mishnah

From where the warning about the necromancer? Do not turn to the necromancers. From where extirpation? A person who would turn to necromancers and mediums, etc. Punishment from where? A man or woman, impersonating a necromancer or a medium, shall be put to death. Why is the medium not mentioned in Keritut? Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Because they are taken together in one prohibition, do not turn to the necromancers, etc. Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Because it is a prohibition implied by a positive commandment. Rebbi Zeˋira said before Rebbi Yasa: No person except you thought of stating the medium in this way in Keritut. He told him, because as the verse formulated it so the Mishnah formulates it, a necromancer or a medium.

MISHNAH: One who desecrates the Sabbath by something which if performed intentionally makes him liable to extirpation, or to a purification sacrifice if in error. But he who curses father or mother is guilty only of he cursed them by the Name. If he cursed them by a substitute name, Rebbi Meïr declares him guilty but the Sages free him from prosecution. One who has sexual relations with a preliminarily married adolescent is only liable if she was an adolescent, a virgin, and preliminarily married, in her father’s house. If two [men] had relations with her, the first one is stoned, the second is subject to strangling.

MISHNAH: The one who leads astray is a commoner who leads a commoner astray, by saying to him: There is something to worship at place X; it eats such and such, drinks such and such; it gives such and such benefits, can do such and such evil. For no capital crime in the Torah may one use entrapment, except for this one. If he said it to two persons, they become his witnesses, bring him to court, and stone him. If he said this to a single person, he should tell him, I have friends who also want this. If he was sly and did not talk in their presence, one sets a trap behind a wall; he tells him, repeat what you told me alone; then he tells him, how can we abandon our God in Heaven and worship wood and stones? If he repents, it is good; if he says, it is our duty, or so it is good for us, those who stand behind the wall bring him to court and stone him. He says, I shall worship, I shall go and worship, let us go and worship; I shall sacrifice, I shall go and sacrifice, let us go and sacrifice; I shall burn incense, I shall go and burn incense, let us go and burn incense; I shall pour libations, I shall go and pour libations, let us go and pour libations; I shall prostrate myself, I shall go and prostrate myself, let us go and prostrate ourselves. The seducer is one who says, let us go and profess a strange worship.

MISHNAH: The sorcerer is one who does a deed but not one who creates an illusion. Rebbi Aqiba says in the name of Rebbi Joshua: Two are collecting green melons; one who collected cannot be prosecuted, the other one is guilty. The who does a deed is guilty; he who creates an illusion cannot be prosecuted.

MISHNAH: The deviant and rebellious son. When can one become a deviant and rebellious son? From the moment he grows two [pubic] hairs to when he sports a beard, the lower, not the upper, because the Sages used clean language. For it is written: If a man have a [deviant and rebellious] son. A son but not a daughter, a son but not a father. The underage [son] is not liable since he does not have any obligation.

MISHNAH: When is he guilty? From the moment he eats a fourfold portion of meat and drinks half a log of wine. Rebbi Yose says, a mina of meat and a log of wine. If he ate in a company of obligation, or at the lengthening of a month, or ate Second Tithe in Jerusalem, or ate torn or carcass meat, abominations and crawling things, i. e., if he ate anything which either is an obligation or anything forbidden, or ate any food but not meat, or drank any drink but not wine, he does not turn into a deviant and rebellious son unless he ate meat and drank wine, since it is said: gorging and drinking to excess. Even if it is not proof, there is a hint in what is said: Do not be among those who drink wine excessively, nor with those who are gorging themselves on meat.

He is guilty only it he ate it rare. If he ate it raw, he is a dog. If he ate it cooked, he is a human. If he ate cartilage, what is the rule? What is the rule about soft sinews? Rebbi Joḥanan said, one subscribes to them; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, one does not subscribe to them. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagreed about what is stated there: “The following have their hides treated like their flesh.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, this was only said as prohibition and regarding impurity, but not for flogging. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, Rebbi stated a complete Mishnah, not only for prohibition and regarding impurity. The reasoning of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish seems inverted. There, he treats it as flesh, but here, he does not treat it as meat. Rebbi Judah bar Pazi said, there is a difference, since there one refers to skin which in the end will become hard. This emphasizes that the reasoning of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish seems inverted! Since there, where in the end it will harden, he treats it as flesh, here where in the end it will not harden, not so much more? Rebbi Abbahu said, the reason of Rebbi Judah bar Pazi is: they shall eat the meat in that night, not sinews.

MISHNAH: If he stole from his father and ate at his father’s property, or from others and ate at others’ property, or from others and ate at his father’s property, he is not treated as deviant and rebellious son unless he stole from his father and ate at others’ property. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah says, unless he stole both from his father and his mother.

MISHNAH: If his father was willing but not his mother, or his father unwilling but his mother willing, he cannot be treated as deviant and rebellious son unless both be willing. Rebbi Jehudah says if his mother was inappropriate for his father, he cannot be treated as deviant and rebellious son.

MISHNAH: If one of them was one-armed, or lame, or mute, or deaf, he cannot be tried as deviant and rebellious son, as it is said: His father and mother shall grab him, not one-armed ones, bring him out, not lame ones, and say, not mute ones, this son of ours, and not blind ones, he does not listen to our voice, not deaf ones. One warns him before three [judges] and whips him. If he becomes a repeat offender, he is tried by 23 but cannot be stoned unless the original three were present, since it is said this son of ours, this is the one who was whipped before you.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, if one of the first [judges] died, he cannot be stoned. Is that not the Mishnah: “he cannot be stoned unless the original three were present”? Rebbi Hoshaia said, you should not say that the second trial should become the first; therefore, one had to state this.

MISHNAH: If he escaped before sentence was passed and then grew the lower beard, he is not liable; but if he escaped after sentence was passed and then grew the lower beard, he is liable.

The suspect wife, is that not a Mishnah, “one whose husband refuses to let her drink”? They wanted to say, before the scroll was written. He comes to tell, even after the scroll was written. But it does not apply to the case where the scroll had been erased.

The deviant son, is that not a Mishnah, “if his father was willing but not his mother, or his mother willing but his father unwilling”? They wanted to say, before he was tried. He comes to tell, even after he was tried. But it does not apply to the case where judgment had been passed.

MISHNAH: The deviant and rebellious son is judged because of his end; the Torah said, it is better that he should die innocent rather than guilty, for death of the evildoers is an enjoyment for them and enjoyment for the world, but concerning the just it is bad for them and bad for the world. Wine and sleep of the evildoers is an enjoyment for them and enjoyment for the world, but concerning the just it is bad for them and bad for the world. Scattering of the evildoers is an enjoyment for them and enjoyment for the world, but concerning the just it is bad for them and bad for the world. Coming together of the evildoers is bad for them and bad for the world, but concerning the just it is an enjoyment for them and enjoyment for the world. Quiet of the evildoers is bad for them and bad for the world, but concerning the just it is an enjoyment for them and enjoyment for the world.

MISHNAH: The intruder by stealth is judged because of his end. If in the course of a burglary he broke an amphora, if he has blood-guilt attached to him, he is liable; if he has no blood-guilt attached to him, he is not liable.

MISHNAH: The following ones one saves at the cost of their own persons: He who purses another to kill him, the male, or the preliminarily married virgin girl. But he who pursues an animal, or who desecrates the Sabbath, or who worships strange worship, one may not save at the cost of their own persons.

MISHNAH: The following are to be burned: one who copulates with a woman and her daughter, and the daughter of a Cohen who committed adultery. In the category of a woman and her daughter are included his daughter, his daughter’s daughter, his son’s daughter, his wife’s daughter, her daughter’s daughter, and her son’s daughter. The following are to be beheaded: the murderer, and the inhabitants of a seduced town.

“One may marry [relatives of] a rape victim or a seduced woman.” So is the Mishnah: One may marry after a rape or after a seduction. If he raped a woman, her mother is permitted. If he seduced a woman, he daughter is permitted.

MISHNAH: A murderer who attacked someone with a stone or an iron, or forced him under water or into fire so he could not escape from there and died, is [criminally] liable. If he pushed him into water or fire and he could have escaped from there by himself but died, he is not [criminally] liable. If he provoked a dog or a snake against him, he is not [criminally] liable. If he let a snake bite him, Rebbi Jehudah declares him [criminally] liable but for the Sages he is not [criminally] liable.

MISHNAH: If somebody injures another person by a stone or with his fist and they expected him to die, but he got better and only afterwards deteriorated and died; he is [criminally] liable. Rebbi Neḥemiah declares him not liable since it is not unsubstantiated.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody injures another person,” etc. So is the Mishnah: “Rebbi Neḥemiah declares him not [criminally] liable but the Sages declare him [criminally] liable since it is not unsubstantiated.” The Sages say, two estimations have precedence over one estimation; Rebbi Neḥemiah says, the intermediate estimation has precedence over the two. What is Rebbi Neḥemiah’s reason? If he gets up and walks outside on his cane, the attacker is exonerated. Could you think that this one walks in the market and the other one is executed because of him? But even if he dies according to the first estimation, he cannot be prosecuted. What is the rabbi’s reason? If he does not die but is bedridden. Would we not know that even if he does not die that he will be bedridden? But if they did not estimate that he would die. If they did not estimate that he would die, that is what is written: If he gets up and walks outside on his cane, the attacker is exonerated. Therefore, if he does not get up, [the attacker] is [criminally] liable. But if they estimated that he would die? If they estimated that he would die, that is what is written: But he has to pay for his disability and the medical costs. Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: It is an extraordinary decree of Scripture that he has to pay. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: It was an erroneous estimation. What is the difference between them? “But he got better and only afterwards deteriorated and died; he is [criminally] liable. Rebbi Neḥemiah declares him not liable since it is not unsubstantiated.” For him who said, it is an extraordinary decree of Scripture that he has to pay; if he paid, he paid. If he did not pay, does he have to pay? For him who said, it was an erroneous estimation; if he did not pay, one does not order him to pay. If he paid, can he take it back? A baraita supports one and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina: If they estimated that he would live but he died, from when does one count for him? From the moment he turns worse. This implies that the estimate was wrong. If you would say, it is an extraordinary decree of Scripture that he has to pay, he should pay from the first moment. A baraita supports Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: If they estimated that he would die but he lived, from when does one count for him? From the moment he turns worse. Rebbi Yose said, it does not say here “from the moment he turns worse” but “from the moment he turns better.” That means, it is an extraordinary decree of Scripture that he has to pay. But if you say, it was an erroneous estimation, he has to pay until [the victim] dies.

MISHNAH: If one intended to kill an animal but he killed a human, a Non-Jew but he killed a Jew, a stillborn but he killed a viable baby, he is not criminally liable. If one intended to hit someone on his hips where it would not have been enough to kill but it went on his heart where it was enough to kill and he died, he cannot be prosecuted. If one intended to hit someone on his heart where it would have been enough to kill but it went on his hips where it was not enough to kill but he died, he cannot be prosecuted. If one intended to hit someone big whom it would not have been enough to kill but it went on somebody small whom it was enough to kill and he died, he cannot be prosecuted. If one intended to hit someone small whom it would have been enough to kill but it went on somebody big whom it was not enough to kill but he died, he cannot be prosecuted. If one intended to hit someone on his hips where it was enough to kill but it went on his heart and he died; [or] if one intended to hit someone big and it was enough to kill but it went on somebody small and he died; he is [criminally] liable. Rebbi Simeon says, even if he intended to kill one person but killed another, he is not criminally liable.

MISHNAH: If a murderer was mixed up with others, none of them are criminally liable. Rebbi Jehudah says, one keeps them in jail. Any condemned to death who were mixed up with others shall be executed by the easier way. Those to be stoned with those to be burned, Rebbi Simeon says they shall be stoned because burning is more painful, but the Sages say they shall be burned since stoning is more painful. Rebbi Simeon told them, if burning were not more painful it would not have been prescribed for a Cohen’s daughter who committed adultery. They answered him, if stoning were not more painful, it would not have been prescribed for the blasphemer and those who worship strange cults. Those to be slain with those to be strangled, Rebbi Simeon says by the sword, but the Sages say by strangulation.

HALAKHAH: “If a murderer was mixed up with others,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the Mishnah deals with a murderer mixed up with innocent people. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, the Mishnah deals with a murderer being tried mixed up with a murderer who already was convicted. Samuel said, the Mishnah deals with a bull mixed up with other bulls. If the Mishnah referred to a bull mixed up with other bulls, would we state about them that “one keeps them in jail”?

HALAKHAH: “If a murderer was mixed up with others,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the Mishnah deals with a murderer mixed up with innocent people. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, the Mishnah deals with a murderer being tried mixed up with a murderer who already was convicted. Samuel said, the Mishnah deals with a bull mixed up with other bulls. If the Mishnah referred to a bull mixed up with other bulls, would we state about them that “one keeps them in jail”?

HALAKHAH: “If a murderer was mixed up with others,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the Mishnah deals with a murderer mixed up with innocent people. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, the Mishnah deals with a murderer being tried mixed up with a murderer who already was convicted. Samuel said, the Mishnah deals with a bull mixed up with other bulls. If the Mishnah referred to a bull mixed up with other bulls, would we state about them that “one keeps them in jail”?

HALAKHAH: “If a murderer was mixed up with others,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the Mishnah deals with a murderer mixed up with innocent people. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, the Mishnah deals with a murderer being tried mixed up with a murderer who already was convicted. Samuel said, the Mishnah deals with a bull mixed up with other bulls. If the Mishnah referred to a bull mixed up with other bulls, would we state about them that “one keeps them in jail”?

MISHNAH: Somebody who was found guilty of two death penalties shall be convicted to the more painful one. One who committed one crime punishable by two death penalties shall be convicted to the more painful one. Rebbi Yose says, he shall be convicted for the first connection. If somebody was repeatedly whipped, the court sends him to jail where he is fed barley until his belly bursts. One sends the murderer without witnesses to jail and feeds him scanty bread and sparing water.

Rav said, the Mishnah [deals with the case that the crime was committed] inside from the witnesses. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, when he could not receive warning.

MISHNAH: He who steals the chalice, or who curses by charms, or who copulates with a Gentile woman, one strikes him. If a priest officiated while impure, his brother priests do not bring him to court but the young priests take him outside the courtyard and smash his brain with bats. A non-priest who officiated in the Temple: Rebbi Aqiba said, by strangulation, but the Sages say, by the hands of Heaven.

MISHNAH: All of Israel have a part in the World to Come. But the following have no part in the World to Come: One who says that the resurrection of the dead is not biblical, or that the Torah is not from Heaven, or the Epicurean. Rebbi Aqiba says, also one who reads outside books, or who whispers over a wound and says, any sickness that I put on Egypt I shall not put on you, for I am the Eternal, your Healer. Abba Shaul said, also one who pronounces the Name by its letters.

MISHNAH: Three kings and four private persons have no part in the Future World. Three kings: Ahab, Jeroboam, Manasse. Rebbi Jehudah says, Manasse has part in the Future World, as it is said: he prayed to Him. He let Himself be petitioned, and heard his supplications, and returned him to Jerusalem, to his kingdom. They told him, He returned him to his kingdom; He did not return him to life in the Future World. Four private persons: Bileam and Doëg, Aḥitophel and Gehazi.

MISHNAH: The generation of the Deluge has no part in the World to Come and they do not stand in judgment, as it is said: My Spirit shall not judge man forever. The people of Sodom have no part in the World to Come but they stand in judgment. Rebbi Neḥemiah says, neither of them stands in judgment, as it is said: Therefore, evildoers shall not rise in judgment, nor sinners in the company of the just. Therefore, evildoers shall not rise in judgment, that is the generation of the Deluge, nor sinners in the company of the just, these are the people of Sodom. They said to him, in the company of the just they will not rise; they will stand in the company of evildoers.

MISHNAH: The generation of the desert has no part in the World to Come, as it is said: in this desert they shall be terminated and there they will die, the words of Rebbi Aqiba. Rebbi Eliezer says, about them it says, assemble for Me My lovely ones, who sealed My Covenant by a sacrifice. The band of Korah will not be resurrected in the future, as it is said the earth covered them; they were lost from among the congregation, the words of Rebbi Aqiba. Rebbi Eliezer says, about them it says, the Eternal kills and brings to life, He sends down into the pit and raises up.

MISHNAH: The Ten Tribes will not return in the future, as it is said, He threw them into another country like this day. As this day passes and does never return, so they go, never to return, the words of Rebbi Aqiba. Rebbi Eliezer says, like this day, as the day gets dark and then light, so also they for whom there was darkness there will be light in the future.

MISHNAH: The people of a seduced town have no part in the World to Come, as it is said: Useless menleft your midstand seduced the inhabitants of their town as follows. Therefore they cannot be executed unless the seducers be from that town and from that tribe, unless the majority was seduced, unless the seducers were men. If women or minors seduced them, or if a minority were seduced, they are single individuals and need two witnesses and warning for each single one. This is more stringent for individuals than for the multitude since individuals are stoned, therefore their money escapes while the multitude is executed by the sword, therefore their money is lost.

MISHNAH: Slaying you shall slay the inhabitants of that town by the sword. A caravan of donkeys or of camels which passes from place to place saves them. Destroy it and all which is in it, including its domestic animals,by the sword. From here they said, the properties of just people in its midst are lost, what is outside escapes; that of evildoers both inside and outside is lost.

MISHNAH: All its spoils you shall collect in its public square. If it has no public square, one creates a public square in it. If its public square was outside, one collects it inside, for it is said: In its public square you shall burn the town and all its spoils in fire; its spoils but not Heaven’s spoils. From here they said that dedicated objects in it shall be redeemed, heaves shall be left to rot, Second Tithes and Holy Scriptures shall be put away. Totally for the Eternal, your God. Rebbi Simeon said, if you judge the seduced town, I will credit it for you as if you brought an entire elevation offering before Me. It shall be an eternal mound, it shall not berebuilt. It should not even be made into gardens and orchards, the words of Rebbi Yose the Galilean. Rebbi Aqiba says, it shall not be rebuilt as it was but it may be made into gardens and orchards. Nothing of what should be destroyed shall stick to your hands, so the Eternal may change from His anger to grant you mercy, have mercy on you and increase you, etc. Any time evildoers are in the world, anger is in the world; when the evildoers are lost from the world, anger passes away from the world.

MISHNAH: But the following are strangled: One who hits his father or his mother, and one who kidnaps a person from Israel, and the Elder who rebels against the Court, and the false prophet, and one who prophesies in the name of foreign worship, and one who copulates with a married woman, and the perjured witness of a Cohen’s daughter and her paramour. One who hits his father or his mother is not punishable unless he inflict a wound on them. The following is more aggravating about one who curses than one who hits, in that one who curses is punishable even after death, but one who hits after death cannot be prosecuted.

MISHNAH: And one who kidnaps a person from Israel is not punishable unless he bring him into his property. Rebbi Jehudah says, unless he bring him into his property and use him, as it is said, and enslaved him or sold him. One who kidnaps his own son, Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa declares punishable but the Sages make him not prosecutable. One who kidnapped a person half slave and half free Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa declares punishable but the Sages make him not prosecutable.

MISHNAH: The Elder who rebels against the Court, as it is said: If a law case is too difficult for you, whether blood and blood, or case and case, etc. Three courts were there, one at the entrance of the Temple Mount, one at the entrance of the Temple courtyard, and one in the ashlar hall. They come to the one at the entrance to the Temple Mount and he says, so I argued and so my colleagues argued, so I taught and so my colleague taught. If they had heard it, they tell them; otherwise they come to the one at the entrance of the Temple courtyard and he says, so I argued and so my colleagues argued, so I taught and so my colleagues taught. If they had heard it, they tell them; otherwise these and those come to the Supreme Court in the ashlar hall, for from there instruction goes out to all of Israel as it is said, from that place which the Eternal will choose. If he returned to his town, repeated and taught as was his custom, he cannot be prosecuted. If he instructed to act, he is punishable, as it is said, but the man who would act criminally etc. He is not punishable unless he instruct to act. A student who instructed to act cannot be prosecuted; it turns out that his severity is his leniency.

MISHNAH: [Denial] about words of the Sopherim is more serious than about words of the Torah. He who says that there are no phylacteries, to transgress the words of the Torah, is not prosecutable. Five compartments to add to the words of the Sopherim is punishable. One executes him not at the court in his town, nor at the court at Jabneh but one transports him to the Supreme Court in Jerusalem, keeps him until a holiday of pilgrimage, and executes him on the holiday as it is said, the entire people shall see and fear, the words of Rebbi Aqiba. Rebbi Jehudah says, one does not procrastinate in his case but executes him immediately, writes, and sends messengers to all places: Mr. A son of Mr. B was found guilty to be executed by the court.

MISHNAH: And the false prophet and one who prophesies what he did not hear and what was not said to him. But as to one who suppresses his vision, and one who disregards the prophet’s words, and a prophet who transgressed his own word, their death is by the Hand of Heaven as it is said, I shall ask it from him.

MISHNAH: One who prophesies in the name of foreign worship and says, so speaks the foreign worship, even if he stated practice correctly to declare the impure impure and the pure pure. One who copulates with a married woman, from the moment she is in the husband’s domain for definitive marriage even if she did not have intercourse, one who copulates with her is strangled. And the false witnesses of a Cohen’s daughter and her paramour. Therefore all false witnesses are executed by that death except for the false witnesses of a Cohen’s daughter and her paramour.

MISHNAH: There are two kinds of oaths which are four kinds. There are two kinds of awareness of impurity which are four kinds. There are two kinds of export on the Sabbath which are four kinds. There are two kinds of appearances of skin disease which are four kinds.

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

From where that they can be joined one to the other? Rebbi Mana said, the Sages counted them as two and counted them as four. Just as two can be joined one to the other so also four can be joined one to the other. Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Abin: If it can be joined to what is not of its kind, so much more of its own kind. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun said, it is not written “they will be” but “it will be”. This teaches that they cannot be joined one to the other. Ḥizqiah stated: It is not written “skin diseases” but “skin disease”. This teaches that they cannot be joined one to the other.” “He said to him, they could have said ‘starting with eggshell and stronger it is impure’ but should not have said, ‘there are two kinds of appearances of skin disease which are four kinds.’ He answered him, it teaches that they are not one superior to the other.” Could they not be one superior to the other? If you say so, you would have said the darkened one is impure, the very darkened is impure. But the Torah said, behold, the diseased spot darkened. The darkened one is impure but the very much darkened is pure. It follows what Rebbi Ḥanina said, it is comparable to two kings and their two lieutenants. One king is greater then the other king, one lieutenant is greater than the other lieutenant. But the first one’s lieutenant is not greater than the other king. Samuel said, it is comparable to two kings and two of their ambassadors. One king is greater then the other king, one ambassador is greater than the other ambassador. But the first one’s ambassador is not greater than the other king. Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of Rav (Aḥa) [Ada] bar Aḥawa: A king, and his army commander, and the Arghabeṭa and the Head of the Captivity. Rebbi Eleasar ben Rebbi Yose said before Rebbi Yose: The Mishnah implies that one is no greater than the other. If s´et whose very darkened spot is pure has a second color, the shiny spot, whose very darkened spot is impure, certainly will have a second color. He answered him, look at what you are saying. It has a second degree; should it not also have a third? What causes you to say that the very white spot, whose very darkened spot is impure, is the s´et? The kind of s´et is like eggshell. “שְׂאֵ֤ת, this is s´et. בַהֶ֔רֶת, this is the shiny spot. סַפַּ֨חַת֙ is secondary to the shiny spot. [The diseased spot’s] look is deepened, secondary to s´et. What is the etymology of s´et? Elevated. As the shadow looks elevated compared to the sunny spot. What is the etymology of deepened? It is deep, as the sunny spot looks depressed compared to the shadow. What is the etymology of סַפַּ֨חַת֙? Adjunct. As it is said, adjoin me please to one of the priesthoods, etc.” Rebbi Eleazar said, these are the words of Rebbi Ismael and Rebbi Aqiba. But the words of the Sages are that s´et and the shiny spot are one. Sappaḥat is secondary to either one. The Mishnah says so: “Mispaḥat is turned into s´et or strong mispaḥat.”

From where that they can be joined one to the other? Rebbi Mana said, the Sages counted them as two and counted them as four. Just as two can be joined one to the other so also four can be joined one to the other. Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Abin: If it can be joined to what is not of its kind, so much more of its own kind. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun said, it is not written “they will be” but “it will be”. This teaches that they cannot be joined one to the other. Ḥizqiah stated: It is not written “skin diseases” but “skin disease”. This teaches that they cannot be joined one to the other.” “He said to him, they could have said ‘starting with eggshell and stronger it is impure’ but should not have said, ‘there are two kinds of appearances of skin disease which are four kinds.’ He answered him, it teaches that they are not one superior to the other.” Could they not be one superior to the other? If you say so, you would have said the darkened one is impure, the very darkened is impure. But the Torah said, behold, the diseased spot darkened. The darkened one is impure but the very much darkened is pure. It follows what Rebbi Ḥanina said, it is comparable to two kings and their two lieutenants. One king is greater then the other king, one lieutenant is greater than the other lieutenant. But the first one’s lieutenant is not greater than the other king. Samuel said, it is comparable to two kings and two of their ambassadors. One king is greater then the other king, one ambassador is greater than the other ambassador. But the first one’s ambassador is not greater than the other king. Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of Rav (Aḥa) [Ada] bar Aḥawa: A king, and his army commander, and the Arghabeṭa and the Head of the Captivity. Rebbi Eleasar ben Rebbi Yose said before Rebbi Yose: The Mishnah implies that one is no greater than the other. If s´et whose very darkened spot is pure has a second color, the shiny spot, whose very darkened spot is impure, certainly will have a second color. He answered him, look at what you are saying. It has a second degree; should it not also have a third? What causes you to say that the very white spot, whose very darkened spot is impure, is the s´et? The kind of s´et is like eggshell. “שְׂאֵ֤ת, this is s´et. בַהֶ֔רֶת, this is the shiny spot. סַפַּ֨חַת֙ is secondary to the shiny spot. [The diseased spot’s] look is deepened, secondary to s´et. What is the etymology of s´et? Elevated. As the shadow looks elevated compared to the sunny spot. What is the etymology of deepened? It is deep, as the sunny spot looks depressed compared to the shadow. What is the etymology of סַפַּ֨חַת֙? Adjunct. As it is said, adjoin me please to one of the priesthoods, etc.” Rebbi Eleazar said, these are the words of Rebbi Ismael and Rebbi Aqiba. But the words of the Sages are that s´et and the shiny spot are one. Sappaḥat is secondary to either one. The Mishnah says so: “Mispaḥat is turned into s´et or strong mispaḥat.”

MISHNAH: In any case where there is knowledge at the start and knowledge at the end but forgetting in between there is an increasing or decreasing [sacrifice]. If there was knowledge at the start but no knowledge at the end, the he-goat whose blood in brought inside and the Day of Atonement suspend until it becomes a certainty for him and he brings an increasing or decreasing one.

MISHNAH: If there is no knowledge at the start but there is knowledge at the end, the he-goat brought outside or the Day of Atonement atone as it is said, in addition to the atoning purification offering; what the one atones for the other atones for. Since the one inside atones only on matters which were known, also the outside one should atone only on matters which were known.

MISHNAH: But about where there is no knowledge either at the start or at the end, the he-goats of the holidays and the he-goats of the Days of the New Moon atone, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Simeon says, the he-goats of the holidays atone but not the he-goats of the Days of the New Moon. What do the he-goats of the Days of the New Moon atone for? For the pure person who ate impure. Rebbi Meїr says, the atoning of all he-goats is the same, about the impurity of the Sanctuary and its sancta. Rebbi Simeon used to say, the he-goats of the holidays atone for the pure person who ate impure; those of the holidays atone for where there is no knowledge either at the start or at the end, and those of the Day of Atonement where there is no knowledge at the start but there is knowledge at the end. They asked him, could they be brought one for the other? He told them, they may be brought. They asked him, since their atoning is not the same, how can they be brought one for the other? He told them, all of them serve to atone for the impurity of the Sanctuary and its sancta.

MISHNAH: Rebbi Simeon ben Jehudah said in his name, the rams of the New Moon Days atone for the pure person who ate of impure [sacrifice]. Those of the holidays add to them in that they atone for the pure person who ate impure [sacrifice] and for [infractions] of which there was knowledge neither at the start nor at the end. Those of the Day of Atonement add to them in that they atone for the pure person who ate impure [sacrifice] and for [infractions] of which there was knowledge neither at the start nor at the end and those for which there was no knowledge at the beginning but there was at the end. They said to him, did not the teacher use to say that they may be sacrificed one for the other? He said, yes. They said to him, if it is so then those of the Day of Atonement could be brought on the Days of the New Moon. But how could those of the Days of the New Moon be brought on the Day of Atonement to atone an atonement which is not theirs? He told them, all of them serve to atone for the impurity of the Sanctuary and its sancta.

MISHNAH: Intentional impurity of the Sanctuary and its sancta is atoned by the he-goat whose blood is brought inside and the Day of Atonement. The remainder of the transgressions mentioned in the Torah, minor or serious ones, intentional and unintentional, known and unknown, positive commandments and prohibitions, extirpations and capital crimes, the scapegoat atones.

Are not minor sins [positive commandments and] prohibitions; are not serious ones extirpations and capital crimes? Rav Jehudah said, so is the Mishnah: “Minor or serious ones. Those minor ones, whether he committed them intentionally or committed them unintentionally. Those intentional ones, whether he obtained knowledge of them or did not obtain knowledge of them. The following are minor sins: positive commandments and prohibitions. Serious ones, extirpations and capital crimes. Just as the he-goat whose blood is brought inside atones for intentional infractions and suspends for the unintentional, the same holds for the scapegoat.”

It is understandable if it did not come to his knowledge. If it did come to his knowledge? Was it not stated: “From where that those obligated for purification sacrifices and certain reparation sacrifices for whom the Day of Atonement had passed, are obligated to bring them after the Day of Atonement, but those obligated for suspended reparation offerings are no longer liable?” Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, whether it was known to him on it, or not known to him on it, did not the Day of Atonement already atone? Rebbi Simeon in the name of Levi [Sokhia], the Mishnah speaks of one who rebels against the day of Atonement. Why did he not say, if it was not known to him on the Day of Atonement? His words imply that even if it was not known to him on the Day of Atonement, the Day of Atonement atones.

MISHNAH: Together Israel, Cohanim, and the Anointed Priest. What is the difference between Israel and a Cohen or the Anointed Priest? Only that the blood of the bull atones for Cohanim in matters of the Sanctuary and its sancta. Rebbi Simeon says, just as the blood of the he-goat which is brought inside atones for Israel, so the blood of the bull atones for the Cohanim. Just as the confession of the scapegoat atones for Israel, so the confession of the bull atones for Cohanim.

MISHNAH: The kinds of awareness of impurity are two which are four. If one became impure, realized it, then the impurity was forgotten but he was aware of sancta; or sancta were forgotten by him but he remembered impurity; or he forgot both, ate sanctum and realized it after he had eaten: he is obligated for a variable sacrifice. If one became impure, realized it, the impurity was forgotten but he was aware of the Sanctuary; or the Sanctuary was forgotten by him but he remembered impurity; or he forgot both, entered the Sanctuary and realized it after he had left: he is obligated for a variable sacrifice.

Rebbi Joḥanan said: In any case of doubt in the public domain, the doubt has to be resolved as pure, but one does not allow to act. But did we not state: “Any case of doubt which was declared pure for heave is pure for sprinkling water, and in any case where it remains unresolved for heave the sprinkling water is poured out.” There is nothing unresolved for the sprinkling water; either it is genuinely pure or genuinely impure. Rebbi Ze`ira said, the Mishnah deals with a situation not caused by a sacrifice; what Rebbi Joḥanan said refers to a situation caused by a sacrifice. Everybody agrees that if the person transgresses and acted, it is pure. The arguments of Rebbi Joḥanan are inverted. There, he says, if he transgresses and acted, it is impure. But here he said, if he transgresses and acted, it is pure. There in a private domain, here in the public domain. But you could even say, there and here in the public domain. The arguments of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish are inverted, the arguments of Rebbi Joḥanan are inverted, since they disagreed: A nazir became impure by a grave in the abyss, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, the nazir does not shave, but Rebbi Joḥanan said, the nazir has to shave. That is since Rebbi Joḥanan said, a doubt of awareness is awareness, even if the first was because of a crawling animal and the second by a corpse. The first before he converted and the second after he converted. The first before he grew two pubic hairs, the second after he grew them.

MISHNAH: Whether one entered the courtyard or the addition to the courtyard, because one adds to the city and the temple courtyards only by King and Prophet, and Urim and Tummim, and the Synhedrion of Seventy-One, and two thanksgiving offerings, and song, with the Court walking and the two thanksgiving offerings after them. The inner one is eaten but the outer one is burned. Any [addition] which was not made with all these, one who was entering there is not liable for it.

MISHNAH: If one became impure in the Temple courtyard, then was oblivious about impurity but remembered the Sanctuary, [or] was oblivious about the Sanctuary but remembered impurity, [or] was oblivious of both. If he prostrated himself, or tarried that he could have prostrated himself, or left on a lengthy path, he is liable. But on the shortest path he is not liable; this is the positive commandment in the Sanctuary about which they are not liable.

MISHNAH: What is the positive commandment about the menstruating woman? If he was having sex with a pure one and she said to him, I became impure, if he separates immediately he is liable, for his separation is as pleasurable to him as his entry.

MISHNAH: Rebbi Eliezer says, the crawling animal and he became oblivious, he is liable for forgetting the crawling animal but is not liable for forgetting the Sanctuary. Rebbi Aqiba says, and he became oblivious while he was impure, he is liable for forgetting impurity but is not liable for forgetting the Sanctuary. Rebbi Ismael says, and he became oblivious, and he became oblivious, two times to make him liable for forgetting impurity and forgetting the Sanctuary.

MISHNAH: There are two kinds of oaths which are four kinds: An oath that I shall eat, or that I shall not eat; that I ate, or that I did not eat. An oath that I shall not eat, when he ate the most minute amount, he is liable, the words of Rebbi Aqiba. They said to Rebbi Aqiba, where do we find that one who eats the most minute amount should be liable, that this one be liable? He told them, where do we find that a person talks and has to bring a sacrifice; but this one talks and has to bring a sacrifice!

MISHNAH: An oath that I shall not eat, when he ate and drank he is liable only for one. An oath that I shall not eat or drink, when he ate and drank he is liable for two.

HALAKHAH: “An oath that I shall not eat; when he ate,” etc. Drinking is subsumed under eating but eating is not subsumed under drinking. Rebbi Jonah understood all this from: Therefore, I told the Children of Israel, none of you shall eat blood. Where do we hold? If about congealed blood, was it not stated that congealed blood is neither food nor drink? (But we hold, about minute amounts. Are minute amounts eating? Explain it following Rebbi Aqiba who said that a minute amount is eating.) And was it not stated: If one liquefied the blood and swallowed it, or froze fat and ate it, if there is the volume of an olive he is liable. What does Rebbi Jonah do with this? It is not food to become impure in the impurity of food, or fluid to become impure in the impurity of fluids. Rebbi Jonah changed and explained the Mishnah: You shall spend the money for anything you desire. Where do we hold? If about one who gives the taste of wine into a cooked dish, is that not spoiling the taste? But we hold with everything and the Merciful called it “eating.” The rabbis of Caesarea said, explain if about gomraya and orzaraya, since anything that is auxiliary to food is like food.

MISHNAH: An oath that I shall not eat; when he ate wheat bread, and barley bread, and spelt bread, he is liable only once. An oath that I shall eat neither wheat bread, nor barley bread, nor spelt bread; when he ate wheat bred, and barley bread, and spelt bread, he is liable for each single one. An oath that I shall not drink; if he drank many kinds he is liable only for one. An oath that I shall drink neither wine, nor oil, not date syrup, if he drank he is liable for each single one.

MISHNAH: An oath that I shall not eat; when he ate inedible food and drank undrinkable fluids, he is not liable. An oath that I shall not eat; when he ate carcass or torn meat, abominations or crawling animals, he is liable; Rebbi Simeon declares him not liable. If he said, a qonam that my wife may not benefit from me if I had eaten today, if he had eaten carcass or torn meat, abominations or crawling animals, his wife is forbidden benefits.

MISHNAH: Whether matters of himself, or matters of others, or material matters, or immaterial matters. How is this? An oath that I shall give to X, or that I shall not give, that I gave, or that I did not give, that I shall sleep, or that I shall not sleep, that I slept, or that I did not sleep, that I shall throw a pebble into the sea, or that I shall not throw, that I threw, or that I did not throw. Rebbi Ismael said, he is liable only for the future, for it is said to cause evil or cause good. Rebbi Aqiba said to him, if it is so then this refers only to matters of causing evil or good; from where matters which do not refer to causing evil or good? He answered him, from the additional text of the verse. He answered, just as the additional text of the verse is for this, the additional text of the verse is for the other.

MISHNAH: If he swore not to observe a commandment but failed not to observe it, he is not liable; to observe a commandment and did not observe it, he is not liable, though it would have been logical that he should be liable, the words of Rebbi Jehudah ben Bathyra. Rebbi Jehudah ben Bathyra said, since he is liable for a permitted purpose, for which he is not sworn to from Mount Sinai, is it not logical that he should be liable about a commandment to which he is sworn from Mount Sinai? They said to him, no. What you say about an oath for permitted purpose where He made “no” equal to “yes”, can you say that about an oath concerning a commandment, where He did not make “no” equal to “yes”? Since one who swears not to observe a commandment but failed not to observe it, is not liable.

HALAKHAH: “If he swore not to observe a commandment,” etc. Rebbi Mani said, so is the Mishnah: “He is liable, the words of Rebbi Jehudah ben Bathyra.” What Rebbi Jehudah ben Bathyra said refers to prohibitions in general. “An oath that I shall eat carcass meat,” but he did not eat it. He is not liable. “An oath that I shall eat,” and he ate. If you would say that he is liable, they should have objected to him: No. You declare about an oath for permitted purpose where He made “no” equal to “yes” and “yes” equal to “no”, can you declare this about an oath concerning a commandment, where He did not make “no” equal to “yes”?

MISHNAH: “An oath that I shall not eat this loaf, an oath that I shall not eat it, an oath that I shall not eat it;” he is liable only once. This is the blurted oath where in case it be intentional one is liable for flogging, and if unintentional for a variable sacrifice.

MISHNAH: For an intentional vain oath one is liable to be flogged; if in error one is not liable. What is a vain oath? One swears to change what is known to man, about a stone pillar that it is of gold, a man that he is a woman, or a woman that she is a man. One swears about an impossibility, if I did not see a flying camel, if I did not see a snake like the beam of the olive press. If one said to witnesses come and testify for me, an oath that we shall not testify for you. One swears not to keep commandments: not to make a booth, not to take the lulav, not to put on phylacteries; these are vain oaths for which one is liable to be flogged if intentional, and free from prosecution of unintentional.

MISHNAH: “An oath that I shall eat this loaf; an oath that I shall not eat it.” The first one is a blurted oath, the second a vain oath. If he ate it he violated a vain oath, if he did not eat it he violated a blurted oath.

MISHNAH: A blurted oath applies to men and women, relatives and unrelated persons, qualified and disqualified persons, before a court or out of court, from his own mouth. For intentional violation one is liable to flogging, for unintentional [to bring] a variable sacrifice. A vain oath applies to men and women, to relatives and unrelated persons, to qualified and disqualified ones, in court and out of court, and by his own words. For intentional violation one is liable to flogging, for unintentional he is not prosecutable. In both cases, one who is sworn to by another person can be liable. How is this? One said, “I did not eat today, I did not put on phylacteries today.” “I want you to swear to it,” if he said “Amen” he is liable.

MISHNAH: An oath about testimony applies to men but not to women, to unrelated persons but not to relatives, to qualified but not to disqualified ones; it applies only to those admitted to testify, in court and out of court, and by the person’s own words. By the words of others they only become liable if they renege before a court, the words of Rebbi Meїr. But the Sages say, whether by the person’s own words or by the words of others they only become liable if they renege before a court. They are liable both for intentional [violation of the] oath and for erroneous one, and for intentional [refusal of] testimony, but one is not liable unintentionally. What is one liable for if intentional? A variable value sacrifice.

MISHNAH: What is an oath about testimony? One said to witnesses, come and testify for me. “An oath that we do not know testimony for you;” or they said to him, we do not know any testimony for you, “I am asking you to take an oath upon this;” if they said “Amen”, they are liable. If he asked them five times outside of court to take an oath; when they came to court and admitted it they are not liable. If they deny, they are liable for each single one. If he asked them five times in court to take an oath and the refused, they are liable only once. Rebbi Simeon said, what is the reason? Because they cannot come back and admit.

Rebbi Yudan the Cappadocian asked: He made him swear five times by his own formulation before the court: would he not be liable for each instance separately? Rebbi Yose said, is this not the Mishnah: “Rebbi Simeon said, what is the reason? Because they cannot come back and admit?” But here, since they can come back and admit, they are liable for each single instance.

MISHNAH: If both of them disavowed simultaneously, both of them are liable; one after the other, the first is liable but the second is not liable. If one reneged but one confessed, the one who disavowed is liable. If there were two groups of witnesses, if the first group disavowed and after this the second, both are liable since testimony could be upheld by either one of them.

So is the Mishnah: “If one disavowed but one confessed, the one who disavowed is liable.” Rebbi Yose said, our Mishnah if the second changed his opinion immediately after the speaking of the first. Because if the first changed his opinion, one would accept him; then the second would become the first.

So is the Mishnah: “If one disavowed but one confessed, the one who disavowed is liable.” Rebbi Yose said, our Mishnah if the second changed his opinion immediately after the speaking of the first. Because if the first changed his opinion, one would accept him; then the second would become the first.

If they were ten. There are Tannaïm who state, the first one is liable and all the rest are not liable. There are Tannaïm who state, the last one is not liable and all the rest are liable. The one who said, the first one is liable and all the rest are not liable, holds with him who said, the testimony can be verified by the remaining [witnesses]. The one who said, the last one is not liable and all the rest are liable, holds with him who said, testimony that was partially invalidated is totally invalidated. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah says so: “if there were two groups of witnesses.” He only said “two”. Therefore if there had been one, testimony that was partially invalidated it is totally invalidated.

MISHNAH: “I am putting an oath on you that you should come and testify for me that I have a claim against X for a deposit, and a loan, and robbery, and a lost object.” “An oath that we do not know testimony for you;” they are liable only once. “An oath that we do not know that you have a claim against X for a deposit, and a common venture, and robbery, and a lost object;” they are liable for each single one. “I am putting an oath on you that you should come and testify for me that I have a claim against X for a deposit of wheat, and barley, and spelt.” “An oath that we do not know testimony for you;” they are liable only once. “An oath that we do not know that you have a claim against X for a deposit of wheat, and barley, and spelt;” they are liable for each single one.

MISHNAH: “I am putting an oath on you that you should come and testify for me that X owes me full damages or half damages, double restitution or quadruple and quintuple restitution, that X raped or seduced my daughter, or that my son hit me, or that my neighbor injured me, or that he set fire to my grain stack on the Day of Atonement;” these are liable.

MISHNAH: “I am putting an oath on you that you should come and testify for me that I am a Cohen, that I am a Levite, that I am not the son of a divorcee, that I am not the son of a woman having received ḥalîṣah, that X raped or seduced his daughter, or that my son injured me, or that my neighbor injured me or set fire to my grain stack on the Sabbath:” these are not liable.

MISHNAH: “I am putting an oath on you that you should come and testify for me that Mr. X promised to give me 200 zuz but did not give them to me.” These are not liable since one is liable only for an (oath about) money similar to a deposit. “I am putting an oath on you, that you shall come and testify for me when you know testimony for me.” These are not liable since the oath preceded the testimony. If he stood in the synagogue and said, “I am putting an oath on you, that you shall come and testify for me if you know testimony for me.” These are not liable.

MISHNAH: If he said to two persons, I am putting an oath on you, X and Y, that you shall come and testify for me if you know testimony for me, but they knew from another witness, or one of them was a relative or disqualified. These are not liable.

MISHNAH: If he sent through his slave or the defendant said to them, “I am putting an oath on you that you shall come and testify for him,” they are not liable unless they hear from the mouth of the claimant.

HALAKHAH: “If he sent through his slave,” etc. Rebbi Eleazar said, why does the verse say, if he does not tell, he has to carry his iniquity? Not, from the mouth of the claimant. Our Mishnah needs what Rebbi Eleazar said, and what Rebbi Eleazar said needs our Mishnah. If we had stated but Rebbi Eleazar had not stated, we would have said that they are liable if they had heard from the claimant but had sworn to the defendant. Therefore what Rebbi Eleazar said is necessary. If Rebbi Eleazar had stated but we had not stated, we would have instructed that they are liable if they heard it from the defendant but had sworn to the claimant. Therefore one needs our Mishnah and needs what Rebbi Eleazar said, only if they heard from the claimant and swore to the claimant.

HALAKHAH: “If he sent through his slave,” etc. Rebbi Eleazar said, why does the verse say, if he does not tell, he has to carry his iniquity? Not, from the mouth of the claimant. Our Mishnah needs what Rebbi Eleazar said, and what Rebbi Eleazar said needs our Mishnah. If we had stated but Rebbi Eleazar had not stated, we would have said that they are liable if they had heard from the claimant but had sworn to the defendant. Therefore what Rebbi Eleazar said is necessary. If Rebbi Eleazar had stated but we had not stated, we would have instructed that they are liable if they heard it from the defendant but had sworn to the claimant. Therefore one needs our Mishnah and needs what Rebbi Eleazar said, only if they heard from the claimant and swore to the claimant.

HALAKHAH: “If he sent through his slave,” etc. Rebbi Eleazar said, why does the verse say, if he does not tell, he has to carry his iniquity? Not, from the mouth of the claimant. Our Mishnah needs what Rebbi Eleazar said, and what Rebbi Eleazar said needs our Mishnah. If we had stated but Rebbi Eleazar had not stated, we would have said that they are liable if they had heard from the claimant but had sworn to the defendant. Therefore what Rebbi Eleazar said is necessary. If Rebbi Eleazar had stated but we had not stated, we would have instructed that they are liable if they heard it from the defendant but had sworn to the claimant. Therefore one needs our Mishnah and needs what Rebbi Eleazar said, only if they heard from the claimant and swore to the claimant.

MISHNAH: “I put an oath upon you, I command you, I bind you,” these are liable. “By Heaven and Earth,” they are not liable. “By א-ד, by י-ה, by the Almighty, by Sabaoth, by the Gracious and Merciful, by the Forbearing and Most Benevolent,” and all substitute names, they are liable. One who curses by any of these is liable, the words of Rebbi Meїr; but the Sages declare him not liable. One who curses his father or mother by any of these is liable, the words of Rebbi Meїr; but the Sages declare him not liable. One who curses himself or another person by any of these violates a prohibition. “May God punish you, so may God punish you,” this is the imprecation mentioned in the Torah. “May He not punish you, may He bless you, may He do well with you,” Rebbi Meїr declares liable but Rebbi Jehudah declares not liable.

Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai, as our Mishnah. But some say, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, so is our Mishnah: “Rebbi Meïr declares liable but Rebbi Jehudah declares not liable.” Rebbi Meїr follows his own opinion and Rebbi Jehudah follows his own opinion, as we have stated: “If he cursed them by a substitute name, Rebbi Meїr declares him guilty but the Sages free him from prosecution.”

Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai, as our Mishnah. But some say, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, so is our Mishnah: “Rebbi Meïr declares liable but Rebbi Jehudah declares not liable.” Rebbi Meїr follows his own opinion and Rebbi Jehudah follows his own opinion, as we have stated: “If he cursed them by a substitute name, Rebbi Meїr declares him guilty but the Sages free him from prosecution.”

MISHNAH: An oath about a deposit applies to men and women, unrelated persons and relatives, qualified and disqualified persons, before a court or out of court, from his own mouth. From the mouth of another he is liable only if he denies in court, the words of Rebbi Meїr. But the Sages say, whether by his own mouth or the mouth of others, from the moment that he denies, he is liable. He is liable for intent about the oath, or error about it with intent about the deposit, but he is not liable for error about the latter. What is he liable for in case of intentional violation? A reparation offering in the value of two Šeqalim.

Rebbi La: Both Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both are saying, there is no ”witnesses “here. Why? Because they might die. But might not a document be lost? Therefore, the reason can only be that they might forget their testimony. There, we have stated: “Where is my ox? He told him, it is lost. I want you to swear, he said, Amen. But witnesses testify that he ate it. He has to pay the value. If he confessed himself, he has to pay the value, and the fifth, and the reparation sacrifice.” The Mishnah [applies] if he does not know that there are witnesses. He comes to tell you, even if he knows that there are witnesses. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah says so: “If there were two groups of witnesses, if the first group reneged and after this the second, both are liable.” One understands that the first group becomes liable. Why the second? Not because they might forget their testimony? [Here also, because they (are commanded) to forget their testimony.]

Rebbi La: Both Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both are saying, there is no ”witnesses “here. Why? Because they might die. But might not a document be lost? Therefore, the reason can only be that they might forget their testimony. There, we have stated: “Where is my ox? He told him, it is lost. I want you to swear, he said, Amen. But witnesses testify that he ate it. He has to pay the value. If he confessed himself, he has to pay the value, and the fifth, and the reparation sacrifice.” The Mishnah [applies] if he does not know that there are witnesses. He comes to tell you, even if he knows that there are witnesses. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah says so: “If there were two groups of witnesses, if the first group reneged and after this the second, both are liable.” One understands that the first group becomes liable. Why the second? Not because they might forget their testimony? [Here also, because they (are commanded) to forget their testimony.]

MISHNAH: What is an oath about a deposit? He said to him, “give me the deposit which you hold for me.” “An oath that I am holding nothing of yours;” or that he said to him, “I am holding nothing of yours;” “I am putting an oath upon you” and he said “Amen”; this one is liable. If he made him swear five times whether in court or out of court and he denied, he is liable for each single one. Rebbi Simeon said, what is the reason? Because he may return and admit.

Rebbi Yudan the Cappadocian asked: He made him swear five times by the formulation of others out of the court: would he not be liable only once? Rebbi Yose said, is this not the Mishnah: “Rebbi Simeon said, what is the reason? Because they can come back and admit?” But here, since they cannot come back and admit, they are liable only once.

MISHNAH: If five people were claiming from him and said to him, give us the deposit which you are holding for us. “An oath that I am not holding anything of yours’ ”; he is liable only once. “An oath that I am not holding anything of you, and of you, and of you;” he is liable for each one separately. Rebbi Eliezer says, on condition that he repeat “an oath” at the end. Rebbi Simeon says, not unless he repeat “an oath” for each single one.