mishnah

HALAKHAH: “One who makes a Non-Jew’s wine in purity,” etc. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina: Not only a door but even a window wide four by four and high ten, on condition that it be roofed and glued closed. If it was growing, we would say if he is seen climbing up and coming down it is forbidden, otherwise it is permitted. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah: The Mishnah speaks of a town “with double doors and bolts.” Was it stated in that case “a watchman even if he comes only at intervals”?

MISHNAH: If somebody hires a worker to work for him on libation wine, his wages are forbidden. If he hired him for other work, even though he told him, transport an amphora of libation wine for me from one place to another, his wages are permitted.

MISHNAH: If somebody hires a donkey to transport libation wine, its wages are forbidden. If he hired it to sit on it, even though he put his barrel on it, its wages are permitted.

MISHNAH: If libation wine fell on grapes, one should wash it off and they are permitted; but if they were split they are forbidden. If happened that Boetius ben Zenon brought dried figs in a boat when amphoras of libation wine broke over them. The case came before the Sages and they permitted. This is the principle: Anything where the taste improves the use is forbidden; anything where the taste does not improve its use is permitted, such as vinegar on broken beans.

HALAKHAH: “If libation wine fell on grapes,” etc. Our Mishnah if their seal is not loosened. But if their seal was loosened they are as injured.

As we have stated. “Everything that can be smelled is forbidden, whether it improves or spoils, the words of Rebbi Meїr. But the Sages say, if it improves it is forbidden, if it spoils it is permitted,” as for example vinegar which fell into broken beans. Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It is Rebbi Meïr’s, as we have stated there: “If barley grains fell into a cistern of water, even though they made it stink, [the water] is permitted.” About this Mishnah, Rebbi Meïr says it is in dispute, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: everybody’s opinion. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said this tradition so: In the opinion of Rebbi Meïr it is in dispute, in the opinions of Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish it is everybody’s opinion.

MISHNAH: A Non-Jew who with a Jew was transporting wine jugs from one place to another, if it can be presumed to be watched it is permitted. If he told him that he was leaving, the time needed to open, close, and fill the hole; Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, to open, and close, and dry.

MISHNAH: If somebody leaves his wine on a cart or a ship and went by a short-cut, [even if] he entered a town and took a bath, it is permitted. If he told him that he was leaving, the time needed to open, close, and fill the hole; Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, to open, and close, and dry.

MISHNAH: If somebody leaves a Gentile in charge of his store, even though he [intermittently] leaves and returns, [the wine] is permitted. If he told him that he was leaving, the time needed to open, close, and fill the hole; Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, to open, and close, and dry.

MISHNAH: If he was eating with him at one table, he put a pitcher on the table and one on a Delphic table, then let him stay there and left. Anything on the table is forbidden, on the Delphic table is permitted. But when he told him, mix with water and drink, also the one on the Delphic table is forbidden. Open amphoras are forbidden, sealed after the time needed to open, and close, and dry.

MISHNAH: If an investigative unit came to a village in times of peace, open amphoras are forbidden and sealed ones permitted. In times of war these and those are permitted since there is no time to make libations.

MISHNAH: Jewish craftsmen whom a Gentile sent an amphora of libation wine as their wages are permitted to tell him, give us its worth. After it came to their possession it is forbidden.

MISHNAH: If somebody sells his wine to a Non-Jew, in case he fixed the price before that one measured, the proceeds are permitted; if that one measured before he fixed the price, the proceeds are forbidden. If he took the funnel and measured into a Non-Jew’s vessel, then took it and measured into the vessel of a Jew, if it is contaminated with wine it is forbidden. If somebody pours from a vessel to another, what is poured from is permitted, what is poured into is forbidden.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody sold his wine to a Non-Jew,” etc. Rebbi Abba, Rav Huna in the name of Rav: One who handles a wine-skin and it splits in his hand is not responsible for it. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, it is necessary even if he takes it in the store when he has no other intention than that no other person should take it. Can he take possession at a minimal rate? Rebbi Ḥaggai said before Rebbi Yose, a Mishnah says that it cannot become his possession at a minimal rate, as we have stated there: “If somebody sells his wine to a Non-Jew, in case he fixed the price before that one measured, the proceeds are permitted; if that one measured before he fixed the price, the proceeds are forbidden.” If you say that it can come into his possession at a minimal price, even if he measured before he fixed the price should be as if he fixed the price before he measured and the proceeds would be permitted.

MISHNAH: Libation wine is forbidden and makes forbidden in the most minute amount. Wine mixed with wine or water mixed with water in the most minute amount. Wine in water or water in wine, if it gives taste. This is the principle, kind in the same kind in the most minute amount, kind in another kind if it gives taste.

MISHNAH: The following are forbidden and they forbid in the most minute amount: Libation wine, idols, heart-removed skins, and an ox which was stoned, and the calf whose neck was broken, and the birds of the sufferer from skin disease, and the nazir’s hair, and the firstborn donkey, and meat in milk, and profane animals slaughtered in the Temple precinct. These are forbidden and they forbid in the most minute amount.

MISHNAH: If libation wine fell into a cistern, the entire cistern is forbidden for usufruct. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, all of it shall be sold to a Gentile except for the value of libation wine contained in it.

MISHNAH: A wine press of stone which a Gentile had pitched one has to wipe dry and it is pure. But one of wood, Rebbi said he shall wipe it dry but the Sages say he must remove the pitch. And one of pottery, even if he removed the pitch, remains forbidden.

HALAKHAH: “A wine press of stone which a Gentile had pitched,” etc. Our Mishnah is Rebbi’s. “One of wood, Rebbi said he shall wipe it dry but the Sages say he must remove the pitch.” For pottery it is not following Rebbi, as it was stated: A Gentile’s wine-press, bucket, and funnel, Rebbi permits but the Sa (say). Rebbi agrees that pitchers are forbidden. Why are these forbidden and those permitted? These one fills with it, the others one does not fill with it. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: practice follows Rebbi. If a Gentile pitched a papyrus vessel. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Samuel, practice follows Rebbi. It is the disagreement of Rebbi and the Sages, as we have stated: “If somebody’s wine-press was impure and he wants to purify it, the brooms, the planks, and the lentil one rubs dry and they are pure. The wicker-work of wood splinters, or of hemp, or of wood, or of bark, of threads, of bast, one lets age a full twelve months; Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, from one olive pressing to the next, from one wine pressing to the next. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, if he wants to purify it immediately, he puts it for a period in a pipe where water streams, or in a brook whose water flows. Just as one wipes dry for purity so one wipes dry for libation wine.” How much is a period? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, half a day or half a night. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, either a day or a night. Do they disagree? But one when day and night are equal, the other when day and night are unequal.

MISHNAH: If somebody buys crockery from a Gentile, what usually is immersed one immerses, cleansed in boiling water one cleanses in boiling water, making glowing white in fire one makes glowing white. The spit and the grill one makes glowing white in fire but a knife one rubs clean and it is pure.

MISHNAH: How are plotting witnesses treated? “We testify about this man that he is the son of a divorcee or a woman who had received ḥalîṣah” One does not say that he should be decreed to be the son of a divorcee or a woman who had received ḥalîṣah in his stead, but he is flogged 40 [lashes]. “We testify about this man that he is obligated to go into exile.” One does not say, this one should go into exile in his stead but he is flogged 40 [lashes]. “We testify about this man that he divorced his wife but did not pay her ketubaḥ.” Would he not finally have to pay her ketubah today or tomorrow? But one estimates how much would a man be willing to pay for the ketubah of this woman in case she would be widowed or divorced, but if she died her husband would inherit from her.

MISHNAH: “We testify against this man that he owes another 1’000 denars payable within 30 days” but he says, within ten years. One estimates how much a person would be willing to pay to have 1’000 denars at his disposal to return them after ten years instead of returning them after thirty days. “We testify against this man that he owes another 200 denars” and they are found to be plotting, they are flogged and have to pay since the title which brings him to flogging is not the one which brings him to restitution, the words of Rebbi Ṃeïr. But the Sages say, anybody who pays is not flogged. “We testify against this man that he is liable to be flogged 40 lashes” and they are found plotting, they are whipped 80 because of do not testify against your neighbor as a false witness and because of do to him as he plotted to do to his neighbor, the words of Rebbi Ṃeïr. But the Sages say, they only are flogged 40 times. One distributes money but one does not distribute floggings. How? If they testified that he owes another person 200 denars and were found plotting, one distributes between them. If they testified that he is liable to be flogged 40 lashes and were found plotting, each one of them is flogged 40 lashes.

MISHNAH: Witnesses become plotters only by their own testimony. How is this? If they said, we testify against this man that he killed a person; [others] told them, how can you testify, for this murder victim or this murderer was with us at such place on that day; they are not plotters. But if they told them, how can you testify, for you were with us at such place on that day; they are plotters and are executed on their testimony. If others came and they showed them to be plotters, if others came and they showed them to be plotters, even a hundred, all should be executed. Rebbi Jehudah says, this is איסטיסית; only the first group is executed.

MISHNAH: Plotting witnesses cannot be executed unless judgment was rendered, for the Sadducees say, unless he was executed, for it says, a life for a life. The Sages told them, was it not already said, do to him as he plotted to do to his brother, does this not imply that his brother is alive? Then why does it say, a life for a life? I could think that they would be executed once they had testified, but the verse says, a life for a life; i. e., they cannot be executed unless judgment was passed.

MISHNAH: By the words of two witnesses or three witnesses shall a death sentence be imposed. If testimony is confirmed by two, why did the verse mention three? Only to compare three to two. Since three may prove that two are plotters, two also may prove that three are plotters. And from where even a hundred? The verse says “witnesses”. Rebbi Simeon says, since two are executed only if both are plotters, so three are executed only if all three are plotters. And from where even a hundred? The verse says “witnesses”. Rebbi Aqiba says, the third is only mentioned to punish him harshly and to identify his judgment with that of the others. If the verse in this way punished the accessory of criminals like criminals, so much more it will reward the accessory to one who keeps the commandments as one who keeps the commandments. Since the testimony of two [witnesses] is invalid if one of them is found to be a relative or a disqualified person, the same holds for three if one of them is found to be a relative or a disqualified person. From where even for a hundred? The verse says, witnesses. Rebbi Yose said, when has this been said? In criminal trials, but in civil trials the testimony should be upheld by the remaining [witnesses]. Rebbi says, both in criminal and in civil trials, if they warned them. But if they did not warn them, what should two brothers do who were eye-witnesses to a murder?

MISHNAH: If two [witnesses] saw him from one window, two from another window, and a person in the middle gives the warning, if partially they can see one another then this is one testimony. Otherwise, these are two testimonies. Therefore, if one [group] of them is found plotting, he and they are executed; the second [group] is not prosecutable.

MISHNAH: Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah says, nobody can be executed unless his two witnesses warned him, as it is said: By the mouth of two witnesses. Another explanation: By the mouth of two witnesses, that the court may not hear from the mouth of an interpreter.

“Whose sentence was passed,” etc. If somebody wrote all his property over to two persons in one document and the testimony of the witnesses was valid for one but invalid for the other. Rebbi Hila said, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagreed; one said, since it is invalid for one it is invalid for the other, but the other said, it is valid for one and invalid for the other. Rebbi Mana did not specify; Rebbi Abun specified: Rebbi Joḥanan said, since it is invalid for one it is invalid for the other; but Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it is valid for one and invalid for the other. Rebbi Eleazar said, the Mishnah supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “Since the testimony of two [witnesses] is invalid if one of them is found to be a relative or a disqualified person, the same holds for three if one of them is found to be a relative or a disqualified person. From where even for a hundred? The verse says, witnesses.” Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Rebbi Ḥanina the colleague of the rabbis and the rabbis disagree. One says, the argument of Rebbi Eleazar is correct, but the other says, the argument of Rebbi Eleazar is not correct. For him who says, the argument of Rebbi Eleazar is correct, it is a single testimony and a single warning, and any testimony which is partially disqualified is totally disqualified. For him who says, the argument of Rebbi Eleazar is not correct, it is as if two groups of witnesses came, valid for one and invalid for the other.

MISHNAH: If somebody escaped after sentence was passed, if he is returned to the same court, his case is not reopened. Anywhere two [people] will come forward and say, we testify against this man that he was condemned in court X on the testimony of Y and Z, he shall be executed. Criminal courts apply in the Land and outside the Land. A criminal court which hands out a death sentence once in a Sabbatical period is called terrorist. Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah said, once in seventy years. Rebbi Tarphon and Rebbi Aqiba say, if we had been members of a criminal court, nobody ever would have been condemned to death there. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, they would have increased the number of murderers in Israel.

MISHNAH: The following are exiled: the unintentional homicide. If he was rolling with the roller when it fell on somebody and killed him, or lowering an amphora when it fell on somebody and killed him, or was descending on a ladder when he fell on somebody and killed him, he is exiled. But if he was drawing the roller when it fell on somebody and killed him, or lifting an amphora when it fell on somebody and killed him, or was climbing a ladder when he fell on somebody and killed him, he is not exiled. This is the principle, by anything lowered, he is exiled, if it is not lowered, he is not exiled.

MISHNAH: If the iron slipped off the handle and killed, Rebbi said he does not go into exile, but the Sages say he does go. From the wood to split, Rebbi says he goes into exile, but the Sages say, he does not go.

MISHNAH: If one threw a stone into the public domain and it killed someone, he is exiled. Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob says, if after the stone left his hand, the other one stuck out his head and received it, he is not liable.

MISHNAH: If he threw the stone into his own courtyard and it killed, if the person damaged had the right to enter there, he is exiled, but if not, he is not exiled, as it is said, if somebody goes with another to a forest. Since the forest is a place where the person injured and the one causing the injury both may enter, this excludes a private courtyard where the person injured and the one causing the injury may not enter together. Abba Shaul says, since cutting down trees is a voluntary act, this excludes a father who hits his son, a teacher who disciplines his student, and the court bailiff.

MISHNAH: The father is exiled for his son, and the son for the father. Everybody is exiled for an Israel, and an Israel for everybody except a sojourner. A sojourner is exiled for a sojourner. A blind person is not exiled, the words of Rebbi Jehudah; Rebbi Meïr says, he is exiled. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah says, the hater is executed for he is as if notorious. Rebbi Simeon says, there is a hater who is exiled and one who is not exiled. In any case where one can say that he killed intentionally, he is not exiled; unintentionally, he is exiled.

“And the blind person.” Rebbi Abba said, who stated “the blind person”? Rebbi Jehudah, for Rebbi Jehudah frees him from all obligations of the Torah, as we have stated there: “Rebbi Jehudah said, anyone who never saw light in his life may not cover the Shemaˋ.” Therefore, if he saw once he may cover. And both of them explained the same verse, without seeing. Rebbi Meïr says, to include the blind person. Rebbi Jehudah says, excluding the blind person. The argument of Rebbi Meïr seems inverted. There he says, excluding, but here he says, to include. Rebbi Ḥanina the son of Rebbi Hillel said, the Mishnah is about one sitting in a dark house. So we are saying, “one sitting in a dark house may not cover the Shemaˋ.” But here, without seeing, to include the blind person. How do the rabbis read without seeing? To include one who smites in the night.

MISHNAH: Where are they exiled to? To the cities of refuge. To the three in Transjordan and the three in the Land of Canaan, as it is said: Three cities you shall designate in Transjordan, etc. As long as those in the Land of Israel had not been selected, those in Transjordan were not receiving, as it is said, there shall be six cities of refuge, not until all six were receiving together. Roads were maintained from one to the other, as it is said: Maintain the road for yourselves, and divide the domain of your Land into three parts. One sends with them two scholars lest he kill him on the road, to argue with him. Rebbi Meïr says, he may argue for himself as it is said, this is the word of the homicide. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah says, at the start both the involuntary and the voluntary [homicide] go to the city of refuge; the court sends and brings them back from there. If one is found guilty by a death sentence, they execute him. If he is found not guilty in a capital case, he is freed. If he is found guilty to be exiled they return him to his place as it is said, the community shall return him to his city of refuge. Not only a [High Priest] anointed with the anointing oil, but also one wearing the many vestments, and one deposed from his office. Rebbi Jehudah says, also the one anointed for war returns the homicide. Therefore, the mothers of the [High] Priests support them with food and clothing, so they should not pray for the death of their sons. If sentence had been passed when the High Priest died, he is not exiled. If sentence had not yet been passed when the High Priest died, and sentence was passed after a successor had been appointed, he returns after the death of the second. If sentence was passed when there was no High Priest, or one who killed a High Priest, or a High Priest who killed, can never leave from there. He cannot leave from there, neither for a testimony of obligation, nor a testimony in a civil suit, nor a testimony in a criminal suit, not even if Israel needs him like Joab ben Ṣeruya, he cannot ever leave from there, as it is said there. There shall be his dwelling, there he shall die, there he shall be buried. Just as the city grants asylum, so does its domain grant asylum. If a murderer left the domain and was found by the avenger of the blood, Rebbi Yose the Galilean says, it is the obligation of the avenger of the blood and the right of everybody. Rebbi Aqiba says, it is the right of the avenger of the blood and nobody would be liable because of him. If a tree stands inside the domain but its crown is outside the domain, or the tree stands outside the domain but its crown is inside the domain, everything follows the crown. If somebody killed in one of these cities, he is exiled from quarter to quarter; but a Levite who killed is exiled from one city to another. Similarly, a homicide exiled to a city of refuge whom the citizens of the town wanted to honor, should say to them, I am a homicide. If they tell him, anyway, he should accept, for it is said, this is the word of a homicide.

Rebbi Abbahu said, but he returns upon the death of the third. Rebbi Abbahu said, if they need it, they send and bring him from there. Rebbi Yose said, our Mishnah does not say so, but “even if Israel needs him like Joab ben Ṣeruya, he cannot ever leave from there, as it is said there. There shall be his dwelling, etc.”

MISHNAH: They were paying rent to the Levites, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Meïr said, they were not paying rent. He returns to the office he held earlier, the words of Rebbi Meïr; Rebbi Jehudah says, he does not return to the office he held earlier.

MISHNAH: The following are flogged: He who copulates with his sister, or his father’s sister, or his mother’s sister, or his wife’s sister, or his brother’s wife, or his father’s brother’s wife, or a menstruating woman. A widow for the High Priest, or a divorcee or one having received ḥalîṣah for a common priest. For a widow and divorcee one is liable because of two categories. For a divorcee having received ḥalîṣah one is only liable for one category.

MISHNAH: An impure person who ate holy food, or who came into the Temple when impure. One who eats fat, or blood, or leftover, or piggul, or impure [sacrificial meat]. One who sacrifices outside, or one who eats leavened matter on Passover. One who eats or does work on the Day of Atonement, and one who compounds the oil, or compounds the incense, and who rubs with the anointing oil, and one who eats carcass or torn meat, abominations and crawling things. If one ate ṭevel or first tithe from which heave was not taken, or second tithe or dedicated food which was not redeemed. How much does he have to eat from ṭevel to be liable? Rebbi Simeon says, anything; but the Sages say, the volume of an olive. Rebbi Simeon told them, do you not agree that one who eats (carcass meat) [an ant] is liable? They told him, because it is a creature. He answered them, also a grain of wheat is a creature.

MISHNAH: One who eats First Fruits before he recited over them, or most holy sacrifices outside the Temple enclosure, or simple sacrifices or Second Tithe outside of the wall. One who breaks a bone of a pure Passover sacrifice is flogged 40 [lashes]. But one who leaves over of the pure or breaks a bone of the impure is not flogged 40 [lashes].

MISHNAH: He who takes the mother with the young, Rebbi Jehudah says he is flogged but does not have to send away. But the Sages say, he sends away and is not flogged. This is the principle: One is not liable for any prohibition coupled with a positive commandment.

MISHNAH: One who shaves a bald spot on his head, and who shaves off his sideburns, and who shaves off the corners of his beard, and one who scratches one scratch for a deceased is liable. If he scratched one scratch for five deceased, or five scratches for one deceased, he is liable for each single one; for the head two, one for each side; for the beard two on each side and one for the chin. Rebbi Eleazar says, if he removed all at once he is liable only once. He is liable only if he took them off with a razor; Rebbi Eleazar says, even if he took them off with pincers or a plane.

MISHNAH: One who writes a tattoo. If he designed but did not tattoo, or tattooed but did not design, he is not liable until he design and permanently color with ink of kohl or anything that leaves a mark. Rebbi Simeon ben Jehudah says, only if the writes the Name, as it is said, a tattoo design you shall not put on yourselves, I am the Eternal.

MISHNAH: If a nazir was drinking wine a whole day long, he is liable only once. If one told him, do not drink, do not drink, if then he drinks he is liable for every single occasion. If he was defiling himself with corpses a whole day long, he is liable only once. If one told him, do not defile yourself, do not defile yourself, if then he defiles himself he is liable for every single occasion. If he was shaving a whole day long, he is liable only once. If one told him, do not shave, do not shave, if then he shaves he is liable for every single occasion. If he was dressed in kilaim a whole day long, he is liable only once. If one told him, do not dress, do not dress, and he took off and put on, he is liable for every single occasion.

MISHNAH: One might plough a single furrow and be liable because of it for eight prohibitions. If one ploughs with an ox and a donkey which had been sanctified for kilaim in a vineyard, in a Sabbatical year, on a holiday, he is a Cohen and a nazir at an impure place. Onias ben Ḥakhinai said, also if he wore kilaim. They told him, this is not of the same category. He told them, neither is the nazir of the same category.

MISHNAH: How much is he flogged? Forty minus one, as it is said: in number: forty, a number close to forty. Rebbi Jehudah says, he is flogged a full forty. Where is he flogged the extra one? Between his shoulders.

MISHNAH: One estimates him only for floggings divisible by three. If they estimated that he could receive forty; after he was flogged some, they said that he could not withstand forty, he is not liable. If they had estimated him for eighteen; after he was flogged they said that he could withstand forty, he is not liable. If he committed a transgression which involved two prohibitions, if they estimated him in one estimation he is flogged and then is no longer liable; otherwise he is flogged, recovers, and is flogged a second time.

MISHNAH: How does one flog him? One binds both his hands on both sides of a pillar. The beadle grabs his clothing. If it tore, it tore; if it unravelled, it unravelled, until he uncovers his heart. A stone is put behind him on which the beadle stands with a strip of calf’s leather in his hand, folded one into two and two into four, and two strips go up and down in it. The handle is one hand-breadth long; its width is one hand-breadth, and it reaches to his belly. He flogs him one third on his front and two thirds on his back. He flogs him neither standing nor sitting but bending down as it is written, the judge shall make him fall and flog him on his front etc. The person who flogs, flogs with one hand with full force. The reader reads if you will not observe to fulfill all the words of this Torah etc.; the Eternal will your flogging exemplary, etc. and returns to the beginning of the verse. If he died under his hand, he is not liable. If he added a single strip and he died, he is exiled because of him. If he dirtied himself whether by feces or by urine, he is no longer liable. Rebbi Jehudah says, a man by feces, a woman by urine.

MISHNAH: All those subject to extirpation are no longer liable to extirpation once they were flogged, as it is said, your brother would be despicable in your eyes. After he was flogged, he is your brother, the words of Rebbi Ḥanania ben Gamliel. And since one who commits a transgression may lose his soul because of it, if one fulfills a commandment certainly his soul shall be given to him. Rebbi Simeon says, from its place it can be inferred as it is written, the souls of the perpetrators will be extirpated, and it says, that a human shall do and live in them. Therefore, to anybody who quietly does not transgress a prohibition is given reward like somebody keeping the Commandments. Rebbi Simeon ben Rebbi says, does it not say, only be strong not to eat blood, for blood is the life? Since one who desists from blood, from which a person recoils, receives reward, if one desists of robbery and sexual offenses, which a person desires and cherishes, certainly he should acquire the merit for himself, his descendants, and his descendants’ descendants to the end of all generations.

MISHNAH: Rebbi Ḥaninah ben Aqashiah says: The Holy One, praise to Him, wanted to increase the merit of Israel; therefore He multiplied for them teaching and commandments, as it is written, the Eternal desires for the sake of His justice to make His instruction great and prodigious.

We had the merit to finish in peace. May we be worthy and live to finish studying and teaching all six orders of the Mishnah in peace, Amen.

MISHNAH: If the Court ruled to violate one of the commandments spelled out in the Torah and a single person went and acted inadvertently following their pronouncement, whether they acted and he acted simultaneously with them, or they acted and he followed their example, or they did not act but he did, he is not liable since he depended on the Court. If the Court ruled but one of them knew that they erred, or a student worthy of ordination went and acted following their pronouncement, whether they acted and he acted simultaneously with them, or they acted and he followed their example, or they did not act but he did, he is liable since he did not depend on the Court. This is the principle: The person depending on himself is liable, but one depending on the Court is not liable.

“And a single person went and acted inadvertently following their pronouncement.” Is there an intentional inadvertent action concerning an instruction by the Court? Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Our Mishnah, for example, if Simeon ben Azzai was sitting before them. Where do we hold? If he knows the entire Torah but does not know this detail, he is not Simeon ben Azzai. If he knows this particular subject but not the entire Torah, he is Simeon ben Azzai for this particular subject. But we must hold that he knows the entire Torah and knows the particular subject, but he errs to believe that the Torah said, after them, after them. If he errs to believe that the Torah said, after them, after them, he is not Simeon ben Azzai. As we have stated, I could think that if they tell you about right that it is left, and about left that it is right, you should listen to them? The verse says, “to go to the right or to the left;” that they should tell you about the right that it is right, and about the left that it is left. What about it? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Hila: Because everywhere for an inadvertent sin one is not liable but for an intentional one is liable, and here even intentionally he is not liable.

The colleagues in the name of Samuel. The Mishnah deals with an individual who complements the multitude. But any individual who acted on his own is not liable. Rebbi Joḥanan said, even any single individual who acted on his own brings a female sheep or goat. It is difficult. In Samuel’s opinion, would any single individual be atoned by two sacrifices? Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Samuel: The individual is suspended. If a majority ate, the court brings. If a minority ate, each individual brings. For any ruling for which the court [bring] a bull, the individual does not bring a female sheep or goat. For any ruling for which the court bring a bull, the individual does not bring a female sheep; for any ruling for which the court does not bring a bull, the individual brings a female sheep or goat. Samuel explains the Mishnah by majority and minority. If a majority ate, since the court does not bring a bull, an individual brings a female sheep or goat.

The colleagues in the name of Samuel. The Mishnah deals with an individual who complements the multitude. But any individual who acted on his own is not liable. Rebbi Joḥanan said, even any single individual who acted on his own brings a female sheep or goat. It is difficult. In Samuel’s opinion, would any single individual be atoned by two sacrifices? Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Samuel: The individual is suspended. If a majority ate, the court brings. If a minority ate, each individual brings. For any ruling for which the court [bring] a bull, the individual does not bring a female sheep or goat. For any ruling for which the court bring a bull, the individual does not bring a female sheep; for any ruling for which the court does not bring a bull, the individual brings a female sheep or goat. Samuel explains the Mishnah by majority and minority. If a majority ate, since the court does not bring a bull, an individual brings a female sheep or goat.

Rebbi Joḥanan explains the Mishnah by instruction from the Court. If the Court ruled to eliminate the entire body, since the Court has to bring a bull a private person does not have to bring a female sheep or goat. If they ruled to confirm part and to eliminate part, since the Court does not bring a bull a private person has to bring a female sheep or goat.

Samuel spoke about the Mishnah: “I still am saying, if a minority acted they are liable because the Court will not bring a bull for them. The verse says, [from] the people of the Land. Even [all of them] (part of them), even most of them.” Rebbi Joḥanan explains the Mishnah: I still am saying, if a minority acted without ruling they are liable because with instruction the Court will not bring a bull. Samuel said, but they bring a female sheep or goat. Rebbi Joḥanan said, they do not bring a female sheep or goat. According to Samuel, who infers liability from liability, it is understandable. According to Rebbi Joḥanan, who infers liability from exemption? The statement of a baraita disagrees with Samuel. Or his transgression in which he sinned was made known to him; this excludes the apostate. A baraita disagrees with Samuel, “A person who would transgress; one would transgress; acting he would transgress; these are restrictions: the person depending on himself is liable, but one dependent on the Court is not liable.” This disagrees with Samuel and cannot be confirmed.

Samuel spoke about the Mishnah: “I still am saying, if a minority acted they are liable because the Court will not bring a bull for them. The verse says, [from] the people of the Land. Even [all of them] (part of them), even most of them.” Rebbi Joḥanan explains the Mishnah: I still am saying, if a minority acted without ruling they are liable because with instruction the Court will not bring a bull. Samuel said, but they bring a female sheep or goat. Rebbi Joḥanan said, they do not bring a female sheep or goat. According to Samuel, who infers liability from liability, it is understandable. According to Rebbi Joḥanan, who infers liability from exemption? The statement of a baraita disagrees with Samuel. Or his transgression in which he sinned was made known to him; this excludes the apostate. A baraita disagrees with Samuel, “A person who would transgress; one would transgress; acting he would transgress; these are restrictions: the person depending on himself is liable, but one dependent on the Court is not liable.” This disagrees with Samuel and cannot be confirmed.

MISHNAH: If the Court gave an instruction; then they realized that they erred and reversed themselves; whether they brought their atonement or they did not bring their atonement, another person went and acted on their instructions, Rebbi Simeon declares him not liable, but Rebbi Eliezer says, it is in doubt. What is the doubt? If he remained at home, he is liable; if he went overseas he is not liable. Rebbi Aqiba said, I agree in this case that he is closer to not being liable than being liable. Ben Azzai asked him, what is the difference between him and the one staying at home? For one who stays at home might be informed but the other one could not be informed.

HALAKHAH: “If the Court gave an instruction; then they realized that they erred,” etc. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Our Mishnah, for example, if Simeon ben Azzai was sitting before them. Where do we hold? If he removed them, their instruction would be invalid. If they removed him, his instruction would be invalid. But we hold in the case that each side stands by its answer. For him, their instruction is no instruction, for they did not remove him. For others it is an instruction, for he did not remove them. Does this not disagree with Rebbi Mana bar Tanḥum, since Rebbi Mana bar Tanḥum said, if a hundred came together, only if they instructed unanimously? One explains it, that he was not present. Does this invalidate? He explains it following Rebbi, since Rebbi said, no one invalidates but the distinguished member of the Court (at Lydda) [only]. Since Rebbi Mana bar Tanḥum said, if a hundred came together, only if they instructed unanimously; is it the same in retraction or by majority? If it is obvious for you by majority, what kind of majority? The majority of those who instructed or the majority of those remaining? How is this? If there were a hundred but ten of them had died. If you say, a majority of those who instructed, 51. If you say, a majority of those remaining, 46.

MISHNAH: If the Court ruled to uproot an entire subject; if they said, the menstruating woman is not mentioned in the Torah, Sabbath is not mentioned in the Torah, idolatry is not mentioned in the Torah, they are not liable. If they ruled to eliminate part and to confirm part, they are liable. How is that? If they said, the menstruating woman is mentioned in the Torah but one who copulates with one who is watching a day to the next day is not liable; Sabbath is mentioned in the Torah but one who brings from a private domain to a public domain is not liable; idolatry is mentioned in the Torah but one who prostrates himself is not liable; these are liable for it is said something was hidden, something but not an entire subject.

MISHNAH: If the Court ruled but one of them knew that it was in error and he told them, you are erring, or that the distinguished member of the Court was not there, or that one of them was a proselyte, or a bastard, or a Gibeonite, or a childless old man, it is not liable since it is said here “congregation” and it is said there “congregation”. Since in the congregation mentioned there, all of them were worthy of ordination, also the congregation here all have to be worthy of ordination.

HALAKHAH: “If the Court ruled but one of them knew that it was in error,” etc. The Mishnah is Rebbi’s, since Rebbi said, no one invalidates but the distinguished member of the Court (at Lydda) [only]. It is written: If from the eyes of the congregation, from him who is appointed as eyes of the congregation. It is written, they shall stand there with you. Just as you are neither proselyte, nor Gibeonite, nor a bastard. Proselytes are reasonable, but bastards? does the court appoints bastards? Rav Ḥuna said, when they breached the rules and appointed. Rebbi Ḥanania, Rebbi Mana. One said, as part of the Seventy; the other said, apart from the Seventy. He who said, apart from the Seventy, is understandable. But he who said, as part of the Seventy, therefore not apart from the Seventy? Since he is not suitable for ordination, he is considered like a stone.

MISHNAH: If the Court ruled in error and the public acted in error, they have to bring a bull; intentionally but they acted in error, they bring a female sheep or goat; in error but they acted intentionally, they are not liable.

HALAKHAH: “If the Court ruled in error,” etc. Does this not disagree with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? Since Rebbi Immi said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Our Mishnah, for example, if Simeon ben Azzai was sitting before them. “Intentionally but they acted in error.” Is there intentional misdeed or error with respect of an instruction by the Court? The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: If not most of the public accepted it. Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, if they rebelled against their instruction. What is the difference between them? If they first accepted and then rebelled. In the opinions of the colleagues, since they rebelled, they are not liable. In the opinion of Rebbi Zeˋira, since at the first moment they accepted it, those are liable.

MISHNAH: If the Court ruled and all the public or a majority acted on their instruction, they bring a bull; or in a matter of idolatry a bull and a goat, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Jehudah says, the Twelve Tribes bring twelve bulls and in a matter of idolatry the Twelve Tribes bring twelve bulls and twelve goats. Rebbi Simeon says, thirteen oxen, and in a matter of idolatry thirteen bulls and thirteen goats; a bull and a goat for each tribe; a bull and a goat for the Court.

MISHNAH: If the Court ruled and seven tribes or a majority acted on their saying they bring a bull and for idolatry they bring a bull and a goat, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Jehudah says, the seven tribes who sinned bring seven bulls, and the remaining tribes who did not sin bring because of them a bull each, for also those who did not sin each bring a bull because of the sinners. Rebbi Simeon says eight bulls, and for idolatry eight oxen and eight goats, a bull and a goat for each tribe and a bull and a goat for the Court.

MISHNAH: If the Court of one of the tribes ruled and that tribe acted on their pronouncement, that tribe is liable but any other tribes are not liable, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. But the Sages say, they are only liable for a ruling by the High Court, as it is said, if the entire congregation of Israel be in error, and something was hidden from the eyes of the congregation, not the congregation of that tribe.

MISHNAH: If the Anointed Priest ruled for himself in error and acted in error, he brings a bull. If in error but he acted intentionally, or intentionally and he acted in error, he is not liable since the ruling of the Anointed Priest for himself is like the ruling of the Court for the public.

MISHNAH: If he ruled for himself and acted for himself, it is atoned for himself. If he ruled with the public and acted with the public, it is atoned for him with the public. As the Court is not liable unless they instruct to void part and confirm part, so is the Anointed. Also for idolatry they are not liable unless they instruct to void part and confirm part.

HALAKHAH: “If he ruled for himself,” etc. The Court ruled, he ruled following them, and then changed. It is obvious that for him it is the equivalent of uprooting the whole. But if he ruled first, the Court then ruled following him, and afterwards they reversed themselves. Nevertheless is it for him the equivalent of uprooting the whole, or because he ruled first, but his ruling was overturned by their ruling, for him it should not be the equivalent of uprooting the whole? If the Court ruled and he ruled following them, it is obvious that he is not liable if he ate according to the ruling of the Court. But after the Court reversed itself, he is liable. Rebbi Yose said, is that not the Mishnah? “If he ruled for himself [and acted for himself], it is atoned for himself.” Because he ruled for himself and acted for himself. “But if he ruled with the public and acted with the public, it is atoned for him with the public.” Because he ruled with the public and acted with the public, but “if he ruled for himself [and acted for himself], it is atoned for himself.”

MISHNAH: They are liable only for forgetting a topic with action in error; the same applies to the Anointed. Also for idolatry only for forgetting a topic with action in error.

HALAKHAH: “They are liable only for forgetting,” etc. Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rav Jeremiah. The Mishnah is Rebbi Meïr’s or has inferences like Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Yose said, Rebbi Meïr who said, it is an obligation of the Court. Rebbi Mana said, following Rebbi Meïr. There, it was stated: If the Court ruled and the public acted. If a member of the Court died, they are not liable. If a member of the public died, they are liable. Rebbi Meïr told them, if he relieves others of their liability, not so much more for himself? They told him, he can relieve others of their liability since they have where to hang on; he cannot relieve himself of liability since he has nothing to hang on.

MISHNAH: They are liable only for something which when intentional is punishable by extirpation and when unintentional by a purification sacrifice. The same applies to the Anointed. Also for idolatry only for something which when intentional is punishable by extirpation and when unintentional by a purification sacrifice.

MISHNAH: They are not liable for a positive commandment or a prohibition in the Temple; one does not bring a suspended reparation sacrifice for a positive commandment or a prohibition in the Temple. But they are liable for a positive commandment or a prohibition about the menstruating woman; one brings a suspended reparation sacrifice for a positive commandment or a prohibition about the menstruating woman. What is the positive commandment about the menstruating woman? Separate from the menstruating woman. The prohibition, do not copulate with a menstruating woman.

MISHNAH: They are not liable for hearing a sound, or expression of the lips, or the impurity of the Temple and its sancta. The same applies to the Prince, the words of Rebbi Yose the Galilean. Rebbi Aqiba says, the Prince is liable for all of them except the hearing of a sound since the king does not judge, nor may one judge him; he does not testify, nor may one testify against him.

So is the Mishnah, “since the king does not testify, nor may one testify against him.”

MISHNAH: For all commandments of the Torah where one is liable to extirpation for willful infraction and a purification sacrifice for unintentional infraction, the individual brings a sheep or a she-goat, the Prince a he-goat, and the Anointed or the Court bring a bull. For idolatry the individual, the Prince, and the Anointed bring a she-goat, the Court bring a bull as elevation offering and a goat as purification sacrifice. For a suspended reparation sacrifice the individual and the Prince are liable but the Anointed and the Court are not liable. For a certain reparation sacrifice the individual, and the Prince, and the Anointed are liable but the Court is not liable. For hearing a sound, or expression of the lips, or the impurity of the Temple and its sancta, the Court is not liable, the individual, and the Prince, and the Anointed are liable but the Anointed is not liable for the impurity of the Temple and its sancta, the words of Rebbi Simeon. What do they bring? A variable sacrifice. Rebbi Eliezer says, the Prince brings a goat.

So is the Mishnah: “but the Anointed is not liable for the impurity of the Temple and its sancta, everybody’s opinion, and neither is the Prince for hearing a sound, the words of Rebbi Simeon.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, and the Sanctuary he shall not leave, nor desecrate. Therefore, if he left, he would not desecrate. Rebbi Ashian, Rebbi Jonah: Rebbi Abun bar Cahana found a difficulty. Is it not written, a widow, or a divorcee, or a desecrated, a harlot, these he shall not marry, therefore if he married he would not desecrate? What about it? Ḥizqiah said, this person would be extirpated from the community. One whose sacrifice is identical to that of the community. This excludes the Anointed whose sacrifice is not equal to that of the community. They objected, is not also the Prince’s sacrifice not equal to that of the community? It is equal on the day of Atonement. But his brothers the priests are not equal on the day of Atonement! They are equal on the other days of the year. Rebbi Yudan bar Shalom said, they are equal in that the blood is given outside.

MISHNAH: An Anointed Priest who sinned and then was removed from his anointed status, or a Prince who sinned and then was removed from his exalted status. The Anointed Priest brings a bull and the Prince brings a goat. An Anointed Priest who was removed from his anointed status and then sinned, or a Prince who was removed from his exalted status and then sinned: The Anointed Priest brings a bull and the Prince is like a commoner.

MISHNAH: If they sinned before being appointed; when afterwards they were appointed, they remain commoners. Rebbi Simeon says, if it became known to them before they were appointed, they are obligated; if after they were appointed they are not liable. Who is the Prince? This is the king, as it is said, if he transgressed one of the commandments of the Eternal, his God; a Prince who has none above him but the Eternal, his God. And who is the Anointed? This is one anointed with the anointing oil, not one clothed in multiple garb. The only difference between the priest anointed with the anointing oil and the one clothed in multiple garb is the bull brought for all commandments. And the only difference between an officiating High Priest and a deposed one is the bull of the Day of Atonement and the tenth of an ephah. Both are equal in the office of the day of Atonement, commanded about the virgin, and prohibited for a widow, and do not defile themselves for close relatives, and may not let their hair grow or rend their garments, and let the homicide return.

If he ate a full olive sized piece but there is doubt whether he ate it on the Day of Atonement or before the Day of Atonement. The atonement atones for the doubt. Whether he ate it on the Day of Atonement or after the Day of Atonement. The colleagues say, atonement atones for the doubt. Rebbi Mattaniah said, the atonement atones only for doubt of the kinds of blood. A Mishnah supports the colleagues: “Sabbath and the Day of Atonement and he worked in twilight.” As you take it, if it was the Day of Atonement, it atoned. If it was weekday, it is permitted. But did we not state “he ate”? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, eating permitted [food].

Does Rebbi Joḥanan agree that if the first one was still in existence it is pushed aside? What should be done with it? Rebbi Yasa said, it is suspended for atonement. Therefore Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun discussed it. If he ate five times the volume of an olive; the first became known to him and he brought a sacrifice. The second, and he brought a sacrifice. The third, and he offered a sacrifice. The fourth, and he offered a sacrifice. The fifth, and he offered a sacrifice. Rebbi Joḥanan said, his sin is atoned for by the first which precedes the eating of all of them; the remainder shall fall to voluntary offerings. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, his sin is atoned for by the last which follows the eating of all of them; the others shall be set aside. Rav Ḥisda and Rav Hamnuna. Rav Ḥisda like Rebbi Joḥanan; Rav Hamnuna like Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. Rav Ḥisda remarked to Rav Hamnuna, there is a Mishnah which seems to support you and disagrees with me: “If there was awareness in between, just as he brings a purification sacrifice for each single one, so he brings a suspended reparation sacrifice for each single one.” If he had stated the reparation sacrifice and stopped! Rebbi Ḥinena said, even so, for all eventualities you may say so.

And from where that he officiated in eight? Rebbi Abba bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: And Aaron’s holy garments shall be for his descendants in his stead. Why does the verse say, in his stead? For greatness after him. And from where that he was asked in eight? Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: And Aaron’s holy garments shall be for his descendants in his stead. Why does the verse say, in his stead? For holiness after him. In what was he asked? They brought it, רבבהו, a Mishnah of Bar Qappara came from the South which stated: He officiates neither in the four of a common priest nor in the eight of a High Priest. Rebbi Abba said, it would be logical that he officiate in four. Why did they say that he did not officiate? Lest people say, we saw a simple priest who sometimes officiated in eight like a High Priest. Rebbi Jonah said, would he not officiate inside and would he not be asked outside? Does one err between inside and outside? But did Rebbi Tarphon, the teacher of all of Israel, not err between blowing for assembly and the blowing for a sacrifice? As it is written: The descendants of Aaron, the priests, shall blow the trumpets, blameless ones, not with bodily defects, the words of Rebbi Aqiba. Rebbi Tarphon said to him, I would hit my sons if I did not see Simeon, my mother’s brother, lame in one of his legs, standing in the Temple court with his trumpet in his hand and blowing! Rebbi Aqiba answered him, maybe you saw him only at the time of assembly; but I was saying, at the time of sacrifices. Rebbi Tarphon said to him, I would hit my sons but you did not deviate right or left. I am the one who heard but I could not explain. You derive it and agree with tradition. Therefore, anybody who separates from you is as if he separated himself from his life.

The priest shall atone who was anointed. Since the entire chapter is said about Aaron, from where [to include another priest? The verse says, who was anointed;] not only the anointed with the anointing oil; from where the one clothed in multiple garb? The verse says, who was inducted into office. And from where another who was appointed? The verse says, the priest shall atone. How is he being appointed? The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph, by mouth. Rebbi Zeˋira said, this implies that one may ordain Elders by word of mouth. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, a Mishnah says so: “Recant the four things that you are used to say and we shall make you president of the Court for Israel.”

MISHNAH: The High Priest rends his garment below, the common priest above. The High Priest sacrifices while in deep mourning but does not eat; the common priest neither sacrifices nor eats.

MISHNAH: Anything which is more frequent than another precedes the other. Anything more holy than another precedes the other. If the bull of the Anointed and the bull of the community are standing, the Anointed’s bull precedes the community’s bull in all its ceremonies. The man precedes the woman to be kept alive and to regain his lost property. But the woman precedes the man for clothing and to be freed from captivity. At a time when both are used for immorality, the man precedes the woman.

“Between his lost property and his father’s lost property, his own has precedence. Between his lost property and his teacher’s lost property, his own has precedence. Between his father’s lost property and his teacher’s lost property, his teacher’s lost property has precedence, for his father brought him to the life of this world, but his teacher who taught him wisdom brought him to the life of the future world.” The teacher who taught him (Mishnah) [wisdom], not the teacher who taught him Scripture. “But if his father was his teacher’s equal, his father’s lost property has precedence.”

What does it help? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, if half of his learning was from one and half of his learning from the other. His father’s lost property if half of his learning was from him and his mother’s lost property if she was divorced from his father, which has precedence? Does his father’s have precedence or only if all his learning was from him? His teacher’s lost property if half of his learning was from him and his mother’s lost property if she was divorced from his father, which has precedence? Does his teacher’s have precedence or only if all his learning was from him? His lost property, and his father’s lost property, and his mother’s lost property, and his teacher’s lost property. His own precedes his father’s, his father’s his mother’s, and his mother’s his teacher’s. Is that not a Mishnah, “the man precedes the woman to be kept alive and to return his lost property”? They wanted to say, if his teacher was not there. He comes to tell you, even if his teacher was there. He, and his mother, and his teacher, and his father, were in captivity. He precedes his mother, his mother his teacher, and his teacher his father. Is that not a Mishnah, “but the woman precedes the man for clothing and to be freed from captivity”? They wanted to say, if his teacher was not there. He comes to tell you, even if his teacher was there.

What does it help? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, if half of his learning was from one and half of his learning from the other. His father’s lost property if half of his learning was from him and his mother’s lost property if she was divorced from his father, which has precedence? Does his father’s have precedence or only if all his learning was from him? His teacher’s lost property if half of his learning was from him and his mother’s lost property if she was divorced from his father, which has precedence? Does his teacher’s have precedence or only if all his learning was from him? His lost property, and his father’s lost property, and his mother’s lost property, and his teacher’s lost property. His own precedes his father’s, his father’s his mother’s, and his mother’s his teacher’s. Is that not a Mishnah, “the man precedes the woman to be kept alive and to return his lost property”? They wanted to say, if his teacher was not there. He comes to tell you, even if his teacher was there. He, and his mother, and his teacher, and his father, were in captivity. He precedes his mother, his mother his teacher, and his teacher his father. Is that not a Mishnah, “but the woman precedes the man for clothing and to be freed from captivity”? They wanted to say, if his teacher was not there. He comes to tell you, even if his teacher was there.

Who is the teacher who taught him wisdom? The one who taught him first, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Jehudah said, the one from whom he received most of his instruction. Rebbi Yose said, anyone who explained a Mishnah to him.” Rebbi Abbahu came in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Practice follows him who said, the one from whom he received most of his instruction. Why did he not explain that this follows Rebbi Jehudah? There are Tannaïm who state it switched. Rebbi Eleazar tore his garment for his first teacher. Samuel took off [his phylacteries] for one who had explained a Mishnah to him. What Mishnah did he explain to him? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, “for one key he has to go down to his arm-pit and one opens straight.” What means “for one he has to gown to his arm-pit,” he had to lower his hand under his arm-pit until it could be opened. Rebbi Ḥanania was leaning on Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba in Sepphoris, when he saw everybody running. He asked him, why is everybody running? He answered, Rebbi Joḥanan is sitting preaching in Rebbi Banaia’s house of study and everybody is running to hear him. He said, praised be the Merciful Who showed me fruits while I am alive. In Agadah I explained him everything except Proverbs and Ecclesiastes.

Who is the teacher who taught him wisdom? The one who taught him first, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Jehudah said, the one from whom he received most of his instruction. Rebbi Yose said, anyone who explained a Mishnah to him.” Rebbi Abbahu came in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Practice follows him who said, the one from whom he received most of his instruction. Why did he not explain that this follows Rebbi Jehudah? There are Tannaïm who state it switched. Rebbi Eleazar tore his garment for his first teacher. Samuel took off [his phylacteries] for one who had explained a Mishnah to him. What Mishnah did he explain to him? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, “for one key he has to go down to his arm-pit and one opens straight.” What means “for one he has to gown to his arm-pit,” he had to lower his hand under his arm-pit until it could be opened. Rebbi Ḥanania was leaning on Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba in Sepphoris, when he saw everybody running. He asked him, why is everybody running? He answered, Rebbi Joḥanan is sitting preaching in Rebbi Banaia’s house of study and everybody is running to hear him. He said, praised be the Merciful Who showed me fruits while I am alive. In Agadah I explained him everything except Proverbs and Ecclesiastes.

Who is the teacher who taught him wisdom? The one who taught him first, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Jehudah said, the one from whom he received most of his instruction. Rebbi Yose said, anyone who explained a Mishnah to him.” Rebbi Abbahu came in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Practice follows him who said, the one from whom he received most of his instruction. Why did he not explain that this follows Rebbi Jehudah? There are Tannaïm who state it switched. Rebbi Eleazar tore his garment for his first teacher. Samuel took off [his phylacteries] for one who had explained a Mishnah to him. What Mishnah did he explain to him? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, “for one key he has to go down to his arm-pit and one opens straight.” What means “for one he has to gown to his arm-pit,” he had to lower his hand under his arm-pit until it could be opened. Rebbi Ḥanania was leaning on Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba in Sepphoris, when he saw everybody running. He asked him, why is everybody running? He answered, Rebbi Joḥanan is sitting preaching in Rebbi Banaia’s house of study and everybody is running to hear him. He said, praised be the Merciful Who showed me fruits while I am alive. In Agadah I explained him everything except Proverbs and Ecclesiastes.

MISHNAH: A priest precedes a Levite, a Levite an Israel, an Israel a bastard, a bastard a Gibeonite, a Gibeonite a proselyte, a proselyte a manumitted slave. When? If they are all equal. But if the bastard was learned and the High Priest ignorant, the learned bastard precedes the ignorant High Priest.

It was stated: The systematizer has precedence over the dialectician. Rebbi Samuel, Rebbi Berekhia’s brother, asked: Even like Rebbi Immi? He told him, what do you want from Rebbi Immi? He is a dialectician. This means, the Mishnah has precedence over Scripture. The following supports this, as Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai stated, one who studies Scripture is a qualification which is not a qualification. But the rabbis consider Scripture equally with the Mishnah. Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman said, the Mishnah has precedence over the Talmud. What is the reason? Acquire wisdom, acquire understanding, etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the Talmud has precedence over the Mishnah. What is the reason? Is acquiring wisdom not better than pure gold? How does Rebbi Joḥanan explain Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman’s reason? Water is cheap, wine is expensive. It is possible for the world to exist without wine; it is impossible for the world to exist without water. How does Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman explain Rebbi Joḥanan’s reason? Salt is cheap, pepper is expensive. It is possible for the world to exist without pepper; it is impossible for the world to exist without salt. Always pursue the Mishnah more than the Talmud. That is, before Rebbi incorporated most Mishnaiot into it. But since Rebbi incorporated most Mishnaiot into it, pursue the Talmud more than the Mishnah.

It was stated: The systematizer has precedence over the dialectician. Rebbi Samuel, Rebbi Berekhia’s brother, asked: Even like Rebbi Immi? He told him, what do you want from Rebbi Immi? He is a dialectician. This means, the Mishnah has precedence over Scripture. The following supports this, as Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai stated, one who studies Scripture is a qualification which is not a qualification. But the rabbis consider Scripture equally with the Mishnah. Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman said, the Mishnah has precedence over the Talmud. What is the reason? Acquire wisdom, acquire understanding, etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the Talmud has precedence over the Mishnah. What is the reason? Is acquiring wisdom not better than pure gold? How does Rebbi Joḥanan explain Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman’s reason? Water is cheap, wine is expensive. It is possible for the world to exist without wine; it is impossible for the world to exist without water. How does Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman explain Rebbi Joḥanan’s reason? Salt is cheap, pepper is expensive. It is possible for the world to exist without pepper; it is impossible for the world to exist without salt. Always pursue the Mishnah more than the Talmud. That is, before Rebbi incorporated most Mishnaiot into it. But since Rebbi incorporated most Mishnaiot into it, pursue the Talmud more than the Mishnah.

It was stated: The systematizer has precedence over the dialectician. Rebbi Samuel, Rebbi Berekhia’s brother, asked: Even like Rebbi Immi? He told him, what do you want from Rebbi Immi? He is a dialectician. This means, the Mishnah has precedence over Scripture. The following supports this, as Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai stated, one who studies Scripture is a qualification which is not a qualification. But the rabbis consider Scripture equally with the Mishnah. Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman said, the Mishnah has precedence over the Talmud. What is the reason? Acquire wisdom, acquire understanding, etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the Talmud has precedence over the Mishnah. What is the reason? Is acquiring wisdom not better than pure gold? How does Rebbi Joḥanan explain Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman’s reason? Water is cheap, wine is expensive. It is possible for the world to exist without wine; it is impossible for the world to exist without water. How does Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman explain Rebbi Joḥanan’s reason? Salt is cheap, pepper is expensive. It is possible for the world to exist without pepper; it is impossible for the world to exist without salt. Always pursue the Mishnah more than the Talmud. That is, before Rebbi incorporated most Mishnaiot into it. But since Rebbi incorporated most Mishnaiot into it, pursue the Talmud more than the Mishnah.

It was stated: The systematizer has precedence over the dialectician. Rebbi Samuel, Rebbi Berekhia’s brother, asked: Even like Rebbi Immi? He told him, what do you want from Rebbi Immi? He is a dialectician. This means, the Mishnah has precedence over Scripture. The following supports this, as Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai stated, one who studies Scripture is a qualification which is not a qualification. But the rabbis consider Scripture equally with the Mishnah. Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman said, the Mishnah has precedence over the Talmud. What is the reason? Acquire wisdom, acquire understanding, etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the Talmud has precedence over the Mishnah. What is the reason? Is acquiring wisdom not better than pure gold? How does Rebbi Joḥanan explain Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman’s reason? Water is cheap, wine is expensive. It is possible for the world to exist without wine; it is impossible for the world to exist without water. How does Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman explain Rebbi Joḥanan’s reason? Salt is cheap, pepper is expensive. It is possible for the world to exist without pepper; it is impossible for the world to exist without salt. Always pursue the Mishnah more than the Talmud. That is, before Rebbi incorporated most Mishnaiot into it. But since Rebbi incorporated most Mishnaiot into it, pursue the Talmud more than the Mishnah.

It was stated: The systematizer has precedence over the dialectician. Rebbi Samuel, Rebbi Berekhia’s brother, asked: Even like Rebbi Immi? He told him, what do you want from Rebbi Immi? He is a dialectician. This means, the Mishnah has precedence over Scripture. The following supports this, as Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai stated, one who studies Scripture is a qualification which is not a qualification. But the rabbis consider Scripture equally with the Mishnah. Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman said, the Mishnah has precedence over the Talmud. What is the reason? Acquire wisdom, acquire understanding, etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the Talmud has precedence over the Mishnah. What is the reason? Is acquiring wisdom not better than pure gold? How does Rebbi Joḥanan explain Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman’s reason? Water is cheap, wine is expensive. It is possible for the world to exist without wine; it is impossible for the world to exist without water. How does Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman explain Rebbi Joḥanan’s reason? Salt is cheap, pepper is expensive. It is possible for the world to exist without pepper; it is impossible for the world to exist without salt. Always pursue the Mishnah more than the Talmud. That is, before Rebbi incorporated most Mishnaiot into it. But since Rebbi incorporated most Mishnaiot into it, pursue the Talmud more than the Mishnah.