to them, but not fields. Outside of the land of Israel, houses may be sold and fields let to them, these are the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yose says: in the land of Israel, one may let to them houses but not fields; In Syria, we may sell them houses and let fields; Outside of the land of Israel, both may be sold.

We may allow them to heal us when the healing relates to money, but not personal healing; Nor should we have our hair cut by them in any place, this is the opinion of Rabbi Meir. But the Sages said: in a public place it is permitted, but not when the two persons are alone.

Skin-bottles or flasks of non-Jews in which wine of a Jew is kept are forbidden and the prohibition extends to any benefit that may be derived from them, this is the opinion of Rabbi Meir. But the Sages say that the prohibition does not extend to deriving benefit. Grape seeds and grape-skins of non-Jews are forbidden, the prohibition extending to any benefit that may be derived from them, this is the opinion of Rabbi Meir. But the Sages say, when fresh they are forbidden but when dry they are permitted. Fish brine and Bithynian cheese of the non-Jews are forbidden, the prohibition extending to any benefit that may be derived from them, this is the opinion of Rabbi Meir. But the Sages say that the prohibition does not extend to deriving benefit.