mishnah

MISHNAH: “Give me the deposit, the loan, the robbery, and the lost object which you are holding for me.” “An oath that I am not holding anything of yours;” he is liable only once. “An oath that I am holding for you neither a deposit, nor a loan, nor a robbery, nor a lost object;” he is liable for each separate item. “Give me the wheat, and the barley, and the spelt, which you are holding for me.” “An oath that I am not holding anything for you,” he is liable only for one. “An oath that I am not holding wheat, and barley, and spelt, for you,” he is liable for each single one. Rebbi Meїr says, even if he says, “wheat, and barley, and spelt,” he is liable for each single one.

“Give me the wheat, and the barley,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the words of Rebbi Jehudah imply collectively one sacrifice, in detail three sacrifices. How is this? A detail wheat, a detail barley, a detail spelt. Collectively one sacrifice, in detail three sacrifices. Detail a third wheat, detail a third barley, detail a third spelt, are these taken together? Come and see; although he holds many details, even so they can be formulated collectively or in detail. In which respect? To make him liable for sacrifices. If he held four kinds, two kinds in one detail, two kinds on two details. even so they can be formulated collectively or in detail. As Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: “And I am greeting X,” one can assume that he signed concerning everything; “I am greeting X,” he signed only for the greeting. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, “I am greeting X,” one can assume that he signed concerning everything. What means “collectively”? Rebbi Joḥanan said, “X divorces Y and Z U.” What means “collectively”? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, “We, X and Z, divorce our wives at place A.” Rebbi Ze`ira said, Rebbi Joḥanan agrees that if he mentions divorce for each one separately that he needs the typical text and witnesses for each one separately. The strength of Rebbi Joḥanan is from the following: “ ‘That I shall not benefit from this one; a qorban for this one and a qorban for that one.’ Each single one needs a separate opening.” Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “If he wrote a separate text for each of them and the witnesses signed at the end, [only] the one with which the witnesses are read is valid.”

Samuel said. the detailed statement for Rebbi Meїr is the general statement for Rebbi Jehudah; the detailed statement for Rebbi Jehudah is the general statement for Rebbi Meїr. Rebbi Samuel said in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira, the words of the rabbis show that the detailed statement for Rebbi Meïr is not the general statement for Rebbi Jehudah and the detailed statement for Rebbi Jehudah is not the general statement for Rebbi Meïr, as Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: “And I am greeting X,” one can assume that he signed concerning everything; “I am greeting X,” he only signed for the greeting. If you would say that the detailed statement for Rebbi Meїr is the general statement for Rebbi Jehudah, even if he said “I am greeting X,” can one assume that he signed everything? Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah implies that the detailed statement for Rebbi Jehudah is not the general statement for Rebbi Meїr, as we have stated: “Rebbi Meїr says, even if he says, ‘wheat, and barley, and spelt,’ he is liable for each single one;” and nobody says “even” unless he agrees to an earlier statement. Rebbi Ḥinena said, in Rebbi Meïr’s opinion, whether he said, “wheat, and barley, and spelt,” or “wheat, barley, spelt,” it is a general statement and details. In Rebbi Jehudah’s opinion, if he said, “wheat, and barley, and spelt,” it is a general statement and details. If he said “wheat, barley, spelt,” it is a general statement without details.

MISHNAH: “You raped or seduced my daughter,” and he says “I did not rape, I did not seduce.” “I am asking you to swear,” and he says “Amen,” he is liable. Rebbi Simeon frees him from liability since he would not pay the fine by his own admission. They told him, even though he does not pay the fine by his own admission, he pays for shame and diminution by his own admission.

MISHNAH: “You stole my ox,” but he says “I did not steal;” “I am asking you to swear” and he says “Amen”, he is liable. “I stole but I did not slaughter or sell it;” “I am asking you to swear” and he says “Amen”, he is not liable. “Your ox killed my ox,” but he says “he did not kill;” “I am asking you to swear” and he says “Amen,” he is liable. “Your ox killed my slave,” but he says “he did not kill;” “I am asking you to swear” and he says “Amen”, he is not liable. He said to him, “you hurt me and injured me,” but he says “I did not hurt you and I did not injure you;” “I am asking you to swear” and he says “Amen”, he is liable. His slave said to him, “you knocked out my tooth and blinded my eye,” but he says “I did not knock out your tooth or blind your eye;” “I am asking you to swear” and he says “Amen”, he is not liable. This is the principle, anybody who has to pay on his own admission is liable; but anybody who does not have to pay on his own admission is not liable.

MISHNAH: A judicial oath is about a claim of two silver coins and the acknowledgment of one peruṭah. If the acknowledgment is not of the kind of the claim he is not liable. How is this? “You are holding two silver coins for me;” “I am holding only one peruṭah.” He is not liable. “You are holding two silver coins and a peruṭah for me;” “I am holding only one peruṭah.” He is liable. “You are holding a mina for me,” “I am not holding anything for you,” he is not liable. “You are holding a mina for me,” “I am holding only 50 denar for you,” he is liable. “You are holding a mina for my father,” “I am holding only 50 denar for you,” he is not liable since he is like one returning a lost object.

Rebbi Abba, Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: In any case where two [witnesses] make him liable to pay money, a single witness sets him up for an oath. But do not two [witnesses] make him liable for real estate? It is a difference since one does not swear about real estate. But do not two [witnesses] make him liable for a fine? There is a difference since one does not swear about a fine. But do not two [witnesses] make him liable for a peruṭah? Is it so? Have we not stated: “A judicial oath is about a claim of two silver coins and the acknowledgment of one peruṭah.” Our Mishnah, when he swears by his own formulation. What (Rebbi) Samuel said, when he swears by the formulation of others. Rav Ḥisda and his group disagree. “A judicial oath”, any judicial oath. There is no difference whether he swears by his own formulation or he swears by the formulation of others, he cannot be liable except for a claim.

“ ‘You are holding a mina for me’, ‘I am not holding anything for you’, he is not liable.” Even “you are holding a lot for me,” “I am not holding anything for you”, he is not liable? But the following: “You are holding a mina for me.” “I am holding only a peruṭah for you.” He is liable. Rav and Rebbi Joḥanan both are saying: Only if he made the loan in the presence of witnesses. But if he made the loan not in the presence of witnesses, he could tell him, you gave me a loan but I returned half of it. Rebbi Yudan said, in money matters one does not argue “because.” Because he could have told him, you did not give me a loan, he could tell him, you gave me a loan but I returned half of it? The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “ ‘You are holding a mina for me;’ he said ‘yes’. The next day he said, ‘return it to me,’ ‘I returned it to you;’ he is not liable. ‘I am not holding anything for you,’ he is liable.”

“`You are holding a mina for me,’ ‘I am not holding anything for you.’ ” Issy said, one who gives a loan to another in the presence of witnesses should claim repayment only in the presence of witnesses. Rebbi Avin said, the word of Issy: If one gives a loan to another in the presence of witnesses, [the debtor] should not repay except in the presence of witnesses. The Mishnah disagrees with him: “ ‘You are holding a mina for me;’ he said ‘yes’. The next day he said, ‘return it to me,’ ‘I returned it to you;’ he is not liable. ‘I am not holding anything for you,’ he is liable.”

MISHNAH: “You are holding a mina for me;” he said “yes”. The next day he said, “return it to me,” “I returned it to you;” he is not liable. “You are holding a mina for me;” he said “yes.” “Return it to me only in the presence of witnesses.” The next day he said, “return it to me,” “I returned it to you;” he is liable since he is required to return it in the presence of witnesses.

MISHNAH: “You are holding for me a pound of gold,” “I am holding for you only a pound of silver;” he is not liable. “You are holding for me a gold denar,” “I am holding for you only a silver denar, or a tressis, or a dupondius, or a peruṭah,” he is liable since all kinds of coin are one.

MISHNAH: “You are holding for me a kor of grain;” “I am holding for you only a letek of legumes;” he is not liable. “You are holding for me a kor of produce;” “I am holding for you only a letek of legumes;” he is liable since legumes are subsumed under produce. If one sued for wheat and the other acknowledged barley, he is not liable, but Rebbi Simeon declares him liable. Somebody who sued for amphoras of oil and the other admitted to pitchers, Admon says since he admitted of the kind of the claim he has to swear. But the Sages say, the admission is not of the kind of the claim. Rabban Gamliel said, I see the words of Admon. If somebody sued for both vessels and real estate; if [the other] admitted the vessels but denied the real estate, or the real estate and denied the vessels, he is not liable. If he admitted part of the real estate he is not liable. Part of the vessels he is liable since non-guaranteed property obligates guaranteed property to be sworn about.

HALAKHAH: “You are holding for me a kor of grain;” etc. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Our Mishnah if he sued him for wheat and he admitted barley; but if he sued him for two kinds and he admitted one of them, everybody agrees that he is not liable. Rebbi Abbahu said about that of Rebbi Immi: Why did we state, “Rabban Gamliel declares him liable”? It comes to inform you of the power of Rabban Gamliel, how far he declares liable. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Not only if he claimed wheat and he admitted barley to him, but if he claimed two kinds and he admitted one of them, the words of the Sages are that he is not liable. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it is only if he claimed two kinds and he admitted one of them, but if he sued for wheat and he admitted barley according to everybody he is liable. Following Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: A person went to court before Rav: When he claimed from another wheat, barley, and spelt. Rav told him, wait until he charged you with anything he has to charge, and in the end you will swear one oath about everything. Rebbi Abbahu said, so argued Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish against Rebbi Joḥanan: In your opinion, since you say that if he claimed two kinds and he admitted one of them, according to the Sages he is not liable, did we not state “if he claimed vessels and real estate; if he admitted the vessels and denied the real estate, the real estate and denied the vessels”? For vessels about vessels he is liable, not so much more for vessels and real estate? He answered him, to transfer an oath to him by the following Mishnah, “since guaranteed property obligates non-guaranteed property to be sworn about.” This does not even disagree with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. But did we not state: “Somebody who sued for amphoras of oil and he admitted to vessels”? How do we hold? If he sued him for vessels and oil, and he admitted one of them, everybody agrees that this refers to the claim. But if he sued him for vessels and he did (not) admit oil, everybody agrees that what he admitted did not refer to the claim. Rebbi Ze`ira and Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Samuel: If he sued for vessels full of oil, one said vessels but not oil, the other said oil but not vessels. (Thrown) vessels but not oil. Oil but not vessels? Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Abin formulates it as oil buckets. Can one not ask him? If he was paralyzed.

HALAKHAH: “You are holding for me a kor of grain;” etc. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Our Mishnah if he sued him for wheat and he admitted barley; but if he sued him for two kinds and he admitted one of them, everybody agrees that he is not liable. Rebbi Abbahu said about that of Rebbi Immi: Why did we state, “Rabban Gamliel declares him liable”? It comes to inform you of the power of Rabban Gamliel, how far he declares liable. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Not only if he claimed wheat and he admitted barley to him, but if he claimed two kinds and he admitted one of them, the words of the Sages are that he is not liable. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it is only if he claimed two kinds and he admitted one of them, but if he sued for wheat and he admitted barley according to everybody he is liable. Following Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: A person went to court before Rav: When he claimed from another wheat, barley, and spelt. Rav told him, wait until he charged you with anything he has to charge, and in the end you will swear one oath about everything. Rebbi Abbahu said, so argued Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish against Rebbi Joḥanan: In your opinion, since you say that if he claimed two kinds and he admitted one of them, according to the Sages he is not liable, did we not state “if he claimed vessels and real estate; if he admitted the vessels and denied the real estate, the real estate and denied the vessels”? For vessels about vessels he is liable, not so much more for vessels and real estate? He answered him, to transfer an oath to him by the following Mishnah, “since guaranteed property obligates non-guaranteed property to be sworn about.” This does not even disagree with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. But did we not state: “Somebody who sued for amphoras of oil and he admitted to vessels”? How do we hold? If he sued him for vessels and oil, and he admitted one of them, everybody agrees that this refers to the claim. But if he sued him for vessels and he did (not) admit oil, everybody agrees that what he admitted did not refer to the claim. Rebbi Ze`ira and Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Samuel: If he sued for vessels full of oil, one said vessels but not oil, the other said oil but not vessels. (Thrown) vessels but not oil. Oil but not vessels? Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Abin formulates it as oil buckets. Can one not ask him? If he was paralyzed.

So is the Mishnah: If he denied part of the real estate he is liable, part of the vessels he is not liable.

MISHNAH: One does not swear on the claim of a deaf-and-dumb person, an insane person, or a minor. One does not put an oath on a minor but one swears for a minor and the Temple.

MISHNAH: About the following one does not swear: slaves, and documents, and real estate, and gifts to the Temple. Not about double restitution, nor quadruple or quintuple; the unpaid trustee does not swear, the paid trustee does not pay. Rebbi Simeon says, one swears about things for which he is responsible if they be alienated, but does not swear if he is not responsible if they be alienated. Rebbi Meїr says, there are things which are like real estate and they are not like real estate but the Sages do not agree with him. How is this? “Ten bearing vines did I hand over to you,” but the other says, “they are only five.” Rebbi Meїr declares liable for an oath but the Sages say, anything connected to the ground is like ground.

MISHNAH: One swears only on matters of measure, or weight, or count. How is that? “I handed over to you a full house; or I handed over to you a full wallet,” But the other says, “I do not know; take what you left with me;” he is not liable. One says, up to the gutter; the other says, up to the window; he is liable.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Ḥanina said, One says, a large candelabra, but the other says, a small candelabra; he is liable since we have stated: “One swears only on matters of measure, or weight, or count.” Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, explain it if it was a candelabra composed of sections. One says, a large belt; the other says, a small belt. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated something but we do not know what he stated. If you say “liable”, a Mishnah disagrees, as we have stated: “One swears only on matters of measure, or weight, or count.” If you say “not liable”, a Mishnah disagrees, as we have stated: “If one says the adult one and the other says the underage one, let the seller swear that he sold the underage one. If both say that they do not know, they shall split.”

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Ḥanina said, One says, a large candelabra, but the other says, a small candelabra; he is liable since we have stated: “One swears only on matters of measure, or weight, or count.” Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, explain it if it was a candelabra composed of sections. One says, a large belt; the other says, a small belt. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated something but we do not know what he stated. If you say “liable”, a Mishnah disagrees, as we have stated: “One swears only on matters of measure, or weight, or count.” If you say “not liable”, a Mishnah disagrees, as we have stated: “If one says the adult one and the other says the underage one, let the seller swear that he sold the underage one. If both say that they do not know, they shall split.”

MISHNAH: One gave a loan to another on a pledge and the pledge was lost. He told him, “I loaned you a tetradrachma and it was worth a šeqel,” but the other one says “no, a tetradrachma you loaned me and it was worth a tetradrachma”; he is not liable. “I loaned you a tetradrachma and it was worth a šeqel,” but the other one says “no, a tetradrachma you loaned me and it was worth three šeqel;” he is liable. “You loaned me a tetradrachma on it but it was worth two,” and the other says “no, but I loaned you a tetradrachma and it was worth a tetradrachma;” he is not liable. “You loaned me a tetradrachma on it but it was worth two,” and the other says “no, but I loaned you a tetradrachma and it was worth five denar;” he is liable. Who has to swear? The one who holds the pledge, lest one swear and the other produce the pledge.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Joḥanan said, the lender can be believed if he said, I lent to you up to the value of the pledge. The Mishnah says, also the borrower can be believed, as we have stated: “He told him, ‘I loaned you a tetradrachma and it was worth a šeqel,’ but the other one says ‘no, a tetradrachma you loaned me and it was worth a tetradrachma‘; he is not liable.” A person encountered another in the market and said, you owe me two denarii and your pledge is worth two denarii. He answered, I owe you one denar but my pledge is worth two denarii. The case came before the judges of Nahardea. They said, since everybody agrees that it is worth two denarii, he has to bring witnesses on the other [denar]. They had not heard that Rebbi Joḥanan said, the lender can be believed if he said, I lent to you up to the value of the pledge.

MISHNAH: All who must swear by Torah standards do swear not to pay. The following do swear and collect: The journeyman, a person robbed or injured, and one whose opponent is suspected of perjury, and the grocer on his account book. How does the journeyman do it? He tells him, “give me my wages which you are holding;” he says, “I gave.” He swears and collects. Rebbi Jehudah says, only if there is partial admission. How is this? He tells him, “give me my wages of fifty denarii which you are holding;” but he says, “you received from these a gold denar.”

Rav Huna said, if after he swore he brought witnesses that it was standing at the feeding trough, the oath already had robbed it. A Mishnah disagrees with Rav Huna: “ ‘Where is my ox?’ He told him, it was lost. ‘I am putting an oath on you,’ and he said Amen. But witnesses testify that he ate it. He has to pay the value. If he confessed on his own, he pays the value, an additional fifth, and a reparation offering”. The Mishnah if he ate it and only later swore to him. What Rav Huna said, it he swore to him and only later ate it.

Rav Huna said, if after he swore he brought witnesses that it was standing at the feeding trough, the oath already had robbed it. A Mishnah disagrees with Rav Huna: “ ‘Where is my ox?’ He told him, it was lost. ‘I am putting an oath on you,’ and he said Amen. But witnesses testify that he ate it. He has to pay the value. If he confessed on his own, he pays the value, an additional fifth, and a reparation offering”. The Mishnah if he ate it and only later swore to him. What Rav Huna said, it he swore to him and only later ate it.

MISHNAH: How about a person robbed? There were witnesses that he entered another’s house to take a pledge without authorization. He said to him, give me my vessels which you took but he answers I did not take; this one swears and takes. Rebbi Jehudah says, only if there is partial admission. How is this? He tells him, you took two of my vessels but he says, I took only one.

MISHNAH: The injured one, how? They were testifying against him that one came to his hand whole and left injured. He says, you injured me, but the other says, I did not injure; this one swears and collects. Rebbi Jehudah says, only if there was a partial admission. How is this? He said to him, you injured me twice but the other says, I injured you only once.

MISHNAH: And if the opposing party was suspect of perjury, how? Equally oaths about testimony, or oaths about deposits, or even vain oaths, if one of them was a dice-player, a lender on interest, a participant in pigeon contests, or a dealer in sabbatical produce, the opposing party swears and collects. If both of them were suspect, the oath returns to its place, the words of Rebbi Yose. Rebbi Meїr says, they shall split.

MISHNAH: The grocer on his account book, how? Not that he says to him, it is written in my account book that you owe me 200 denars, but he said to him, give my son two se’ah of wheat, or my worker small change for a tetradrachma. He says, I gave, but they say, we did not take. He swears and collects, and they swear and collect. Ben Nannas said, how? Both are induced to swear falsely! But he takes without an oath and they take without an oath.

MISHNAH: He said to the grocer, give me produce for a denar; that one delivered and said, give me the denar. He said to him, I gave it to you and you put it into anpalē: the householder has to swear. If he gave him the denar and said, give me the produce; he said to him I delivered them to you and you brought then to your house: the grocer has to swear. Rebbi Jehudah says, the one in possession of the produce is advantaged. He said to the money changer, give me oboloi for a denar; that one delivered and said, give me the denar. He said to him, I gave it to you and you put it into anpalē: the householder has to swear. If he gave him the denar and said, give me the oboloi; he said to him I delivered them to you and you threw them into you wallet: the money changer has to swear. Rebbi Jehudah says, it is not the practice of money changers to give an as before he took the denarii.

MISHNAH: If she had compromised her ketubah, she shall not be able to collect without an oath. If one witness testifies that [the ketubah] was paid, she shall not be able to collect without an oath. From encumbered property, or from orphans’ property, she shall not be able to collect without an oath. If she collects in his absence, she shall not be able to collect without an oath. Similarly, the orphans can collect only by an oath; “an oath that our father did not instruct us, our father did not tell us, and we found nothing in our father’s documents that this note of indebtedness was paid.” Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa testified that even if the son was born after the father’s death he swears and collects. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, if there are witnesses that the father said on his death bed that this note of indebtedness was not paid, he collects without oath.

“Similarly, the orphans can collect only by an oath;” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: One pays from an orphan’s property only if interest is due; Rebbi Nathan says, also a woman’s ketubah. Rebbi Mana said, because of her sustenance. Rebbi Mattania said, who is worried about sustenance? Rebbi Simeon! Since Rebbi Simeon said, all depends on the female. What about it? For attraction, that everybody should jump to marry her. Rebbi Nathan said, also for robbery and torts. Rebbi Yose said, we stated both of these. Robbery from the following: “If it was mortgageable, he has to pay.” For torts from the following: “One pays from minor orphans’ property only from the least valuable.” So is the Mishnah: One pays for torts from minor orphans’ property only from the least valuable. But was it not stated, the son shall stand in the father’s place; one estimates torts from the most valuable land, creditors from average quality, and a woman’s ketubah from the least valuable? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, explain it as everybody’s opinion about testamentary dispositions.

MISHNAH: The following have to swear without a claim: Partners, and sharecroppers, and trustees, and a wife trading in the house, and a family member. If he says, what do you claim from me? “I want you to swear to me,” he is liable. After partners or sharecroppers distributed, he cannot force them to swear. If an oath was rolled over to him for another cause, one may roll everything over to him. The Sabbatical year remits an oath.

MISHNAH: There are four kinds of keepers: The unpaid trustee and the borrower, the paid keeper, and the renter. The unpaid trustee swears about everything; the borrower pays for everything; the paid keeper and the renter swear about breakage, abduction, and death, but pay for the lost and the stolen.

HALAKHAH: “There are four kinds of keepers,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, there are four kinds of keepers and they become liable only through acquisition. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Also in matters of robbery they become liable only through acquisition. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun said, a baraita said so: “one who contracts with another for a field,” etc. Rebbi Ḥananiah said, Rebbi Abun, also in theft cases they become liable only through acquisition. Rebbi Ḥananiah in the name of Rebbi Phineas, our Mishnah said so: “If he was pulling it to lead it out but it died on the owner’s property, he is not liable. If he lifted it or had it led outside the owner’s property when it died, he is liable.” If he lifted it inside the owner’s property it is as if he had taken it out of the entire property of the owner. If he was pulling it and it left, only after it left the entire property of the owner. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If it was standing at his feeding trough. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked: If it was standing at his feeding trough then even if he did not pull it! But we must deal with the case that it was standing in the public domain. Does Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya follow the House of Shammai, since the House of Shammai say, “he shall be hit by less or more”? How do we hold? If it was standing in the public domain and he intended to rustle it when it died, according to everybody he became liable by that intention. If he did not start to pull it, according to everybody he is not liable. But we most hold that it was standing at a feeding trough on his property. As Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, following the House of Shammai. Rebbi Abun said, there he acquired without the knowledge of its owner; but here when he acquires with the knowledge of its owner.

MISHNAH: He said to the unpaid keeper, “where is my ox?” He told him, “it died,” but it broke, or was abducted, or stolen, or lost. “It broke,” but it died, or was abducted, or stolen, or lost. “”It was abducted,” but it died, or broke, or was stolen, or lost. “It was stolen,” but it died, or broke, or was abducted, or lost. “It was lost,” but it died, or broke, or was abducted, or stolen. “I want you to swear;” he answered “Amen”. He is not liable.

MISHNAH: “Where is my ox?” He told him, “I do not know.” “What are you telling?” But if had died, or broke, or was abducted, or stolen, or lost. “I want you to swear;” he answered “Amen”. He is not liable. “Where is my ox?” He told him, “it was lost.” “I want you to swear;” he answered “Amen”. Witnesses testify that he ate it: he has to pay its value. If he confessed himself he pays the value, and a fifth, and a reparation sacrifice. “Where is my ox?” He told him, “it was stolen.” “I want you to swear;” he answered “Amen”. Witnesses testify that he stole it: he has to pay double restitution. If he confessed himself he pays the value, and a fifth, and a reparation sacrifice. He said to a person on the market, “where is my ox which you stole?” This one says, “I did not steal,” but witnesses testify that he stole it: he has to pay double restitution. If he slaughtered or sold it, he pays quadruple or quintuple restitution. If he saw that witnesses appeared and said, “I stole but did neither slaughter nor sell,” he only pays its value.

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, if he saw that witnesses to the theft were approaching and he said “I stole,” since his confession is inoperative he is not liable. If he saw that witnesses to the slaughter were approaching and he said “I slaughtered,” since his confession is (another opinion: not) operative he is not liable (another opinion: is liable). Rebbi Ze`ira asked: that witnesses to rape were approaching and he said “I raped”? Rebbi Ḥanina said, the Mishnah follows Rebbi Simeon who said the main claim is for the fine. Therefore his confession is inoperative and he is not liable. But the rabbis say, the main claim is not for the fine. Therefore his confession is operative and he is liable.

MISHNAH: He said to the borrower, “where is my ox?” He told him, “it died,” but it broke, or was abducted, or stolen, or lost. “It broke,” but it died, or was abducted, or stolen, or lost. “ ”It was abducted,” but it died, or broke, or was stolen, or lost. “It was stolen,” but it died, or broke, or was abducted, or lost. “It was lost,” but it died, or broke, or was abducted, or stolen. “I want you to swear;” he answered “Amen”. He is not liable. “Where is my ox?” He told him, “I do not know.” “What are you telling?” But if had died, or broke, or was abducted, or stolen, or lost. “I want you to swear;” he answered “Amen”. He is liable. He said to the recipient of a fee or to a renter, “where is my ox?” He told him, “it died,” but it broke or was abducted; “it broke,” but it died or was abducted; “it was abducted,” but it died or broke; “it was stolen,” but it was lost; “it was lost,” but it was stolen. “I want you to swear;” if he said “Amen”, he is not liable. “It died, or it broke, or it was abducted,” when it was stolen or lost. “I want you to swear;” if he said “Amen”, he is liable. “It was lost, or stolen,” when it died, or broke, or was abducted; he is not liable. This is the principle: Anybody who swears to his benefit is liable, to his detriment is not liable.

MISHNAH: Within three days before Gentile holidays one is forbidden to trade with them, to lend them and to borrow from them, to give them loans and to ask them for loans, to pay debts to them and to accept payment from them. Rebbi Jehudah says, one may accept payment from them because this hurts him. They told him, even though it hurts him now he will enjoy it later. Rebbi Ismael says, three days before and three days afterwards are forbidden but the Sages say, before their holidays it is forbidden, after their holidays it is permitted.

MISHNAH: The following are the holidays of the Gentiles: Calendae, Saturnalia, and Cratesis, and the king’s birthday, and birthday, and the day of death, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, any death for which there is burning is idolatrous; if there is no burning it is not idolatrous.

“Birthday, and the day of death.” The preceding was for the public, from here on private. But it is written: You shall die in peace, and what was burned for your earlier forefathers … So is the Mishnah: “Any death where there is smoke and burning is idolatrous; if there is not smoke and burning it is not idolatrous.

MISHNAH: The day of the first shaving of his beard and his locks, the day he arrived from a trip at sea, the day he was freed from jail, or a Gentile wedding feast for his son, are forbidden only on the day itself and for this man.

MISHNAH: Outside a town with pagan worship it is permitted. If the pagan worship was outside, inside is permitted. May one go there? If the road was dedicated to this place it is forbidden, but if one could go there also to another place it is permitted. If a town has pagan worship and there were stores decorated and not decorated; there was a case in Bet Shean and the Sages said that the decorated ones are forbidden, the not decorated ones are permitted.

MISHNAH: The following are forbidden to be sold to them: Pine cones, and white figs with their stalks, and incense, and white cocks. Rebbi Jehudah says, it is permitted to sell a white cock among chickens; when it is alone he cuts one claw and sells it since one does not sacrifice defective ones in pagan worship. All other things are permitted if unspecified but forbidden if specified. Rebbi Meïr says, it is also forbidden to sell good dates, and curved dates, and Nicolaos dates to Gentiles.

We have stated, “a white cock.” Rebbi Ḥiyya stated unspecified “a cock.” Our Mishnah needs the baraita of Rebbi Ḥiyya and the baraita of Rebbi Ḥiyya needs our Mishnah. If we had stated but Rebbi Ḥiyya had not stated, we would have said, only a white cock but an unspecified cock would be permitted even alone. Therefore the baraita of Rebbi Ḥiyya is needed. Or if Rebbi Ḥiyya had stated but we had not stated, we would have said, this is only for an unspecified cock, but a white cock even among chickens is forbidden. Therefore our Mishnah is necessary and the baraita of Rebbi Ḥiyya is necessary. “A chicken to sell,” one may sell him a white cock. “A white cock to sell,” we say by itself it is forbidden, among chickens it is permitted. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked: If one saw chickens grazing on a garbage heap and a white cock among them and said, whose is it? Is it as if he specified?

We have stated, “a white cock.” Rebbi Ḥiyya stated unspecified “a cock.” Our Mishnah needs the baraita of Rebbi Ḥiyya and the baraita of Rebbi Ḥiyya needs our Mishnah. If we had stated but Rebbi Ḥiyya had not stated, we would have said, only a white cock but an unspecified cock would be permitted even alone. Therefore the baraita of Rebbi Ḥiyya is needed. Or if Rebbi Ḥiyya had stated but we had not stated, we would have said, this is only for an unspecified cock, but a white cock even among chickens is forbidden. Therefore our Mishnah is necessary and the baraita of Rebbi Ḥiyya is necessary. “A chicken to sell,” one may sell him a white cock. “A white cock to sell,” we say by itself it is forbidden, among chickens it is permitted. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked: If one saw chickens grazing on a garbage heap and a white cock among them and said, whose is it? Is it as if he specified?

We have stated, “a white cock.” Rebbi Ḥiyya stated unspecified “a cock.” Our Mishnah needs the baraita of Rebbi Ḥiyya and the baraita of Rebbi Ḥiyya needs our Mishnah. If we had stated but Rebbi Ḥiyya had not stated, we would have said, only a white cock but an unspecified cock would be permitted even alone. Therefore the baraita of Rebbi Ḥiyya is needed. Or if Rebbi Ḥiyya had stated but we had not stated, we would have said, this is only for an unspecified cock, but a white cock even among chickens is forbidden. Therefore our Mishnah is necessary and the baraita of Rebbi Ḥiyya is necessary. “A chicken to sell,” one may sell him a white cock. “A white cock to sell,” we say by itself it is forbidden, among chickens it is permitted. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked: If one saw chickens grazing on a garbage heap and a white cock among them and said, whose is it? Is it as if he specified?

MISHNAH: At a place where they used to sell small cattle to Gentiles one sells; at a place where they used not to sell one does not sell; nobody should change this because of controversy. Nowhere does one sell to them large animals, calves, and donkey foals, whole or damaged. Rebbi Jehudah permits damaged ones; Ben Bathyra permits horses.

MISHNAH: One does not sell them bears and lions, or anything damaging to the public; nor does one build with them a basilica, a gallows, a stadion, or a rostrum. But one builds with them public and private baths; when they come to the cupola where an idol will be placed it is forbidden to build it.

HALAKHAH: “One does not sell them bears and lions,” etc. Therefore something which does not present a danger to the public one may sell to them. Our Mishnah follows Rebbi. As it was stated: “One who sees snake charmers and conjurers, muqion, mupion, mulion, milarin, milaria, sigillarin, sigillaria, this is forbidden because of ‘seat of the scoffers,’ as it is said, in the seat of scoffers he did not sit. All this leads to neglect of the Torah, as it is said, but in the teachings of the Eternal is his desire. Going to the theater is forbidden as pagan worship, the words of Rebbi Meïr, but the Sages say, when they present offerings it is forbidden because of pagan worship, otherwise it only is forbidden because of ‘seat of scoffers.’ One who goes to the theater to shout; if it is for a public need it is permitted, if to ingratiate himself it is forbidden. One who sits in the stadium is a spiller of blood. Rebbi Nathan permits because of two reasons, because he can shout and save lives, and he can testify for a woman that she can remarry.”

MISHNAH: One does not sell to them anything connected to the ground, but one may sell for when it will be cut. Rebbi Jehudah says, he may sell for the purpose of cutting.

MISHNAH: In the Land of Israel one does not lease houses to them and certainly not fields. In Syria one leases houses to them but not fields. Outside the Land one sells houses to them and leases fields, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Yose says, also in the Land of Israel one leases houses to them but not fields; in Syria one sells houses and leases fields; outside the Land one sells both.

MISHNAH: Also in a case where they said to lease they did not mean a dwelling because he will introduce idols as it is said, do not bring an abomination into your house for you would be anathema like it, etc. In any case he should not lease to him a bath house because it is called by his name.

MISHNAH: One does not put up an animal in hostelries of Gentiles since they are suspected of bestiality. A woman should not be alone with them because they are suspected of forbidden sexual relations; a man should not stay alone with them since they are suspected of shedding blood. A Jewish woman should not be a midwife for a Non-Jew but a Non-Jew may be a midwife for a Jewish woman. A Jewish woman should not nurse the child of a Non-Jewish woman but a Non-Jewish woman may nurse the child of a Jewish woman at her home.

MISHNAH: One may be healed from the healing of property but not healing of persons. One may not be shaved from them anywhere, the words of Rebbi Meïr; but the Sages say it is permitted in the public domain but not in private.

The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Zavda: Anything inside of the lips one heals on the Sabbath. Rebbi Ze‘ira objected, did we not state: “A person having a tooth ache should not suck vinegar with them”? Is this not inside from the lips? Rebbi Ze‘ira did not say so, but Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Zavda: Anything inside a body cavity one heals on the Sabbath. Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rebbi Abba bar Zuṭra, Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of Rebbi: One treats the bone of the skull on the Sabbath. Rebbi Ḥiyya the Mede, Rebbi Jona, Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rebbi Abba bar Zuṭra, Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of Rebbi: One treats glands of the throat on the Sabbath. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One treats an infected eye on the Sabbath. There, they say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Tops of hands and feet are a danger. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Red color is dangerous. Rebbi Abin said, one removes the sting of a scorpion on the Sabbath. Rav said, wine for exterior treatment of the eye is permitted, inside the eye it is forbidden. Samuel said, tasteless spit is forbidden for the eye on the Sabbath From this you infer for lichen. The rabbis of Caesarea said, ranula is dangerous. Rebbi Ḥizqiah (said) [from Acco] in the name of the rabbis of Caesarea: spider sickness is dangerous. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: gangrene is dangerous. Rebbi Jeremiah said, one can put sour dough on it on Passover. A boil is permitted. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah says this: “A small needle to remove a thorn.” Otherwise, what is the difference between a thorn and a boil? Darkening of the eye, they asked Rebbi Jeremiah. He told them, is not Rebbi Abba available for you? They asked Rebbi Abba who permitted it to them. He told them, also I am permitting it.

MISHNAH: The following Gentile properties are forbidden and the prohibition is of usufruct: Wine, and vinegar which originally was wine, and Hadrianic pottery, and heart-removed skins. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, if the tear is circular they are forbidden, oblong permitted. Meat brought into a pagan Temple is permitted but what leaves is forbidden because it is sacrifice to the dead, the words of Rebbi Aqiba. It is forbidden to trade with those who go to ugliness.

HALAKHAH: “The following Gentile properties are forbidden,” etc. Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Bitter, sweet, and hot are not under the rules of being uncovered. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: The hot, the bitter, and the sweet are not under the rules of being uncovered or under those of libation wine. Rebbi Simon explains: The hot, spice wine. The bitter, vermouth wine. And the sweet, cooked wine. Rebbi Joshua ben Zeidal had cooked wine which was left unsupervised in the custudy of a Gentile. He asked Rebbi Yannai ben Rebbi Ismael who said to him, so says Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: The sweet is not under the rules of being uncovered or under those of libation wine. Rebbi Yannai ben Rebbi Ismael fell ill. Rebbi Ze`ira, Rebbi (Joshua) [Hoshaia], Rebbi Abun bar Cahana, and Rebbi Ḥanianiah the colleague of the rabbis, went to visit him. They saw Rebbi Joshua ben Zeidal sitting there. They said, there is the master of the decision and the person of the happening, let us ask him. He said to them, so says Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, the sweet is not under the rules of being uncovered or under those of libation wine. One said to him, maybe that of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is for argument’s sake? He told them, it is for action and you can rely on it. When (they got up) [returned], Rebbi Ila was standing with Rebbi Abun bar Cahana and told him, if you did not prefer decisions, is this not a baraita? As Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, “why is cooked wine of Gentiles forbidden? Because it started out as wine.” Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah says so, “wine and vinegar which originally was wine.”

MISHNAH: Gentiles’ wine skins and jugs containing an Israel’s wine are forbidden and their prohibition is one of usufruct, the words of Rebbi Meïr; but the Sages say that their prohibition is not one of usufruct.

MISHNAH: Gentiles’ grape kernels and skins are forbidden and the prohibition is of usufruct, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, moist they are forbidden, dry permitted.

HALAKHAH: “Gentiles’ grape kernels and skins,” etc. Rav Sheshet in the name of Rav: Moist they are forbidden even for usufruct; dry they are permitted even to eat. But did we not state, “it does not become libation wine until it descends into the cistern”? Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Judah: The Mishnah is about one who lowers them into the cistern.

MISHNAH: Fish sauce, cheese, and theriac of Gentiles are forbidden and the prohibition is of usufruct, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, theitr prohibition is not of usufruct.

MISHNAH: Rebbi Jehudah said, Rebbi Ismael asked Rebbi Joshua when they were walking on a road, why did they forbid Gentiles’ cheeses? He told him, because they make them with stomach of cadaver. He answered him, is not the stomach of an elevation offering more serious than the stomach of a cadaver and they said, a Cohen who is not repulsed may burn it raw; they did not agree to this but said one has no usufruct but does not commit larceny. He gave a second argument and said, because they curd it with stomach content of calves for pagan worship. He retorted, then why did they not forbid it for usufruct? He deflected him to an other subject and said to him, my brother Ismael, how do you read, for your (m.) friends are better than wine, or for your (f.) friends are better than wine? He told him, for your (f.) friendship is better. He answered, it is not so since the next verse implies it, by the scent of your (m.) good oils.

MISHNAH: The following matters of Gentiles are forbidden but their prohibition is not of usufruct: Milk which the Gentile milked when no Jew was seeing him, bread, their oil, and anything preserved by cooking. Rebbi and his court permitted oil. Preserves in which usually wine is used, and vinegar, and pieces of triton, and fish sauce not containing a whole fish, and hallec, and a lump of asa foetida, and salqonarit salt; these are forbidden but their prohibition is not of usufruct:

MISHNAH: The following are permitted to eat: Milk which a Gentile milked while a Jew saw him, and honey, and broken grapes (even though they drip they do not prepare for impurity.) Preserves in which usually wine or vinegar is not used, and uncut triton, and fish sauce containing a whole fish, and a leaf of asa foetida, and rolled olives; Rebbi Yose says, the pitted ones are forbidden. Locusts from the basket are forbidden, from storage permitted; similarly for heave.

MISHNAH: All statues are prohibited because they are worshipped once a year, the words of Rebbi Meïr, but the Sages say, prohibited are only those in whose hand is a rod, or a bird, or a globe. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, any in whose hand is anything.

MISHNAH: If one finds shards of vessels they are permitted. If one finds the figure of a hand or of a foot these are forbidden because similar ones are worshipped.

MISHNAH: If somebody finds vessels and on them the form of the sun, the form of the moon, the form of a dragon, he should bring them to the Dead Sea. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, on honored ones it is forbidden, on contemptible ones permitted. Rebbi Yose said, he grinds them and disperses them into the wind or throws them into the Sea. They told him, but then it becomes fertilizer and it was said, nothing of the ban should cling to your hand.

MISHNAH: Proclos ben Ploslos asked Rabban Gamliel in Acco when he was taking a bath in the Bath of Aphrodite. He said to him, it is written in your Torah, nothing banned should stick to your hand: why are you bathing in the Bath of Aphrodite? He said to him, one does not answer in the bath. When he left he told him, I did not come into her domain, she came into my domain. One does not say, the bath was built as adornment for Aphrodite but one says, Aphrodite was made as adornment of the bath. Another explanation. If one gave you lots of money, would you enter your temple naked, after an emission, or urinating before it? But this one stands over the sewer and everybody is urinating in its presence. It only says their gods; what is treated as a divinity is forbidden, what is not treated as a divinity is not forbidden.

MISHNAH: If Gentiles worship mountains and hills; these are permitted but what is on them is forbidden, as it is said, do not covet silver or gold on them and take for yourself. Rebbi Yose the Galilean said, their gods [are] on the mountains, the mountains are not their gods. Their gods [are] on the hills, the hills are not their gods. Then why is an Ashera forbidden? Because it was held by human hand, and anything held by human hand is forbidden. Rebbi Aqiba said, I shall explain it to you. Any place where you find a high mountain, or an elevated hill, or a sprightly tree, know that there is idolatry.

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

There exists a baraita which says, idols are like a menstruating woman and its appurtenances are like a menstruating woman. Also there exists a baraita which says, idols are like a menstruating woman and its appurtenances are like crawling animals. The one who says, idols are like a menstruating woman and its appurtenances are like a menstruating woman, is understandable. But the one who says, idols are like a menstruating woman and its appurtenances are like crawling animals, is it not called “unwell” only for its appurtenances? Explain it if they were engraved on its body. As Rebbi Jacob of Kefar Ḥanan said, explain it if one worships the ephod itself, similar to what is written, Gideon made an ephod. Our Mishnah follows him who said, idols are like a menstruating woman and its appurtenances are like a menstruating woman, and we have stated: “its stones, its wood, and its dust make impure like a crawling animal.” Explain it if he worshipped the house itself, as Rebbi Abba, Rab Huna said in the name of Rav: One who worships a house makes it forbidden. Rebbi Zeˋira, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If somebody dedicates a house one does not commit larceny with it. And he who says, one does not commit larceny with it, can he make it forbidden? Rebbi Ḥaggai objected before Rebbi Yose, does not a Mishnah disagree with Rav? “A trough in a rock: one does not fill from it, and one does not sanctify with it, and one does not sprinkle with it, it does not have to be fastened with a tightened cover, and it does not invalidate a miqweh. If it was a vessel and he fixed it with lime, etc., up to it invalidates a miqweh.” Because he excavated it and after that combined it. Then if he fixed it and after that excavated it, what do you do with it? Explain it following Rebbi Joḥanan that the hewing of stones is the completion of work on them. Does this not disagree with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish who said, an idol which was broken is permitted? And so we are thinking to say if in the future he can restore it to its vessel it is forbidden according to everybody. Explain it if he worships every single stone and then builds with them. Does this not disagree with Rebbi Joḥanan, as Rebbi Joḥanan said, an idol which was broken is forbidden? And so we are thinking to say if in the future he cannot restore it to its vessel it is permitted according to everybody. Explain it if he worshipped a vine and afterwards planted it.

There exists a baraita which says, idols are like a menstruating woman and its appurtenances are like a menstruating woman. Also there exists a baraita which says, idols are like a menstruating woman and its appurtenances are like crawling animals. The one who says, idols are like a menstruating woman and its appurtenances are like a menstruating woman, is understandable. But the one who says, idols are like a menstruating woman and its appurtenances are like crawling animals, is it not called “unwell” only for its appurtenances? Explain it if they were engraved on its body. As Rebbi Jacob of Kefar Ḥanan said, explain it if one worships the ephod itself, similar to what is written, Gideon made an ephod. Our Mishnah follows him who said, idols are like a menstruating woman and its appurtenances are like a menstruating woman, and we have stated: “its stones, its wood, and its dust make impure like a crawling animal.” Explain it if he worshipped the house itself, as Rebbi Abba, Rab Huna said in the name of Rav: One who worships a house makes it forbidden. Rebbi Zeˋira, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If somebody dedicates a house one does not commit larceny with it. And he who says, one does not commit larceny with it, can he make it forbidden? Rebbi Ḥaggai objected before Rebbi Yose, does not a Mishnah disagree with Rav? “A trough in a rock: one does not fill from it, and one does not sanctify with it, and one does not sprinkle with it, it does not have to be fastened with a tightened cover, and it does not invalidate a miqweh. If it was a vessel and he fixed it with lime, etc., up to it invalidates a miqweh.” Because he excavated it and after that combined it. Then if he fixed it and after that excavated it, what do you do with it? Explain it following Rebbi Joḥanan that the hewing of stones is the completion of work on them. Does this not disagree with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish who said, an idol which was broken is permitted? And so we are thinking to say if in the future he can restore it to its vessel it is forbidden according to everybody. Explain it if he worships every single stone and then builds with them. Does this not disagree with Rebbi Joḥanan, as Rebbi Joḥanan said, an idol which was broken is forbidden? And so we are thinking to say if in the future he cannot restore it to its vessel it is permitted according to everybody. Explain it if he worshipped a vine and afterwards planted it.

Rebbi Joḥanan explained the Mishnah about a proselyte and a pagan who inherited from their pagan father. Why does he not explain it when idol worship came and built next to him? It was stated: If a house of idol worship was built next to him and then left it is permitted. But for a proselyte and a pagan who inherited from their pagan father, it is forbidden. It was stated: If a house of idol worship was built next to him and then left it is permitted. But if he came and built next to idol worship the entire house is for idol worship. Rebbi Yose said, our Mishnah says so, “If it was his and the idolatry’s, it is judged half by half.”

Rebbi Joḥanan explained the Mishnah about a proselyte and a pagan who inherited from their pagan father. Why does he not explain it when idol worship came and built next to him? It was stated: If a house of idol worship was built next to him and then left it is permitted. But for a proselyte and a pagan who inherited from their pagan father, it is forbidden. It was stated: If a house of idol worship was built next to him and then left it is permitted. But if he came and built next to idol worship the entire house is for idol worship. Rebbi Yose said, our Mishnah says so, “If it was his and the idolatry’s, it is judged half by half.”

MISHNAH: There are three houses. A house which one built originally for idolatry is forbidden. If he whitewashed it or ornamented it for idolatry and renovated, one removes what he renovated. If he introduced there an idol and removed it, it is permitted.

HALAKHAH: “There are three houses,” etc. Rav and Rebbi Joḥanan both are saying, the Mishnah treats their entry into the Land. The opinion of Rav, who said that one who worships a house makes it forbidden, is the reason that he explains it by their entry into the Land. Following the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan, who said that if somebody dedicates a house one does not commit larceny with it, could he not have explained it by somebody who was worshipping the house? {The effect of] one who worships a house can be voided. At their entry into the Land it could not be voided. What could he do? He removes its clapboards and it is permitted.

MISHNAH: There are three kinds of stone. If he quarried them from the start as pedestal it is forbidden. If he whitewashed it and ornamented it for idolatry and renovated, one removes what he renovated. If he put an idol on it and removed it, it is permitted.

MISHNAH: There are three kinds of Ashera. A tree which originally was planted for idolatry is forbidden. If he cut and shaped it for idolatry and it grows new shoots, one removes what grew newly. If he puts an idol under it, when he makes it invalid it becomes permitted.

MISHNAH: What is an Ashera? Any under which is an idol. Rebbi Simeon says, any which is worshipped. It happened in Sidon that they were worshipping one and there was a mound under it. Rebbi Joshua said to them, investigate the mound! They investigated it and found a figure in it. He told them, since they worship the figure we may permit the tree to them

MISHNAH: One should not sit in its shadow but if one sat he is pure. One should not pass under it and if one passed under it he is impure. If it robbed the public and one passed under it, he is pure. One may sow vegetables under it in the rainy season but not in summer, but lettuce neither in summer nor in the rainy season. Rebbi Yose says not even vegetables in the rainy season since falling leaves drop down on it and become fertilizer.

MISHNAH: If he took wood from it, it is forbidden for usufruct. If he used it to heat an oven, if it was new it must be destroyed, if it was old it must be cooled down. If he used it to bake bread, it is forbidden for usufruct. If it was mixed with other loaves, all are forbidden for usufruct. Rebbi Eliezer says, he should bring his profit to the Dead Sea. They said to him, idols cannot be redeemed.

MISHNAH: If he took from it [wood to make] a weaver’s shuttle, it is forbidden for usufruct. If he used it to weave cloth the cloth is forbidden for usufruct. If it was mixed up with others, all are forbidden for usufruct. Rebbi Eliezer says, he should bring his profit to the Dead Sea. They said to him, idols cannot be redeemed.

MISHNAH: How does one make it insignificant? If he pruned dry branches, green branches, took from it a rod, or a twig, even a leaf, it became in significant. If he planed it for its benefit it is forbidden, not for its benefit it is permitted.

MISHNAH: Rebbi Ismael said, three stones next to one another and next to a Mercury are forbidden, but two are permitted. But the Sages say, what is seen with it is forbidden, what is not seen with it is permitted.

MISHNAH: If one found on top of it coins, garments, or vessels, they are permitted. Branches of vine, wreaths of ears of grain, wines, oils, and fine flours, and anything similar to what is offered on the altar is forbidden.

MISHNAH: If an idol had a garden or a bath house, one may benefit from them not with a favor but one may not benefit with a favor. If it belongs to it and a third party one benefits whether with or without a favor.

HALAKHAH: “If an idol had a garden,” etc. So is the Mishnah: A favor to the priests or without a favor to the priests. “It is forbidden to sell fifes of idols, but if one pays the rental fee to the state if it is used to supply the needs of idol worship it is permitted to sell them. It is forbidden to rent a store from a pagan temple, but if one pays rent to the state even if it is used to supply the needs of idol worship it is permitted to rent it. It is forbidden to give to collectors for idol worship. If he pays a fee to the state even though he collects for idol worship it is permitted to give to him.” And the Mishnah said so, “if it belongs to it and a third party one benefits whether with or without a favor.”

HALAKHAH: “If an idol had a garden,” etc. So is the Mishnah: A favor to the priests or without a favor to the priests. “It is forbidden to sell fifes of idols, but if one pays the rental fee to the state if it is used to supply the needs of idol worship it is permitted to sell them. It is forbidden to rent a store from a pagan temple, but if one pays rent to the state even if it is used to supply the needs of idol worship it is permitted to rent it. It is forbidden to give to collectors for idol worship. If he pays a fee to the state even though he collects for idol worship it is permitted to give to him.” And the Mishnah said so, “if it belongs to it and a third party one benefits whether with or without a favor.”

MISHNAH: A Gentile’s idol is immediately forbidden but a Jew’s only when it is worshipped. A Gentile is able to annul his idol and that of a Jew; but a Jew cannot annul the idol of a Gentile. If one annulled an idol he annulled its appurtenances; if he annulled its appurtenances the appurtenances are annulled but it is forbidden.

HALAKHAH: “A Gentile’s idol is immediately forbidden,” etc. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, the Mishnah speaks about an artist who works to sell it on the market. When he finishes it, it is a sure thing that he bows down before it. Rebbi Yose asked, if it is a sure thing that he bows down before it, why did we state “a Gentile’s idol is immediately forbidden but a Jew’s only when it is worshipped”?

MISHNAH: How does one annul it? If he cut off the top of its earlobe, the tip of its nose, the tip of its finger. If he disfigured it even though nothing is missing, he annulled it. If he spat in its face, urinated before it, dragged it, threw excrement on it, this is not annulled. If he sold or mortgaged it, Rebbi says it is annulled, but the Sages say it is not annulled.

MISHNAH: An idol which was abandoned by its worshippers in times of peace is permitted, in times of war is forbidden. Pedestals of kings are permitted since they put them up when the kings pass by.

MISHNAH: The Elders were asked in Rome, if He does not approve of idol worship, why does He not eliminate it? They answered, if they would worship something which the world does not need, He would eliminate it. But they worship sun and moon, stars and planets, mountains and hills. Should He destroy His world because of the stupid? They told them, if it is so, He should eliminate things which are not needed in the world, and keep things necessary for the world. They answered, then we would strengthen the worshippers of the latter who would say, you should know that these are divinities since those were eliminated and these were not eliminated.

MISHNAH: One may buy a used wine-press from a Non-Jew. Even if he takes it in his hands and puts it on the pile. It does not become libation wine until it flows down into the cistern. If it flowed into the cistern, what is in the cistern is forbidden and the remainder in permitted.

MISHNAH: One may stamp with a Non-Jew in the wine press but one may not harvest with him. With a Jew who works in impurity one neither stamps nor harvests with him but one transports with him amphoras to the wine press and brings with him from the wine press.

MISHNAH: If a baker works in impurity one does not knead with him nor form the bread with him, but one may bring bread to the seller with him.

MISHNAH: A Non-Jew who was found standing next to a wine cistern, if he has a loan secured by it, [the wine] is forbidden, if he has no loan secured by it, it is permitted. If he fell into the cistern and climbed out, or measured it with a measuring rod; if he tried to hit a wasp with a stick, or was drumming on the mouth of a fermenting amphora; all these cases happened and they said, it should be sold, but Rebbi Simeon permits. If he took the amphora and threw it into the cistern; this happened and they declared it kosher..

MISHNAH: One who makes a Non-Jew’s wine in purity and leaves it in his domain, in a house open to the public domain in a city where there are Gentiles and Jews it is permitted, in a city where all are Gentiles it is forbidden unless he install there a watchman. But the watchman does not have to sit there and watch; even if he leaves and reenters it is permitted. Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says, all Gentiles’ domains are the same. One who makes a Non-Jew’s wine in purity and leaves it in his domain, if this one writes to him that I received the money, it is permitted. But if the Jew wants to remove it and he does not let him do it before he paid him his money, this was a case in Bet Shean and the Sages forbade.