mishna

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, Rebbi Yehudah and the rabbis disagree only when he intended afterwards to eat bread, but if he did not intend to eat bread afterwards, everybody agrees that if among them one is of the Seven Kinds, that is the one over which he recites the benediction. Rebbi Abba said, he has to recite a benediction at the end. Rebbi Yose said, the statement of Rebbi Abba disagrees with Rebbi Joshua ben Levi since Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, Rebbi Yehudah and the rabbis disagree only when he intended afterwards to eat bread, but if he did not intend to eat bread afterwards everybody agrees that if among them is one of the Seven Kinds, that is the one over which he recites the benediction; but Rebbi Abba said, he has to recite a benediction at the end. If he did not recite a benediction at the end it became an accessory and we have stated there (Mishna 7): “In every situation where there is a main course and side dishes, one recites the benediction for the main course and thereby frees the side dishes.”

“If she spent six months for her husband and six months for the levir, she cannot eat heave. Not only six months for the levir but even all the time for the levir except for one day, she cannot eat heave.” The Mishna follows neither the earliest not the last Mishnah, but the intermediate development. As it was stated: First, they were saying that a preliminarily married woman, daughter of an Israel, could eat heave, for they were explaining: “If a Cohen acquires a person, acquistion by money;” for what would be the difference between one who acquires a wife and one who acquires a slave girl? They changed, to say: after twelve months, when he becomes responsible for her upkeep. The court of the later ones said: A woman never eats heave before she enters the bridal chamber. ”Already Rebbi Joḥanan ben Bagbag sent to Rebbi Jehudah ben Bathyra at Nisibis: They say in your name that the preliminarily married daughter of an Israel eats heave. He sent back the following: I had been convinced that you are knowledgeable in the secrets of the Torah, but you do not even know the rules de minore ad majus! Since money can acquire a Gentile slave girl to permit her to eat heave, but she cannot be acquired by sexual relations to permit her to eat heave, whereas a wife can be acquired by sexual relations to permit her to eat heave, it is only logical that money can acquire a wife to permit her to eat heave! But what can I do? They said that no woman eats heave before she enters the bridal chamber,” and they supported it by the verse: “Every pure person in your household shall eat it.” Rebbi Yudan said, that is an argument de minore ad majus that can be reversed! Because he could say to him, since a Gentile slave girl can be acquired by active possession to permit her to eat heave, what can you say about a wife who cannot be acquired by active possession? If an argument de minore ad majus can be reversed, the argument is invalid.

It is said of Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai that he was not ignorant of anything: Scripture, Mishna, Talmud, Halacha, Aggadah, Biblical grammar, scribal traditions, deductive logic, linguistic connections, astronomical calculations, gematriot, incantations for angels, incantations for demons, incantations to palm trees, proverbs of washwomen, proverbs of foxes, a “Great thing,” and a “Small thing.”

Mishna: A stolen or withered hadas is invalid One [that came from] an asherah or a condemned city is invalid. If its tip was broken off, or its leaves were detached, or its berries were more numerous than its leaves, it is invalid. But if he diminished them it is valid. But one may not diminish them on the festival.

MISHNA: How are witnesses [which come before a rabbinical court to testify] made zomemim [false witnesses]? Witnesses [proven false] testify that this person is a son of a divorcee or a son of a Levirite marriage. We don't say that they become like a son of a divorcee or a son of a Levirite marriage, rather they are lashed forty times.

GEMARA: Why does the Mishna ask 'How do witnesses become false witnesses?' [since this is not the topic of the Mishnah] and furthermore, later on we learn [the definition of a false witness] But they [different witnesses come and] say to them [the false witnesses]. 'How can you testify? On that day and in that place, you were with us [in a different place, and therefore lying].

MISHNA: [They say] We testify so-and-so divorced his wife and didn't give to her [money from] the Ketubah. In the end the money will have to be given betwen

MISHNA: We testified that so-and-so owes 1000 zuz to his friend in thirty days, and he says it is a ten-year loan.

MISHNA: [The false witnesses] divide the monetary payment but not the lashes. How is this? If they testified that a person was obligated to pay 200 zuz [a unit of currency] to his fellow and were then found to be false, they split the payment between them, but if they testified that a person was liable to forty lashes and were then found to be false, each [of the false witnesses] gets forty lashes.

MISHNA: Witnesses are not made into zomemim (false witnesses) until they themselves are proven false.

What is this [statement of Rava] coming to reach us? We [already] learned this in a mishna. "Therefore, if one of the [two groups that testified someone was liable for the death penalty] is found to be zomemim, he [the person they were testifying against] and they [the zomemim] are executed, and the second [group of witnesses, who haven't been found to be zomemim] is free.

If this [the second group of witnesses] is a plotting group, and even the first group shouldn't be executed. Rebbi Abahu says, [The case in the mishna is] when they were already executed.

But what happened already happened? [and there isn't anything else that we could do either-way] Rather Rava says that this this is what the mishna is saying, If there is only one group it gets executed, if there are more than they don't get executed. But the mishna used the word "belvaad" [only]? It's a question.

But what happened already happened? [and there isn't anything else that we could do either-way] Rather Rava says that this this is what the mishna is saying, If there is only one group it gets executed, if there are more than they don't get executed. But the mishna used the word "belvaad" [only]? It's a question.

MISHNA: Zomemim witnesses are nut executed until they succeed in having a verdict given for their victim. Because the tzudukim had said, Until they succeed in having their victim executed like the Torah says (Deuteronomy 19,21) "A soul for a soul".

MISHNA: (Deuteronomy 17,6) "By the mouth [the testimony] of two witnesses or three witnesses the [perpetrator] shall surely be put to death." If the testimony can be established with two [witnesses], why does the Torah specify three? Rather, the Torah is juxtaposing (three to two). Just as three [witnesses] can make two [witnesses] into zomemim, so too two [witnesses] can make three [witnesses] into zomemim. And from where do we know [that two witnesses can] even [make] one hundred [witnesses into zomemim]? The Torah teaches us this with the word "Witnesses".

MISHNA: If there were two [witnesses] observing from this window, and two [witnesses] observing from this window, and one warner in the middle, In a time where some of them [the witnesses] saw one another, it is considered one [group] of witnesses. And if [they do] not [see one another] then it is considered two [groups of] witnesses. Therefore, if one [of the two groups of witnesses] becomes zomemim, then he [the murderer] and they [the zomemim] are executed, but the second [group of witnesses] are exonerated.

Rav Zutra asked a question, But now let us ave him ny capital cases as well [which we are more lenient by]. So why do we learn in a Mishna, He and they are executed? It's a question.

Rebbi Yosi says, etc.: Rav Papa asked Abaii, And does Rebbi Yosi indeed adhere to that logic? But we learned in a mishna, Rebbi Yosi says, An enemy is killed, because he is like someone who had purpose and was warned.

Another interpretation of, by the mouth of two witnesses is that the court cannot hear a case through an interpreter. etc.: There was these foreigners that came before Rava; Rava appointed an interpreter between them. But how was he able to this? We learned in a mishna, That the court cannot hear a case through the mouth of an interpreter? Rava knew what they were saying, but he did not know how to answer back.

MISHNA: One has had a verdict and then flees and comes before a different court, we do not retry his case. Any circumstance where two witnesses get up and say that they testify about a certain man that he had his verdict in this-and-this court and so-and-so and so-and-so were his witnesses, that person gets executed.

GEMARA: Only before the same court is when his case is not retried, but brute a different court his case is retried. But the latter part of the mishna teaches, "Any circumstance where two witnesses get up and say that they testify about a certain man that he had his verdict in this-and-this court and so-and-so and so-and-so were his witnesses, that person gets executed."?

MISHNA: The [high priest] anointed with the anointing oil, the [high priest] appointed through the vestments, and the [high priest] who stepped down from his position all return the murderer [from exile if they die]. Rebbi Yehuda says, Even the [high priest] anointed for a war returns the murderer [if he dies].

They inquired, Is it with the death of all of [the types of high priest enumerated in the mishna] that [the murderer] returns [from exile]? Or maybe it's with death of any of them?

Come and learn [a proof from our mishna], If his verdict was concluded without a high priest, he never leaves [the city of refuge] for ever. And if it was true [that the death of any high priest would release him], let him return with [the death of] one of them. [The mishna was discussing a case were] there were no [other high priests].

Come and learn [a proof from our mishna], If his verdict was concluded without a high priest, he never leaves [the city of refuge] for ever. And if it was true [that the death of any high priest would release him], let him return with [the death of] one of them. [The mishna was discussing a case were] there were no [other high priests].

MISHNA: If after his verdict was handed down [but before he went exile] the high priest had died he does not go to exile. If before he was given a verdict the high priest died, and they appointed another one is his place, and then afterwards he had his verdict, he returns with the death of the second one. If he had his verdict when their was no high priest or one who killed the high priest or a high priest who killed do not ever leave exile.

Let us say that they are arguing the same dispute as Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Yehoshua. That we learned in a mishna, If he [the priest] was standing and sacrificing upon the alter, acc it became known that he was the son of a divorcee or the son of a woman who received chalitzah, Rebbi Eliezer says, All of the sacrifices that he ever brought are [retroactively] disqualified. And Rebbi Yehoshua validates then.

Just like the city protects... etc.: And a contradiction, (Numbers 35, 25) "And he shall dwell there" "there" implies not in the boundary [so how can we say that the boundary also protects]? Abaye says, It is not a difficulty. Here [by our Mishna] it's referring to [receiving] protection. Here [by the verse in Numbers] it's referring to [not being permitted to] dwell.

MISHNA: A tree which stands inside the boundary [of a city of refuge] but its branches extend outside of the boundary, or [a tree which] stands outside the boundary but its branches extend inside - everything goes after the branches.

MISHNA: If one killed in that city [a city of refuge] he is exiled from neighborhood to neighborhood, And a Levite is exiled from city to city.

MISHNA: Similarly, if a murderer that was exiled to a city of refuge and the people of the city wish to honor him, he must say to them "I am a murderer". If they tell him "even so" he may except [honor] from them, as the Torah says, (Deuteronomy 19, 4) "and this is the word of the murderer"

GEMARA: Rav Kahana says, The dispute [in our Mishna] only concerns the six [primary cities of refuge]. That one opinion [Rebbi Yehuda] holds (Numbers 35,12) "For you" implies [only] for protection. And the other opinion [Rebbi Meir] holds "For you" implies for all of your needs. But by the forty two [additional cities of refuge] everyone agrees that [the murderers] would pay rent.

MISHNA: And these are the ones who receive lashes. One who cohabits with his sister, with his father's sister, with his mother's sister with his brother' wife's sister, with his brother's wife, with his father's brother's wife, or with a nidda [i.e. a menstruating lady]. A widow with a high priest, a divorcee or a arkham who received chalutzah with a regular priest, a mamzeres [i.e. illegitimate woman] or nasina [i.e. a Gibeonite woman] with an Israelite, the daughter if a priest with a nasan or a mamzer. [All of these aforementioned cohabitations are subject to lashes.]

GEMARA: Liabilities of kares are taught in our mishna, liabilities of court execution are not taught in our mishna. Who is the author of our mishna? Rebbi Akiva. That we learned in a baraisa, Both liabilities of kares and liabilities of court execution

GEMARA: Liabilities of kares are taught in our mishna, liabilities of court execution are not taught in our mishna. Who is the author of our mishna? Rebbi Akiva. That we learned in a baraisa, Both liabilities of kares and liabilities of court execution

GEMARA: Liabilities of kares are taught in our mishna, liabilities of court execution are not taught in our mishna. Who is the author of our mishna? Rebbi Akiva. That we learned in a baraisa, Both liabilities of kares and liabilities of court execution

They asked him [Rebbi Yochanon] Did you say this? [that any prohibition preceded by a positive commandment is subject to flogging i.e. a lo saseah s'kedmu asseah]... He responded to them, No. [I retract what I said.] Rabbah said, By God! He said it. And it is backed by a posuk [verse] and a mishnah. It is written (Numbers 5,2) "And they shall send forth from the camp. etc. And they shall not defile their camps" [which is a lo saseah s'kedmu asseah] and it was taught in a mishna "One who enters the temple whilst impure [receives lashes].

It was taught in a mishna over there, One who takes a mother bird while with its young [in violation of the Torah's prohibition]. Rebbi Yehuda says that he receives malkus and need not send her away. And the Sages say that he must send away [the mother bird] and is not flogged. This is the general rule, any prohibition that has an active positive commandment one is not liable for. Rebbi Yochanon said, We do not have any examples of this [where one can receive malkus by nullifying a remedial positive commandment] besides for this case [of sending away the mother bird] and one other case.

[We can bring a proof to Rav Bibi's understanding of the dispute to only concern wheat kernels from what] was taught in a mishna. Rebbe Shimon said to them [the sages], will you not [at least] agree with me [in the case of] where one consumes an ant of any size that he would be liable to malkus? The sages responded to him that is because [an ant] is in the form in which it was created. Rebbi Shimon said back to them, Even a single [kernel of] wheat is in the form that it was created. [This implies that Rebbi Shimon would hold only that by a] wheat [kernel] one is [liable for less then a k'zias], but not by flour.

MISHNA: One who eats bikorim [first fruits] before the verses are recited; [or eats] kadshai kadshim [offerings of greater sanctity] outside the curtain [of the temple courtyard; or one who eats] kadshai kalim [offerings of lesser sanctity] or maiser sheni outside the wall [of Jerusalem]; or one who breaks the bone of a pure Pesach offering. All of these incur forty lashes. But one who leaves over from [even a tahor i.e. a pure] offering, or one who breaks a bone of a tamai [impure] offering does not incur malkus.

But we have in our mishna, "these are thew ones who incur malkus"?

[offerings of] higher holiness. etc.: It was taught already taught in [the previous] Mishna, Maaser sheni and Hekdesh that were not redeemed. [Why then, does our Mishna need to repeat this?] Rebbi Yosi bar Chanina says The latter is referring to [a case where the] maaser sheni is tahor [spiritually pure] and the man [eating it] is also tahor but is eating it out of the wall [of Jerusalem]. The former, however, is referring to [a case where the] maaser sheni is tamai [spiritually impure] or the man [eating it] is tamai and is eating it inside Jerusalem].

[offerings of] higher holiness. etc.: It was taught already taught in [the previous] Mishna, Maaser sheni and Hekdesh that were not redeemed. [Why then, does our Mishna need to repeat this?] Rebbi Yosi bar Chanina says The latter is referring to [a case where the] maaser sheni is tahor [spiritually pure] and the man [eating it] is also tahor but is eating it out of the wall [of Jerusalem]. The former, however, is referring to [a case where the] maaser sheni is tamai [spiritually impure] or the man [eating it] is tamai and is eating it inside Jerusalem].

MISHNA: One who balds a bald spot on his head, or one who cuts the corners of his head, or one who destroys the corners of his beard, or one who incised an incision [in his skin] over someone's death, is liable [to malkus]. One who makes a single incision over five deaths or makes five incisions over one death is liable for each and every one.

Rather there was only one warning. But then would he be liable [five times]? Bit it was taught in a mishna, A Nazir who was drinking wine all day is only liable once. If they said to him, "Don't drink. Don't drink.", and he drank, than he would be liable for each individual time. Rather [the ruling] was necessary where one dipped his five fingers into a cream and placed them [on his beard] simultaneously, that it constitutes as a warning for each one.

MISHNA: One who writes a tattoo, If he inks it without needling or he needles it without inking, he isn't liable unless he both inks and needles [the tattoo] with black ink, blue ink, or anything else that leaves a mark. Rebbi Shimon ben Yehudah says in the name of Rebbi Shimon, One is not liable unless he writes the name of HaShem that it is said (Leviticus 19, 28) "And a tattoo you shall imprint in yourselves, I am the Lord".

Rav Pappa said, The [rulings that concern] mishnas and baraisas [are attributed to] Rav Malkio. The [rulings that concern] amorahic teachings [are attributed to] Rav Malkio. And your mnemonic would be, A mishna is a queen. What is the difference between [Rav Nachman's opinion and Rav Pappa's opinion]? The difference between them is [the ruling concerning] maidservants.

MISHNA: A Nazir who was drinking wine all day is only liable to one [set of malkus]. If they told him, "Don't drink", "Don't drink", and he nevertheless drunk, then he is liable for each every [warning]. If he was contaminating himself with corpses all day, he is only liable to one [set of malkus]. If they told him, "Don't contaminate yourself", "Don't contaminate yourself", and he nevertheless contaminated himself, then he is liable for each every [warning]. If he was shaving all day, he is only liable to one [set of malkus]. If they told him, "Don't shave", "Don't shave", and he nevertheless shaved, then he is liable for each every [warning].

There is a single plowing... etc.: Rav Yanai said, In the group, they voted and decided that one who [merely] covers Kilayim [mixed seeds] incurs malkus. Rebbi Yochanon asked him, Wasn't that already stated in our Mishna? There is a case of where on plows a single row, and is liable on it due to eight separate prohibitions. One who plows with an ox and a donkey, which are sanctified, over mixed seeds in a vineyard" This plowing that one is liable on because of Kilayim, how would [such a case] be found? Would it not be where he covers them as he is plowing?

[Rabbi Yani] responded, If I hadn't lifted up that shard, would you have found the beautiful pearl? Reish Lakash explained to Rebbi Yochanon, If not for the fact that the great man praised you [by referring to you explanation as a pearl], I would have said that our Mishna is authored by Rebbi Akiva who says that one who maintains Kilayim incurs malkus.

Abaye asked, And is there really no separation of forbidden labors with regards to Yom Tov? But it was taught in a Mishna, One who cooks a Gid Hanasha [sciatic nerve] in milk on Yom Tov and subsequently eats it incurs five sets of malkus. [1]He incurs malkus for eating the Gid Hanasha. [2]He incurs malkus for cooking on Yom Tov without need. [3]He incurs malkus for cooking a sinew in milk. [4]He incurs malkus for consuming meat with milk. And [5]He incurs malkus

Rav Hoshiah asked, But let's also consider [in our mishna] one who sows a Nachal Ayson, which has its azhara from here: (Deuteronomy 21,4) "That you should not work it nor plant it".

Rebbi Zeira asked to Rebbi Mani But let's also consider one who made a vow not to plow on Yom Tov? [Rebbi Mani answered,] There, the vow does not go into effect because it stands against what was sworn at Mount Sinai. [Rebbi Zeira] said to him, How about if he swore to not plow whether on a weekday or on Yom Tov, that since the oath takes effect on weekday, it also takes effect on YomTov? The mishna does not teach things that are subject to annulment.

But doesn't it? There is Hekdesh? [The mishna] is refering to a Bechor [firstling], But there is still Nazir? [The mishna] is refering to a Nazir Shimshon.

But doesn't it? There is Hekdesh? [The mishna] is refering to a Bechor [firstling], But there is still Nazir? [The mishna] is refering to a Nazir Shimshon.

MISHNA: How much do we flog him? Forty minus one, as the Torah says, (Deuteronomy 25,2) "In the count of forty" the number which is next to forty. Rebby Yehudah says, He is administered forty full lashes, and where is he lashes the extra one? Between his shoulders.

Rav Sheises anwered, It is not a contradiction. [Our mishna which says that he is still flogged] is where they reexamined him on the same day. [The baraisa, however, which says that he is exonerated] is referring to where he was reexamined the following day or the day after.

MISHNA: If one commits a sin involving two prohibitions and they evaluated him once, then he gets flogged and is exonerated. But if not, then he is flogged, allowed to recuperate, and flogged again.

MISHNA: How do flog him? We tie his two hands to the post here and here. The superintendent of the synagogue grabs his clothes. If they tear they tear, and if they rip at the seams they rip at the seams. until he reveals his heart. A stone is placed behind him. The superintendent of the synagogue stands on it and a strap is in his hand of a calf doubled once into two and then again into four. And two straps of donkey hide go up and down through it. The handle is a handbreadth and its width is a handbreadth and its tip reaches his stomach.

And the reader reads. etc.: The rabbis taught [in a baraisa], The greatest of the judges reads, the second counts, and the third one says "strike him". In times when the lashes are many, he lengthens [the recital]. In times when the lashes are few, he shortens [the recital]. But we learned in our mishna, that he returns the beginning of the verses. [Why then does the baraisa say to adjust the length]? The mitzvah is to be precise, but if one is not precise then he returns to the beginning of the verses.

MISHNA: Anyone liable to kares who is flogged is exempt from their kares as the Torah says (Deuteronomy 25, 3)"And your brother should be flogged in your eyes" [this implies] when he gets flogged he is considered your brother. These are the words of Rebbi Channaia ben Gamliel.

GEMARA: Rabbi Yochanon says, Rabbi Chananya ben Gamliel's colleagues disputed what he had said. Rav Adda bar Ahava said in the name of the school of Rav, "We learned in a Mishna, there is no difference between Shabbos and Yom Kippur besides for that one is punishable by man and one is punishable with kares" Now if this is true [that malkus works in place of kares] then both are punishable by man?