missing

And now I have heard that thou hast shearers: now thy shepherds which were with us, we hurt them not, neither was there ought missing unto them, all the while they were in Carmel.

And as the king passed by, he cried unto the king: and he said, Thy servant went out into the midst of the battle; and, behold, a man turned aside, and brought a man unto me, and said, Keep this man: if by any means he be missing, then shall thy life be for his life, or else thou shalt pay a talent of silver.

But missing his stroke through haste, the multitude also rushing within the doors, he ran boldly up to the wall, and cast himself down manfully among the thickest of them.

And all when they saw it were amazed and inquired which of them it was that was missing. And when it became manifest that it was the hand of the cup-bearer which had smitten the apostle, the flute-girl brake her flute and cast it away and went and sat down at the apostle's feet, saying: This is either a god or an apostle of God, for I heard him say in the Hebrew tongue: ' I shall now see the hand that hath smitten me dragged by dogs', which thing ye also have now beheld; for as he said, so hath it come about. And some believed her, and some not. But when the king heard of it, he came and said to the apostle: Rise up and come with me, and pray for my daughter: for she is mine only-begotten, and to-day I give her in marriage. But the apostle was not willing to go with him, for the Lord was not yet revealed unto him in that place. But the king led him away against his will unto the bride-chamber that he might pray for them.

And when the land of Tarshish was subdued, all the Tarshishites ran away, and came on the border of their brethren the children of Javan, and Joseph with all his mighty men and host returned to Egypt, not one man of them missing.

And Joseph and all his brethren returned to Egypt, not one man was missing from them, but of the Egyptians there fell twelve men.

One who wants to cut off leaves of vegetables in order to lighten his burden, he may not throw them down until he has [first] tithed them. One who takes vegetables from the market [with the intention of buying them], and then decides to put them back, he should not put them back until he has [first] tithed them, for nothing is missing [after they are tithed] except for their quantity. But if he was standing [there and deciding what to] buy and then saw another load of better quality, he may put them back [untithed], since he had not yet drawn them into his possession.

If a rash spread out on a majority of it, or if its pitom is removed, if it is peeled, split, or perforated so that any part is missing, it is invalid. If a rash spread out on a lesser part of it, if its stem was missing, or if it is perforated but no part of it is missing, it is valid. An etrog [which is black] as an Ethiopian is invalid. An etrog which is green as a leek: Rabbi Meir declares it valid And Rabbi Judah declares it invalid.

If a rash spread out on a majority of it, or if its pitom is removed, if it is peeled, split, or perforated so that any part is missing, it is invalid. If a rash spread out on a lesser part of it, if its stem was missing, or if it is perforated but no part of it is missing, it is valid. An etrog [which is black] as an Ethiopian is invalid. An etrog which is green as a leek: Rabbi Meir declares it valid And Rabbi Judah declares it invalid.

If a rash spread out on a majority of it, or if its pitom is removed, if it is peeled, split, or perforated so that any part is missing, it is invalid. If a rash spread out on a lesser part of it, if its stem was missing, or if it is perforated but no part of it is missing, it is valid. An etrog [which is black] as an Ethiopian is invalid. An etrog which is green as a leek: Rabbi Meir declares it valid And Rabbi Judah declares it invalid.

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

The following [defects] render cattle terefah: If the esophagus was pierced; If the windpipe severed; If the membrane of the brain was pierced; If the heart was pierced as far as its cavity thereof; If the spine was broken and the cord severed; If the liver was gone and none of it remained; If the lung was pierced, Or if part of it was missing. Rabbi Shimon says: only if it was pierced as far as the main bronchi; If the stomach, If the gall-bladder was pierced, If the intestines were pierced; If the innermost stomach was pierced, If the greater part of the outer stomach was pierced. Rabbi Judah says: in a large animal [if it was torn] to the extent of a handbreadth, and in a small animal the greater part. If the omasum (the third stomach of a ruminant) [was pierced]; Or if the second stomach was pierced on the outside; If the animal fell from the roof; If most of its ribs were fractured; Or if it was mauled by a wolf. Rabbi Judah says: small animals [are terefah] if mauled by a wolf, large cattle if mauled by a lion; small fowl if mauled by a hawk, large fowl if mauled by a falcon. This is the rule: if an animal with a similar defect could not continue to live, it is terefah.

A koligrophon whose spoon has been removed is still susceptible to impurity on account of its teeth. If its teeth have been removed it is still susceptible on account of its spoon. A makhol whose spoon is missing is still susceptible to impurity on account of its point; If its point was missing it is still susceptible on account of its spoon. A stylus whose writing point is missing is still susceptible to impurity on account of its eraser; If its eraser is missing it is susceptible on account of its writing point. A zomalister whose spoon is lost is still susceptible to impurity on account of its fork; If its fork is missing, it is still susceptible on account of its spoon. So too with regard to the prong of a mattock. The minimum size for all these instruments: so that they can perform their usual work.

A koligrophon whose spoon has been removed is still susceptible to impurity on account of its teeth. If its teeth have been removed it is still susceptible on account of its spoon. A makhol whose spoon is missing is still susceptible to impurity on account of its point; If its point was missing it is still susceptible on account of its spoon. A stylus whose writing point is missing is still susceptible to impurity on account of its eraser; If its eraser is missing it is susceptible on account of its writing point. A zomalister whose spoon is lost is still susceptible to impurity on account of its fork; If its fork is missing, it is still susceptible on account of its spoon. So too with regard to the prong of a mattock. The minimum size for all these instruments: so that they can perform their usual work.

A koligrophon whose spoon has been removed is still susceptible to impurity on account of its teeth. If its teeth have been removed it is still susceptible on account of its spoon. A makhol whose spoon is missing is still susceptible to impurity on account of its point; If its point was missing it is still susceptible on account of its spoon. A stylus whose writing point is missing is still susceptible to impurity on account of its eraser; If its eraser is missing it is susceptible on account of its writing point. A zomalister whose spoon is lost is still susceptible to impurity on account of its fork; If its fork is missing, it is still susceptible on account of its spoon. So too with regard to the prong of a mattock. The minimum size for all these instruments: so that they can perform their usual work.

A koligrophon whose spoon has been removed is still susceptible to impurity on account of its teeth. If its teeth have been removed it is still susceptible on account of its spoon. A makhol whose spoon is missing is still susceptible to impurity on account of its point; If its point was missing it is still susceptible on account of its spoon. A stylus whose writing point is missing is still susceptible to impurity on account of its eraser; If its eraser is missing it is susceptible on account of its writing point. A zomalister whose spoon is lost is still susceptible to impurity on account of its fork; If its fork is missing, it is still susceptible on account of its spoon. So too with regard to the prong of a mattock. The minimum size for all these instruments: so that they can perform their usual work.

A koligrophon whose spoon has been removed is still susceptible to impurity on account of its teeth. If its teeth have been removed it is still susceptible on account of its spoon. A makhol whose spoon is missing is still susceptible to impurity on account of its point; If its point was missing it is still susceptible on account of its spoon. A stylus whose writing point is missing is still susceptible to impurity on account of its eraser; If its eraser is missing it is susceptible on account of its writing point. A zomalister whose spoon is lost is still susceptible to impurity on account of its fork; If its fork is missing, it is still susceptible on account of its spoon. So too with regard to the prong of a mattock. The minimum size for all these instruments: so that they can perform their usual work.

An ash-shovel whose spoon was missing is still susceptible to impurity, since it is still like a hammer, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages rule that it is clean. A saw whose teeth are missing one in every two is clean. But if a hasit length of consecutive teeth remained it is susceptible to impurity. An adze, scalpel, plane, or drill that was damaged remains susceptible to impurity, but if its steel edge was missing it is clean. In all these cases if it was split into two parts both remain susceptible to impurity, except for the drill. The block of a plane by itself is clean.

An ash-shovel whose spoon was missing is still susceptible to impurity, since it is still like a hammer, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages rule that it is clean. A saw whose teeth are missing one in every two is clean. But if a hasit length of consecutive teeth remained it is susceptible to impurity. An adze, scalpel, plane, or drill that was damaged remains susceptible to impurity, but if its steel edge was missing it is clean. In all these cases if it was split into two parts both remain susceptible to impurity, except for the drill. The block of a plane by itself is clean.

An ash-shovel whose spoon was missing is still susceptible to impurity, since it is still like a hammer, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages rule that it is clean. A saw whose teeth are missing one in every two is clean. But if a hasit length of consecutive teeth remained it is susceptible to impurity. An adze, scalpel, plane, or drill that was damaged remains susceptible to impurity, but if its steel edge was missing it is clean. In all these cases if it was split into two parts both remain susceptible to impurity, except for the drill. The block of a plane by itself is clean.

A needle whose eye or point is missing is clean. If he adapted it to be a stretching-pin it is susceptible to impurity. A pack-needle whose eye was missing is still susceptible to impurity since one writes with it. If its point was missing it is clean. A stretching-pin is in either case susceptible to impurity. A needle that has become rusty: If this hinders it from sewing it is clean, But if not it remains susceptible to impurity. A hook that was straightened out is clean. If it is bent back it resumes its susceptibility to impurity.

A needle whose eye or point is missing is clean. If he adapted it to be a stretching-pin it is susceptible to impurity. A pack-needle whose eye was missing is still susceptible to impurity since one writes with it. If its point was missing it is clean. A stretching-pin is in either case susceptible to impurity. A needle that has become rusty: If this hinders it from sewing it is clean, But if not it remains susceptible to impurity. A hook that was straightened out is clean. If it is bent back it resumes its susceptibility to impurity.

A needle whose eye or point is missing is clean. If he adapted it to be a stretching-pin it is susceptible to impurity. A pack-needle whose eye was missing is still susceptible to impurity since one writes with it. If its point was missing it is clean. A stretching-pin is in either case susceptible to impurity. A needle that has become rusty: If this hinders it from sewing it is clean, But if not it remains susceptible to impurity. A hook that was straightened out is clean. If it is bent back it resumes its susceptibility to impurity.

A flax-comb: if the teeth were missing but two remained, it is still susceptible to impurity. If only one remained it is clean. As regards all the teeth, each one individually is susceptible to impurity. A wool-comb: if one tooth out of every two is missing it is clean. If three consecutive teeth remained, it is susceptible to impurity. If the outermost tooth was one of them, the comb is clean. If two teeth were removed from the comb and made into a pair of tweezers, they are susceptible to impurity. Even if only one was removed but it was adapted to be used for a lamp or as a stretching-pin, it is susceptible to impurity.

A flax-comb: if the teeth were missing but two remained, it is still susceptible to impurity. If only one remained it is clean. As regards all the teeth, each one individually is susceptible to impurity. A wool-comb: if one tooth out of every two is missing it is clean. If three consecutive teeth remained, it is susceptible to impurity. If the outermost tooth was one of them, the comb is clean. If two teeth were removed from the comb and made into a pair of tweezers, they are susceptible to impurity. Even if only one was removed but it was adapted to be used for a lamp or as a stretching-pin, it is susceptible to impurity.

A knee-shaped key that was broken off at the knee is clean. Rabbi Judah says that it is unclean because one can open with it from within. A gamma-shaped key that was broken off at its shorter arm is clean. If it retained the teeth and the gaps it remains unclean. If the teeth were missing it is still unclean on account of the gaps; if the gaps were blocked up it is unclean on account of the teeth. If the teeth were missing and the gaps were blocked up, or if they were merged into one another, it is clean. If in a mustard-strainer three holes in its bottom were merged into one another the strainer is clean. A metal mill-funnel is unclean.

A knee-shaped key that was broken off at the knee is clean. Rabbi Judah says that it is unclean because one can open with it from within. A gamma-shaped key that was broken off at its shorter arm is clean. If it retained the teeth and the gaps it remains unclean. If the teeth were missing it is still unclean on account of the gaps; if the gaps were blocked up it is unclean on account of the teeth. If the teeth were missing and the gaps were blocked up, or if they were merged into one another, it is clean. If in a mustard-strainer three holes in its bottom were merged into one another the strainer is clean. A metal mill-funnel is unclean.

If one of the legs was missing from a chest, a box or a cupboard, even though it is still capable of holding [things], it is clean, since it cannot hold [things] in the usual manner. But Rabbi Yose says: it is susceptible to impurity. The poles of a bed, its base, and [its] covering are clean. Only the bed itself and its rectangle [frame] are susceptible to uncleanness. The rectangle frames of the Levites are clean.

[The priest] then took some [of the contents] of the log of oil and poured it into his colleague's hand; And if he poured it into his own hand, the obligation is fulfilled. He then dipped [his right forefinger] in the oil and sprinkled it seven times towards the Holy of Holies, dipping it for every sprinkling. He then approached the metzora, to the same places that he applied the blood he now applied the oil, as it is said, "Over the same places as the blood of the guilt offering; 29 and what is left of the oil in his palm the priest shall put on the head of the one being cleansed, to make expiation for him before the Lord." (Leviticus 14:28-29). If he "put upon," he has made atonement, but if he did not "put upon," he did not make atonement, the words of Rabbi Akiba. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says: these are but the remainders of the mitzvah. Whether he "put upon" or did not "put upon," atonement is made, only it is accounted to him as if he did not make atonement. If any oil was missing from the log before it was poured out it may be filled up again; if after it was poured out, other oil must be brought anew, the words of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Shimon says: if any oil was missing from the log before it was applied, it may be filled up; but if after it had been applied, other oil must be brought anew.

[The priest] then took some [of the contents] of the log of oil and poured it into his colleague's hand; And if he poured it into his own hand, the obligation is fulfilled. He then dipped [his right forefinger] in the oil and sprinkled it seven times towards the Holy of Holies, dipping it for every sprinkling. He then approached the metzora, to the same places that he applied the blood he now applied the oil, as it is said, "Over the same places as the blood of the guilt offering; 29 and what is left of the oil in his palm the priest shall put on the head of the one being cleansed, to make expiation for him before the Lord." (Leviticus 14:28-29). If he "put upon," he has made atonement, but if he did not "put upon," he did not make atonement, the words of Rabbi Akiba. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says: these are but the remainders of the mitzvah. Whether he "put upon" or did not "put upon," atonement is made, only it is accounted to him as if he did not make atonement. If any oil was missing from the log before it was poured out it may be filled up again; if after it was poured out, other oil must be brought anew, the words of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Shimon says: if any oil was missing from the log before it was applied, it may be filled up; but if after it had been applied, other oil must be brought anew.

There is no generation without scoffers. What did the hooligans of that generation do? They went to David’s windows and said to him: David, when will the Temple be built, when will we go to the Lord’s house? But he said, even though they intend to enrage me, it comes over me that I am happy, (Ps. 122:1) “I enjoy it when they say to me: let us go to the Lord’s house.” (2Sam. 7:12) “ When your days will be complete”; Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥmani said, the Holy One, praise to Him, said to David: ‘I am counting full days for you, I am not counting missing days for you. Will not your son Solomon build the Temple to sacrifice? Law and justice that you are upholding is more to my liking than sacrifices.’ What is the reason? (Prov. 21:3) “Upholding justice and law is preferred by the Lord to sacrifice”.

Rebbi Isaac the son of Rebbi Ḥiyya the Scribe suffered an accident. Rebbis Mana and Yudan went to him. There was good wine, they drank a lot and laughed. The next day they wanted to visit him again. He said to them: Rabbis, is that what a man does to his friend? Yesterday, the only thing that was missing for us was that we would get up and dance!

Rebbi Phineas gave on this subject two sermons, one in the name of Rebbi Zeïra, the other in the name of Rebbi Tanḥum bar Ḥanilai. Rebbi Phineas said in the name of Rebbi Zeïra, flesh and blood has a protector. If he bothers him too much, he will say: “There is X who will bother me.” But the Holy One, praise to Him, is not like that; He will receive you with all that you might bother him with. That is what is written (Ps. 55:23) “Throw on the Eternal your burden and He will provide for you!” Rebbi Phineas said in the name of Rebbi Tanḥum bar Ḥanilai, flesh and blood has a protector. Enemies come and grab him at the door of his protector’s courtyard. While he is crying and before someone could come out, the sword already passes over his neck and kills him. But the Holy One, praise to Him, saved Jehoshaphat from the sword of the Syrians as it is written (2Chr. 18:34): “Jehoshaphat cried, the Eternal helped him and God turned them away from him.” That shows that only the cutting off of the head was missing, but God deflected them from him.

He who sees the moon in its renewal says: Praise to Him Who renews months. Until when? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Yose: Until it is seen like half a stick. Rebbi Aḥa and Rebbi Ḥinena in the name of Rebbi Yose: Until its missing part is filled. The rabbis of Caesarea say, until the fourteenth day. Rebbi Yose bar Abun said, that is correct; the missing part is never filled before the fourteenth day. Hence, all fourteen days one needs to recite the benediction.

He who sees the moon in its renewal says: Praise to Him Who renews months. Until when? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Yose: Until it is seen like half a stick. Rebbi Aḥa and Rebbi Ḥinena in the name of Rebbi Yose: Until its missing part is filled. The rabbis of Caesarea say, until the fourteenth day. Rebbi Yose bar Abun said, that is correct; the missing part is never filled before the fourteenth day. Hence, all fourteen days one needs to recite the benediction.

MISHNAH: He who wants to cut off greens of vegetables in order to lighten his load should not throw them away before he tithed. He who buys vegetables on the market and then decides to return them should not return them before he tithed, because nothing is missing but counting. If he stopped to buy but saw another, better, load, he may change his mind because he did not take it up.

Ḥizqiah said, nothing is missing for the owners but the credit by counting.

How does he do it? He takes from the uppermost layer and puts it in order. Is that not forbidden because of robbery? Like that of Rebbi Simeon bar Cahana who was supporting Rebbi Eliezer. They passed by a vineyard. He said to him, bring me a sliver as a toothpick. He changed his mind and told him, do not bring me anything; if everybody would do that, the fence of this man would be gone. Rebbi Ḥaggai was supporting Rebbi Zeïra. A person passed by who was carrying a load of chips. He said to him, bring me a chip as a toothpick. He changed his mind and told him, do not bring me anything; if everybody would do that, the load of this man would be gone. Is not Rebbi Zeïra particularly pious? No, he told us that we should observe the words of our Creator. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: When he took one stalk, nothing was missing but counting them. How does he do it? He pays for one of them and puts it in order.

It turns out to be 64 by 48. Take two from here and put them there, that turns out to be 48 by 48. Take out one in between, one in between, and make a bald spot 16 by 16 that can be tended by eight cubits. How do you treat it? Itself and the area to tend it within a bet seah, or without the area to tend it? If you take it with the area to tend it within the bet seah, then 348 are missing. If you take it without the area to tend it, there is an excess of 45218. You might say, they are separated as single ones. You might say, they are closer together: we have stated only “10 per bet seah;” you could not state that.

HALAKHAH: “The Sabbatical remits any loan, etc.” We can understand if it is without a document. With a document it should be treated similar to a loan on a pledge and not be remitted. Rebbi Joḥanan said, explain it for a document from which alienation of property is missing, following Rebbi Meïr. A case came before Rebbi Joḥanan of a document without alienation of property and he instructed that it was remitted. Because we are interpreting the Mishnah, should we act on this?

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, there are three kinds of imparting taste. Anything a common person tastes and says, this dish is not missing anything, if it fell in, it may improve the taste but is permitted. Even if he says, this dish contains spice x, when it spoils the taste it is permitted. But if a professional tastes it and says, this dish contains spice x, when it spoils the taste it is forbidden.

Not only if they are wet but even if they were dry and became wet, as these fibers; are these not like dry which became wet? Rebbi Joḥanan bar Shila: This implies that one who hides a cauldron must let it be missing a little lest he take it up and it spills and heats. There, we stated: “The same holds for new olive cake but old one is pure.” What is new and what is old? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: New within 12 months, old after 12 months.

Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, it does not say “this is the word” but these are the words.” “Word”, “words,” “words”. From here about categories and derivatives. Rebbi Ḥanina of Sepphoris in the name of Rebbi Abbahu. Alef is one, Lamed is 30, He is five, “word” is one, “words” are two. From here the 39 “works” written in the Torah. The rabbis of Caesarea say, at its place nothing is missing, א is one, ל 30 , ח 8. The rabbis never hesitate to identify ה and ח.

“A vineyard bird either live or dead in any amount since one keeps it as medicine.” Rebbi Aḥa said, for a woman with rough skin rubs in with it and she is healed. There, they said, a person who wants to renounce sexual activity eats half of it and keeps half of it. The left hand part is forbidden, the right hand part is permitted. If anything was lost or missing he has no recourse ever. What should he do? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, he preserves it in a honey flask.

HALAKHAH: 5. Rebbi Ḥinena said, our Mishnah dos not follow Rebbi Jehudah, as we have stated: “ one who catches a bird for a cage or a deer for a house is liable;” therefore for a garden or a vivarium he is not liable. The argument of Rebbi Jehudah is inverted since we have stated there: “one does not catch fish from vivaria, one does not feed them,” therefore for a garden or a vivarium he is not liable? The argument of the rabbis is inverted, as we have stated: “but the Sages say, a bird for a cage and a deer for a garden, or a courtyard, or a vivarium,” and we have stated there, “but one catches wild animals and fowl from vivaria and feeds them,” therefore not for a garden or a vivarium? One for a covered courtyard, the other for a courtyard which is not covered. But did we not state “a garden”? Can you say a covered garden? But here a large one, there a small one. Rebbi Ulla said, they asked before Rebbi Aḥa, how should one state? In any case where catching is still missing one is liable, but if catching is not missing one is not liable? He answered them, do we not deal with the case that he corrals them into it? But “in any case where catching is still missing it is forbidden, but if catching is not missing it is permitted”. Rebbi Samuel, Rebbi Berekhiah’s brother, said: any which needs nets needs catching, what does not need nets does not need catching.

HALAKHAH: 5. Rebbi Ḥinena said, our Mishnah dos not follow Rebbi Jehudah, as we have stated: “ one who catches a bird for a cage or a deer for a house is liable;” therefore for a garden or a vivarium he is not liable. The argument of Rebbi Jehudah is inverted since we have stated there: “one does not catch fish from vivaria, one does not feed them,” therefore for a garden or a vivarium he is not liable? The argument of the rabbis is inverted, as we have stated: “but the Sages say, a bird for a cage and a deer for a garden, or a courtyard, or a vivarium,” and we have stated there, “but one catches wild animals and fowl from vivaria and feeds them,” therefore not for a garden or a vivarium? One for a covered courtyard, the other for a courtyard which is not covered. But did we not state “a garden”? Can you say a covered garden? But here a large one, there a small one. Rebbi Ulla said, they asked before Rebbi Aḥa, how should one state? In any case where catching is still missing one is liable, but if catching is not missing one is not liable? He answered them, do we not deal with the case that he corrals them into it? But “in any case where catching is still missing it is forbidden, but if catching is not missing it is permitted”. Rebbi Samuel, Rebbi Berekhiah’s brother, said: any which needs nets needs catching, what does not need nets does not need catching.

HALAKHAH: 5. Rebbi Ḥinena said, our Mishnah dos not follow Rebbi Jehudah, as we have stated: “ one who catches a bird for a cage or a deer for a house is liable;” therefore for a garden or a vivarium he is not liable. The argument of Rebbi Jehudah is inverted since we have stated there: “one does not catch fish from vivaria, one does not feed them,” therefore for a garden or a vivarium he is not liable? The argument of the rabbis is inverted, as we have stated: “but the Sages say, a bird for a cage and a deer for a garden, or a courtyard, or a vivarium,” and we have stated there, “but one catches wild animals and fowl from vivaria and feeds them,” therefore not for a garden or a vivarium? One for a covered courtyard, the other for a courtyard which is not covered. But did we not state “a garden”? Can you say a covered garden? But here a large one, there a small one. Rebbi Ulla said, they asked before Rebbi Aḥa, how should one state? In any case where catching is still missing one is liable, but if catching is not missing one is not liable? He answered them, do we not deal with the case that he corrals them into it? But “in any case where catching is still missing it is forbidden, but if catching is not missing it is permitted”. Rebbi Samuel, Rebbi Berekhiah’s brother, said: any which needs nets needs catching, what does not need nets does not need catching.

HALAKHAH: 5. Rebbi Ḥinena said, our Mishnah dos not follow Rebbi Jehudah, as we have stated: “ one who catches a bird for a cage or a deer for a house is liable;” therefore for a garden or a vivarium he is not liable. The argument of Rebbi Jehudah is inverted since we have stated there: “one does not catch fish from vivaria, one does not feed them,” therefore for a garden or a vivarium he is not liable? The argument of the rabbis is inverted, as we have stated: “but the Sages say, a bird for a cage and a deer for a garden, or a courtyard, or a vivarium,” and we have stated there, “but one catches wild animals and fowl from vivaria and feeds them,” therefore not for a garden or a vivarium? One for a covered courtyard, the other for a courtyard which is not covered. But did we not state “a garden”? Can you say a covered garden? But here a large one, there a small one. Rebbi Ulla said, they asked before Rebbi Aḥa, how should one state? In any case where catching is still missing one is liable, but if catching is not missing one is not liable? He answered them, do we not deal with the case that he corrals them into it? But “in any case where catching is still missing it is forbidden, but if catching is not missing it is permitted”. Rebbi Samuel, Rebbi Berekhiah’s brother, said: any which needs nets needs catching, what does not need nets does not need catching.

Abba bar Huna said, the door frame about which they spoke is a stick on each side and bast over them. Rebbi Yannai the son of Rebbi Ismael in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: A hinge and its fastener; nothing should be missing but the door.

Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: How does one permit public domain? Rebbi Jehudah says, a lath on each side or a beam on each side, but the Sages say, a lath and a beam on one side and he makes a door frame on the other side. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: A hinge and its fastener; nothing should be missing but the door. Rebbi Jeremiah said this before Rebbi Zeˋira, who told him, what do you have in your hand? Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, the door frame about which they spoke is a stick on each side and bast over them. Rebbi Yose said, the rabbis here follow their opinion and the rabbis there follow their opinion. Since the rabbis there are saying, the door frame about which they spoke is a stick on each side and bast over them; they are those who say, it is not so. But the rabbis here who are saying, a hinge and its fastener; nothing should be missing but the door, they are those who say, it is so.

Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: How does one permit public domain? Rebbi Jehudah says, a lath on each side or a beam on each side, but the Sages say, a lath and a beam on one side and he makes a door frame on the other side. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: A hinge and its fastener; nothing should be missing but the door. Rebbi Jeremiah said this before Rebbi Zeˋira, who told him, what do you have in your hand? Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, the door frame about which they spoke is a stick on each side and bast over them. Rebbi Yose said, the rabbis here follow their opinion and the rabbis there follow their opinion. Since the rabbis there are saying, the door frame about which they spoke is a stick on each side and bast over them; they are those who say, it is not so. But the rabbis here who are saying, a hinge and its fastener; nothing should be missing but the door, they are those who say, it is so.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. “In addition, Rebbi Jehudah ben Bava said,” etc. Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan, they inferred it from the courtyard of the Tabernacle: the length of the courtyard 100 cubits wide 50 by 50. 50 times 100 are 5’000. 70 by 70 are 5’000 minus 100, and we have stated “seventy cubits and a remainder.” And Samuel stated, they stated cubits and two thirds of a cubit. Seventy times two thirds and seventy times two thirds make 140 thirds each; 140 thirds and 140 thirds are 93⅓. There is missing from there 4/9 for the corner, there remain nineteen thirds minus one ninth. As we have stated, there is a slight difference which the Sages could not compute.

There, we have stated: “All sacrifices whose blood was collected by a non-Cohen, a deep mourner, one immersed on this day, missing garments, missing atonement, with unwashed hands or feet, uncircumcised, impure, sitting, standing on utensils, on [an animal, on] another person, disqualified it.” The Southerners say, we hold this for those impure by the impurity of gonorrhea or the impurity of skin disease, but impurity of the dead does not desecrate since it was permitted in case of the impurity of the many for the Pesaḥ. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish objected to the Southerners: Since for the owner, where you clarified to his advantage in case of all other impurities during the course of the year, you clarified to his disadvantage in case of impurity of the dead for Pesaḥ, for the officiant, where you clarified to his disadvantage in case of all other impurities during the course of the year, it is only logical that you should clarify to his disadvantage in case of impurity of the dead for Pesaḥ. In addition to what Rebbi stated, “the diadem makes impurity of the blood acceptable but not impurity of the body.” If you want to say that this refers to the impurity of gonorrhea or the impurity of skin disease, you cannot, since we have stated, “if the impurity was caused by impurity of the abyss, the diadem makes acceptable.” What are the Southerners doing with this? They explain if for the owner. But did we not state “a nazir”? They explain it for the officiant. In Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish’s opinion, there is no difference; it is equal for owner or officiant. Rebbi Jeremiah said, this is an argument de minore ad maius that can be contradicted, for they can say to him, no. If you argue about the owner whose position you clarified to his disadvantage in the case of the infirm and the aged, what can you say about the officiating, whose position you clarified to his advantage in the case of the infirm and the aged. And any argument de minore ad majus that can be contradicted, the argument de minore ad majus is invalid. Rebbi Ḥananiah said, this is an argument de minore ad majus that can be contradicted, for they can say to him, no. If you argue about the owner for whom the circumcision of his males and his slaves are indispensable for him, what can you say about the officiating, for whom the circumcision of his males and his slaves are not indispensable. And any argument de minore ad majus that can be contradicted, the argument de minore ad majus is invalid.

There, we have stated: “All sacrifices whose blood was collected by a non-Cohen, a deep mourner, one immersed on this day, missing garments, missing atonement, with unwashed hands or feet, uncircumcised, impure, sitting, standing on utensils, on [an animal, on] another person, disqualified it.” The Southerners say, we hold this for those impure by the impurity of gonorrhea or the impurity of skin disease, but impurity of the dead does not desecrate since it was permitted in case of the impurity of the many for the Pesaḥ. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish objected to the Southerners: Since for the owner, where you clarified to his advantage in case of all other impurities during the course of the year, you clarified to his disadvantage in case of impurity of the dead for Pesaḥ, for the officiant, where you clarified to his disadvantage in case of all other impurities during the course of the year, it is only logical that you should clarify to his disadvantage in case of impurity of the dead for Pesaḥ. In addition to what Rebbi stated, “the diadem makes impurity of the blood acceptable but not impurity of the body.” If you want to say that this refers to the impurity of gonorrhea or the impurity of skin disease, you cannot, since we have stated, “if the impurity was caused by impurity of the abyss, the diadem makes acceptable.” What are the Southerners doing with this? They explain if for the owner. But did we not state “a nazir”? They explain it for the officiant. In Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish’s opinion, there is no difference; it is equal for owner or officiant. Rebbi Jeremiah said, this is an argument de minore ad maius that can be contradicted, for they can say to him, no. If you argue about the owner whose position you clarified to his disadvantage in the case of the infirm and the aged, what can you say about the officiating, whose position you clarified to his advantage in the case of the infirm and the aged. And any argument de minore ad majus that can be contradicted, the argument de minore ad majus is invalid. Rebbi Ḥananiah said, this is an argument de minore ad majus that can be contradicted, for they can say to him, no. If you argue about the owner for whom the circumcision of his males and his slaves are indispensable for him, what can you say about the officiating, for whom the circumcision of his males and his slaves are not indispensable. And any argument de minore ad majus that can be contradicted, the argument de minore ad majus is invalid.

Rebbi Isaac bar Gufta asked before Rebbi Mana: If an individual could learn from the public for the Pesaḥ, the officiant during the rest of the year might infer from the public for the Pesaḥ. Rebbi Immi asked: how do you explain this “impure”? Impure by the impurity of gonorrhea or the impurity of skin disease? But did we not state, “missing atonement”? If he desecrates when he had been immersed, not so much more before he was immersed! How do you explain “immersed on this day”? If he immersed himself on that day because of a corpse. Come and see: the one impure from a corpse does not desecrate, not so much more one immersed on that day because of a corpse? But he must be immersed on that day because of a crawling animal. Come and see: the immersed on that day because of a corpse does not desecrate, not so much more one immersed on that day because of a crawling animal? Rebbi Samuel bar Yudan said, people having touched sufferers from gonorrhea. The rabbis of Caesarea explain everything from a sufferer from gonorrhea. “One immersed on this day,” if he had one episode. “Impure” (in the impurity of the dead) if he had two episodes. “Missing atonement,” if he had three episodes. Are people having touched a sufferer from gonorrhea like a sufferer from gonorrhea in the opinion of the Southerners? Let us hear from the following, as Rebbi Eleazar said in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Aaron shall carry the iniquities of the sacrifices, the iniquities of the sacrifices, not the iniquities of the sacrificers. What is iniquity of the sacrifices? The blood of a sufferer from gonorrhea? No, what was touched by a sufferer from gonorrhea. Similarly, the iniquity of the sacrificers, who touched a sufferer from gonorrhea. This implies that if the public were impure because they had touched sufferers from gonorrhea or women suffering from flux, they cannot make it in impurity.

Rebbi Isaac bar Gufta asked before Rebbi Mana: If an individual could learn from the public for the Pesaḥ, the officiant during the rest of the year might infer from the public for the Pesaḥ. Rebbi Immi asked: how do you explain this “impure”? Impure by the impurity of gonorrhea or the impurity of skin disease? But did we not state, “missing atonement”? If he desecrates when he had been immersed, not so much more before he was immersed! How do you explain “immersed on this day”? If he immersed himself on that day because of a corpse. Come and see: the one impure from a corpse does not desecrate, not so much more one immersed on that day because of a corpse? But he must be immersed on that day because of a crawling animal. Come and see: the immersed on that day because of a corpse does not desecrate, not so much more one immersed on that day because of a crawling animal? Rebbi Samuel bar Yudan said, people having touched sufferers from gonorrhea. The rabbis of Caesarea explain everything from a sufferer from gonorrhea. “One immersed on this day,” if he had one episode. “Impure” (in the impurity of the dead) if he had two episodes. “Missing atonement,” if he had three episodes. Are people having touched a sufferer from gonorrhea like a sufferer from gonorrhea in the opinion of the Southerners? Let us hear from the following, as Rebbi Eleazar said in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Aaron shall carry the iniquities of the sacrifices, the iniquities of the sacrifices, not the iniquities of the sacrificers. What is iniquity of the sacrifices? The blood of a sufferer from gonorrhea? No, what was touched by a sufferer from gonorrhea. Similarly, the iniquity of the sacrificers, who touched a sufferer from gonorrhea. This implies that if the public were impure because they had touched sufferers from gonorrhea or women suffering from flux, they cannot make it in impurity.

HALAKHAH: “A woman living in her husband’s house,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, for the four who are missing atonement others may dedicate without their knowledge; these are the following: Man or woman [healed from] genital discharges, the woman after childbirth and one [healed from] skin disease, since a father may dedicate for his small son who is lying in a crib. One understands man or woman [healed from] genital discharges or [healed from] skin disease, but a woman after childbirth? May a minor give birth? Did not Rebbi Redifa, Rebbi Jonah, say in the name of Rav Ḥuna: If a woman became pregnant and gave birth before she grew two hairs, she and her son will die. After she grew two hairs, she and her son will live. If she became pregnant before she grew two hairs and gave birth after she grew two hairs, she will live but her son will die. How is the situation? Since a man may dedicate for his underage daughter. Since he married her off, she already left his power. But it must be since a man may dedicate for his deaf-mute wife. Here, in the case of the suspected wife, the case of the minor does not apply since Rebbi Zeˋira, Rebbi Yosa said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan : An underage girl who whored has no will to be forbidden to her husband. The case of the deaf-mute does not apply since it is written: The woman shall say: Amen, amen. Rebbi Abun said, since it is written: You shall enjoy together with your house.

On the Eighth {Day}. There are Tannaim who state, it was anointed; and there are Tannaim who state, it was not anointed. There are Tannaim who state, it was dismantled; and there are Tannaim who state, it was not dismantled. Rebbi Ḥanin said, it is obvious for us that for him who said, it was anointed it was dismantled; and for him who said, it was not anointed it was not dismantled. Him who said, it was anointed, one understands since it is written he anointed them. But he who said, it was not anointed, how does he uphold he anointed them? I consider it as if it were missing anointment and you anointed it. Him who said, it was anointed, one understands since it is written, seven days they shall atone the altar. But he who said, it was not dismantled, how does he uphold seven days they shall atone the altari Atonement by blood, as it was stated: On both of them they were sprinkling from all purifications that were there, so that the water should penetrate under the blood, the words of Rebbi Jehudah; Rebbi Yose says, under the blood and under the anointing oil.

Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Hilfai asked: What is the status of a fistful given on the setting of the night? Rebbi Jeremiah said, Hilfai asked: What is the status of the public parts on the setting of the night? Is that not a baratta? Nothing precedes the daily sacrifice but incense. The baratta as commandment, what he is asking is as impediment. Does the diadem cover up for impurity of the hands? Do hands become disqualified by leaving? Is that not a barattai If he sanctified his hands and feet and they became impure, he immerses them and they are pure; if he left they did not become disqualified because of leaving. This comes following the one who said, an overnight stay does not disqualify hands. What is his problem? [But here] it is following him who said, an overnight stay disqualifies hands. Do hands become impure for missing time? Is that not a baraita? If he sanctified his hands and feet today for tomorrow’s service.

Pure gold, which one brings into the fire and nothing is missing. (As) [It comes as] it was stated: It happened that the golden candelabrum which Moses made in the desert was in excess of one denar, and they returned it to the fire eighty times and it did not lose anything. This is correct. Before it is refined it loses a lot, once it is refined it will not miss anything.

There is no generation without scoffers. What did the hooligans of David’s generation do? They went to David’s windows and said to him: David, when will the Temple be built, when will we go to the Eternal’s house? David said, even though they intend to enrage me, something should come over me were I not happy, I enjoy it when they say to me: let us go to the Lord’s house. When your days will be complete and you will lie with your forefathers. The Holy One, praise to Him, said to David:, I am counting full days for you, I am not counting missing days for you. Will not your son Solomon build the Temple for public sacrifice? Law and justice that you are upholding is more to my liking than sacrifices, as it is said, upholding justice and law is preferred by the Eternal to sacrifice.]

MISHNAH: If scabs covered most of it, or its protuberance was removed, or it was perforated, or peeled, or cracked, if anything was missing it is disqualified. If scabs covered a smaller part, or the stem was removed, or it was perforated but nothing was missing, it is qualified. A black etrog is disqualified, and the green like leeks Rebbi Meïr qualifies but Rebbi Jehudah disqualifies.

MISHNAH: If scabs covered most of it, or its protuberance was removed, or it was perforated, or peeled, or cracked, if anything was missing it is disqualified. If scabs covered a smaller part, or the stem was removed, or it was perforated but nothing was missing, it is qualified. A black etrog is disqualified, and the green like leeks Rebbi Meïr qualifies but Rebbi Jehudah disqualifies.

“If its protuberance was removed.” There, they say: its lily. Rebbi Isaac bar Ḥaqula said, the peak. If it was perforated but not pierced inside it is qualified, as we have stated there, “if the stem was removed, or it was perforated but nothing was missing, it is qualified.”

How for kings? If he died in Adar and a king took office in Adar it is counted as a year for both of them. Rebbi Jonah said, only if he reached Nisan. Otherwise like the following, he ruled one month in Samaria. You can determine the years of the kings of Israel only through the years of the kings of Jehudah, and you can determine the years of the kings of Jehudah only through the years of the kings of Israel. It is written: And the time that David ruled over Israel was forty years, etc. And it is written, in Hebron he ruled over Jehudah seven years and six months, etc. In total they are deficient and in detail excessive. Rebbi Isaac bar Qaṣaṣata in the name of Rebbi Jonah: they were thirty-two and a half years, but to honor Jerusalem he counts them as entire. The great Jehudah says, the greater number absorbs the lesser. Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman said, when your days will be complete. The Holy One, praise to Him, said to David: I am counting full days for you, I am not counting missing days for you. [Will not your son Solomon build the Temple to sacrifice? Law and justice that you are upholding is more to my liking than sacrifices, as it is said, upholding justice and law is preferred by the Eternal to sacrifice.] Rav Huna said, the entire six months during which David was in flight before his son Absalom, his sins would have been atoned for by a female goat as for a commoner. Rebbi Yudan ben Rebbi Shalom said, it is written, for six months dwelt there Joab and all of Israel. The Holy One, praise to Him, said to him: I did tell you, do not attack them, but you desired to attack them. By your life, they will not be counted for you.

Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Ze`ira: It is written, do not investigate between good or bad. If he transgressed and investigated, does he transgress? He told him, for anything which comes to permit one does not transgress. What does it come to permit? Here the Torah permitted to dedicate deficient animals. There, we have stated: “On the eighth day he brings three animals, purification sacrifice, reparation sacrifice, and elevation sacrifice. But the poor man brought birds as reparation and elevation offerings.” Is not the bird as reparation offering deficient in time next to the reparation offering? Rebbi Eleazar said, here the Torah did permit to dedicate those deficient in time. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal asked before Rebbi Immi: It is written, on the eighth he shall bring. If he transgressed and did not bring, does he transgress? He told him, for anything which comes to permit one does not transgress. What does it come to permit? As Rebbi Eleazar said, here the Torah did permit to dedicate those deficient in time. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, all seven days one does not tell him, bring. Afterwards one tells him, bring. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun: Everybody plans and brings his sacrifices on the holiday. One understands a nazir. Is the sufferer from skin disease not missing atonement? And did we not state, Hallel and joy eight? Explain it for a nazir. Rebbi Sachariah the son-in-law of Rebbi Levi asked, the beginning one explains for a nazir and the end for a sufferer from skin disease? Rebbi Ḥanania the son of Rebbi Hillel said, was this not already objected there? And Rebbi Yose said, Rav Eudaimon the emigrant explained it for Cohanim and the goat. Here also, Cohanim and the goat.

HALAKHAH: “One does not catch fish,” etc. Rebbi Ḥinena said, our Mishnah does not follow Rebbi Jehudah, as we have stated there: “ one who catches a bird for a cage or a deer for a house is liable;” therefore for a garden or a vivarium he is not liable. The argument of Rebbi Jehudah is inverted since we have stated: “one does not catch fish from vivaria and one does not feed them,” therefore for a garden or a vivarium he is not liable? The argument of the rabbis is inverted, as we have stated there: “but the Sages say, a bird for a cage and a deer for a garden, or a courtyard, or a vivarium,” and we have stated, “but one catches wild animals and fowl from vivaria and feeds them,” therefore not for a garden or a vivarium? One for a covered courtyard, the other for a courtyard which is not covered. But did we not state “a garden”? Can you say a covered garden? But here a large one, there a small one. Rebbi Ulla said, they asked before Rebbi Aḥa, how should one state? In any case where catching is still missing one is liable, but if catching is not missing one is not liable? He answered them, do we not deal with the case that he corrals them into it? But “in any case where catching is still missing it is forbidden, but if catching is not missing it is permitted”. Rebbi Samuel, Rebbi Berekhiah’s brother, said: any which needs nets needs catching, what does not need nets does not need catching.

HALAKHAH: “One does not catch fish,” etc. Rebbi Ḥinena said, our Mishnah does not follow Rebbi Jehudah, as we have stated there: “ one who catches a bird for a cage or a deer for a house is liable;” therefore for a garden or a vivarium he is not liable. The argument of Rebbi Jehudah is inverted since we have stated: “one does not catch fish from vivaria and one does not feed them,” therefore for a garden or a vivarium he is not liable? The argument of the rabbis is inverted, as we have stated there: “but the Sages say, a bird for a cage and a deer for a garden, or a courtyard, or a vivarium,” and we have stated, “but one catches wild animals and fowl from vivaria and feeds them,” therefore not for a garden or a vivarium? One for a covered courtyard, the other for a courtyard which is not covered. But did we not state “a garden”? Can you say a covered garden? But here a large one, there a small one. Rebbi Ulla said, they asked before Rebbi Aḥa, how should one state? In any case where catching is still missing one is liable, but if catching is not missing one is not liable? He answered them, do we not deal with the case that he corrals them into it? But “in any case where catching is still missing it is forbidden, but if catching is not missing it is permitted”. Rebbi Samuel, Rebbi Berekhiah’s brother, said: any which needs nets needs catching, what does not need nets does not need catching.

HALAKHAH: “One does not catch fish,” etc. Rebbi Ḥinena said, our Mishnah does not follow Rebbi Jehudah, as we have stated there: “ one who catches a bird for a cage or a deer for a house is liable;” therefore for a garden or a vivarium he is not liable. The argument of Rebbi Jehudah is inverted since we have stated: “one does not catch fish from vivaria and one does not feed them,” therefore for a garden or a vivarium he is not liable? The argument of the rabbis is inverted, as we have stated there: “but the Sages say, a bird for a cage and a deer for a garden, or a courtyard, or a vivarium,” and we have stated, “but one catches wild animals and fowl from vivaria and feeds them,” therefore not for a garden or a vivarium? One for a covered courtyard, the other for a courtyard which is not covered. But did we not state “a garden”? Can you say a covered garden? But here a large one, there a small one. Rebbi Ulla said, they asked before Rebbi Aḥa, how should one state? In any case where catching is still missing one is liable, but if catching is not missing one is not liable? He answered them, do we not deal with the case that he corrals them into it? But “in any case where catching is still missing it is forbidden, but if catching is not missing it is permitted”. Rebbi Samuel, Rebbi Berekhiah’s brother, said: any which needs nets needs catching, what does not need nets does not need catching.

HALAKHAH: “One does not catch fish,” etc. Rebbi Ḥinena said, our Mishnah does not follow Rebbi Jehudah, as we have stated there: “ one who catches a bird for a cage or a deer for a house is liable;” therefore for a garden or a vivarium he is not liable. The argument of Rebbi Jehudah is inverted since we have stated: “one does not catch fish from vivaria and one does not feed them,” therefore for a garden or a vivarium he is not liable? The argument of the rabbis is inverted, as we have stated there: “but the Sages say, a bird for a cage and a deer for a garden, or a courtyard, or a vivarium,” and we have stated, “but one catches wild animals and fowl from vivaria and feeds them,” therefore not for a garden or a vivarium? One for a covered courtyard, the other for a courtyard which is not covered. But did we not state “a garden”? Can you say a covered garden? But here a large one, there a small one. Rebbi Ulla said, they asked before Rebbi Aḥa, how should one state? In any case where catching is still missing one is liable, but if catching is not missing one is not liable? He answered them, do we not deal with the case that he corrals them into it? But “in any case where catching is still missing it is forbidden, but if catching is not missing it is permitted”. Rebbi Samuel, Rebbi Berekhiah’s brother, said: any which needs nets needs catching, what does not need nets does not need catching.

One verse says, in front of the cover, but another verse says, in front of the holy gobelin. Rebbi Aḥa said, Rebbi Abbahu and the rabbis disagree. One said, if the Patriarch sins, majesty remains in place. If the community sinned, majesty is not in place. But the other one said, because teacher and student sinned, they have to go public and be noticed, following and he shall remove the bull to outside the camp. Ḥizqiah stated: it is a hint. Anywhere there is an anointed one there is the Ark. Anywhere there is no anointed one there is no Ark. This follows what Rebbi Samuel ben Aina said in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: Five things was the last Temple missing which were in the first Temple, as it is written: I shall be pleased with it and I will be honored. It is written I will be honored, without the letter he. These are the five things which the last Temple was missing which were in the first Temple. They are: The {heavenly} fire, the Ark, Urim and Tummim, anointing oil, and the Holy Spirit.

One verse says, in front of the cover, but another verse says, in front of the holy gobelin. Rebbi Aḥa said, Rebbi Abbahu and the rabbis disagree. One said, if the Patriarch sins, majesty remains in place. If the community sinned, majesty is not in place. But the other one said, because teacher and student sinned, they have to go public and be noticed, following and he shall remove the bull to outside the camp. Ḥizqiah stated: it is a hint. Anywhere there is an anointed one there is the Ark. Anywhere there is no anointed one there is no Ark. This follows what Rebbi Samuel ben Aina said in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: Five things was the last Temple missing which were in the first Temple, as it is written: I shall be pleased with it and I will be honored. It is written I will be honored, without the letter he. These are the five things which the last Temple was missing which were in the first Temple. They are: The {heavenly} fire, the Ark, Urim and Tummim, anointing oil, and the Holy Spirit.

Rebbi Simeon ben Yohai stated: Aqiba my teacher used to preach, there appeared a star out of Jacob there appeared Koziba out of Jacob. When Rebbi Aqiba saw Bar Koziba he said, this is King Messias. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Torta said to him, Aqiba! Grass will grow from your jaws and still David’s son (still has to) [will not have] come. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the voice of Emperor Hadrian killing eighty thousand myriads at Bettar. Rebbi Joḥanan said, eighty [thousand] couples of horn-blowers were encircling Bettar, each of which was commanding several army units. There was Ben Koziba who had 200’000 with him missing a finger. The Sages sent, how long will you turn Israel into defective persons? He told them, how would it be possible to test them? They said to him, anyone who riding on his horse cannot uproot a cedar of Lebanon should not be enrolled in your army. He had 200’000 of either kind. When he went into battle he said, Master of the World: Do not support and do not hinder, did not you, God, neglect us, and do not go out with our armies. Three and a half years did Hadrian encircle Bettar. Rebbi Eleazar from Modiin was sitting in sackcloth and ashes, praying every day and saying, Master of the World, do not sit in judgment today, do not sit in judgment today. Hadrian wanted to go away. A Samaritan said to him, do not go away, for I am seeing what to do that the city will submit to you. He went to the city gate, entered, and found Rebbi Eleazar from Modiin standing in prayer. He showed himself as if he would whisper into his ear. The people of the city saw him and brought him to Ben Koziba. They said to him, we saw this old man turning to your uncle. He asked him, what did you say to him and what did he say to you? He answered, if I shall tell you, the king will kill me; but if I do not tell you, you will kill me. It is better that the king should kill me but not you. He told him, he said to me, I will make the town submit to the king. He came to Rebbi Eleazar from Modiin. He asked him, what did this Samaritan say to you. He answered, nothing. What did you say to him? He answered, nothing. He kicked him and killed him. Immediately there came an unembodied voice and said, woe, criminal shepherds, who abandon the flock, a sword on his arm and on his right eye. His arm shall dry up and his right eye darken. You killed Rebbi Eleazar from Modiin, the arm of Israel, and their right eye. Therefore this man’s arm shall dry up and his right eye darken. Immediately Bettar was taken and Ben Koziba killed. They came carrying his head to Hadrain. He asked them, who killed him? A Samaritan said to him, I killed him. He said to him, show me his body. He showed him his body; he found a poisonous snake wrapped around him. He said, if God had not killed him, who could kill him? He recited over him, if not that their Rock had sold them, and the Eternal handed them over. They killed them continuously until the horse was immersed in blood up to his nose. The blood was moving rocks of 40 seah loads, until the blood colored the sea for four mil. If you would say that it was close to the sea, in fact it is 40 mil distant from the sea. They said, 300 children’s brains were found on one stone, and they found three boxes of tefillin capsules of nine seah each, but some say nine of three each. It was stated, Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, 500 schools were in Bettar, the smallest one for not less than 500 children. They were saying, if the haters come against us we shall go out against them with these stylos and blind them. When the sins caused, they were binding each single one into his book and burning him; and of them only I remained. He recited referring to himself, my eye hurts my soul more than all daughters of my city. The evil Hadrian had a large vineyard, eighteen mil by eighteen mil, as from Tiberias to Sepphoris. He fenced it in with the slain of Bettar standing up with outstretched arms, and did not decide that they should be buried, until another king arose who decided that they should be buried.

HALAKHAH: One understands the Day of Atonement which is atonement for all of Israel. Why on the Fifteenth of Av? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Yasa: For this is the good time to cut wood, because any wood cut on this day does not develop worms; as we have stated there, “any wood containing a worm is disqualified from the altar.” Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Rav, because on it Hoshea ben Ela abolished the guards which Jeroboam ben Nabath posted on the roads. Cahana asked [Rav]. He did all this good deed and it is written about him, against him came Salmanessar the king of Assyria? He answered him, because he removed the collar from his neck and hung it on the community’s neck. He did not say, all the people should go on pilgrimage, but, any one who wants to go may go. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac, but some say in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman: On it the tribes were permitted to intermarry. As it is written, family heritage should not be transferred from tribe to tribe; but the Children of Israel shall stick everyone to the family heritage of his forefathers, etc. And it is written, any daughter inheriting family heritage in the tribes of the Children of Israel, etc. How is it possible for a daughter to inherit from two tribes? Explain it if her father was from one tribe and her mother from another tribe. But the Rabbis say, on it the tribe of Benjamin was permitted to intermarry, as it is written, cursed be he who gives a wife to Benjamin. They read a verse and included him; they read a verse and excluded him. They read a verse and included him, Ephraim and Manasse shall be to me like Reuben and Simeon. They read a verse and excluded him, a people and community of peoples shall be from you and kings will come from your loins, and Benjamin was not yet born. Rebbi Abun said, digging stopped on it, as Rebbi Levi said, on every eve of the Ninth of Av, Moses had a declaration published in all the encampment and said, go out for digging, go out for digging. They went out, dug graves for themselves, and slept. In the morning they were getting up and found themselves missing 15’000 and detail. In the last year they did that, got up, and found themselves whole. They said, maybe we erred in the computation. The same on the Tenth, the Eleventh, the Twelfth, the Thirteenth, and the Fifteenth. Since the moon was full they said, it seems that The Holy One, praise to Him, vacated this hard judgment against us. They got up and made a holiday.

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Johanan: With two letters two worlds were created, this world and the Future World. [One by He and one by Yud.] What is the reason? For in Yah, the Eternal is the Rock of Worlds. However, we did not know which one was created by He and which one by Yud. But from what is written, these are the outcomes of Heaven and Earth in their being created, He created them by He. This implies that this world was created by He, and the Future World was created by Yud. Since He is (missing) [open] below, it is a hint for all creatures that they will descend to the pit. Since He has a point on top, from the moment they descend they ascend. Since He is open from all sides, so He opens a door to all who repent. Since Yud is curved, so all creatures should be bent. All faces turned yellow. When David saw this, he started to acclaim by two letters, praise Yah, praise, the servants of the Eternal, praise the Name of the Eternal.

We have stated: Jehudah ben Ṭabbai was Patriarch, and Simeon ben Shetaḥ President of the Court; there are Tannaim who switch. What happened in Alexandria supports him who said, Jehudah ben Tabbai was Patriarch. [The people of Jerusalem] wanted to appoint him Patriarch in Jerusalem. The people from Jerusalem did write: From the great Jerusalem to the small Alexandria: How long still will my betrothed live in your midst and I am sitting sorrowful about him? He took leave and started on a ship. He said, I remember the lady of the house who received us; what is she missing? One of his students told him, her eye is damaged. He told him, you have sinned twice; first that you suspected me, and second that you looked at her. Did I say that she was beautiful in looks? I only said that about her deeds. He was taking offense and he left.

There is no generation without scoffers. What did the hooligans of that generation do? They went to David’s windows and said to him: David, when will the Temple be built, when will we go to the Eternal’s house? But he said, even though they intend to enrage me, it comes over me that I am happy, I enjoy it when they say to me: let us go to the Lord’s house. When your days will be complete to go to your fathers; Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman said, the Holy One, praise to Him, said to David: `I am counting full days for you, I am not counting missing days for you. Will not your son Solomon build the Temple to sacrifice? Law and justice that you are upholding is more to my liking than sacrifices.’ What is the reason? Upholding justice and law is preferred by the Eternal to sacrifice.

“Even though the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel disagreed about co-wives, and sisters, and an old bill of divorce, and a woman doubtfully married, and one who gives qiddushin in the value of a peruṭa, i. e., he who divorces his wife and spends the night with her in a hostelry, and that a woman receives qiddushin for at least a denar or the value of a denar, the House of Shammai did not refrain from marrying women from the House of Hillel or the House of Hillel from the House of Shammai but they behave truthfully and in peace, as it is said: ‘Love truth and peace.’ ” Bastardy is between them and you say so? How is that? If a first man gives her qiddushin for a peruṭa and a second for a denar, in the opinion of the House of Shammai she is betrothed to the second and the child of the first is a bastard. In the opinion of the House of Hillel she is betrothed to the first and the child of the second is a bastard. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The House of Shammai concede to the House of Hillel as a restriction. In that case, the House of Shammai should marry women from the House of Hillel since they concede to them. But the House of Hillel should not marry women from the House of Shammai since they do not concede to them. Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They all followed the same practice. If they followed the same practice, in this case we stated: “The House of Shammai sent and diminished it, since the House of Shammai says unless most of it is missing?” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, the House of Shammai acted before the question came before the House of Hillel. After a question came before the House of Hillel, the House of Shammai were not touching it. Rebbi Abba Mari said, that is correct. Did we not state: “They declared impure all purities from before”, but not in the future. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rav and Samuel, one said both acted according to valid practice; the other said, each party followed its own practice. Bastardy is between them and you say so? The Omnipresent watched and no case ever happened.

HALAKHAH: “The uncircumcised and any impure persons,” etc. “Every man”, to include the uncircumcised. Or “every man” to include the mourner? Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, it is written, “no outsider shall eat sanctified [food]”. I forbade to you because of outside status, I did not forbid because of prepuce. The reddish Rebbi Tiufa asked before Rebbi Yose: may we not say, I did not forbid because of prepuce and because of mourning? He said to him, since one verse includes and the other excludes, I am including the uncircumcised who is missing some procedure performed on his body and excluding the mourner who is not missing some procedure performed on his body. So far following Rebbi Aqiba. Following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Ismael stated: It said “sojourner and hireling” with regard to Passover and “sojourner and hireling” with regard to heave. Since “sojourner and hireling” with regard to Passover implies disabling the uncircumcised, so “sojourner and hireling” with regard to heave must imply disabling the uncircumcised. Rebbi Ḥaggai questioned: If “sojourner and hireling” with regard to Passover is in a group of laws disabling the mourner, also “sojourner and hireling” with regard to heave should imply disabling the mourner. Rebbi Hila answered: They inferred from “under, under” only items mentioned in the paragraph. The sexless and the hermaphrodite came under another category. The mourner comes from second tithe.

HALAKHAH: “The uncircumcised and any impure persons,” etc. “Every man”, to include the uncircumcised. Or “every man” to include the mourner? Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, it is written, “no outsider shall eat sanctified [food]”. I forbade to you because of outside status, I did not forbid because of prepuce. The reddish Rebbi Tiufa asked before Rebbi Yose: may we not say, I did not forbid because of prepuce and because of mourning? He said to him, since one verse includes and the other excludes, I am including the uncircumcised who is missing some procedure performed on his body and excluding the mourner who is not missing some procedure performed on his body. So far following Rebbi Aqiba. Following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Ismael stated: It said “sojourner and hireling” with regard to Passover and “sojourner and hireling” with regard to heave. Since “sojourner and hireling” with regard to Passover implies disabling the uncircumcised, so “sojourner and hireling” with regard to heave must imply disabling the uncircumcised. Rebbi Ḥaggai questioned: If “sojourner and hireling” with regard to Passover is in a group of laws disabling the mourner, also “sojourner and hireling” with regard to heave should imply disabling the mourner. Rebbi Hila answered: They inferred from “under, under” only items mentioned in the paragraph. The sexless and the hermaphrodite came under another category. The mourner comes from second tithe.

Rebbi Abun asked: Should not heave be forbidden to the mourner by an inference de minore ad majus? Since tithe, which is permitted to outsiders, is forbidden to the mourner, should not heave, which is forbidden to outsiders, be forbidden to the mourner? No. If you said it about tithe which needs an enclosure, what can you say about heave which does not need an enclosure? Therefore, since each of them has an aspect missing in the other, they cannot teach an inference from one to the other.

HALAKHAH: “Who is injured in his lower parts,” etc. “Injured,” I would have said in his eye. The verse says “discharge pipe”, he is injured in the neighborhood of the discharge pipe. If he is injured in the neighborhood of the discharge pipe it might be his eye in the neighborhood of his nose! The verse says, “the lowly”. What comes between his heels. Rebbi Ḥaggai said before Rebbi Mana, a man’s lowest part when he sits down are his testicles. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, that is correct. You should know that this is so since in all other cases “generations” are written except in this case since he is infertile. And not only if [a testicle] is injured but also if it is gangrenous, or dried up, or missing. It was stated: Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa says: I heard in the vineyard at Jabne that nobody [born] with only one testicle can be fertile and he is a “sun eunuch”. Rebbi Yose said, I heard that practice follows Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa but I do not remember from whom I heard it. Rebbi Immi said, certainly Rebbi Yose did not hear it from a minor personality. Samuel said, if a person with only one testicle will come before me, I shall declare him qualified. Rebbi Ḥuna said, because he thinks like Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Joḥanan. Rebbi Yudan ben Ḥanin said, but only the one of the right hand side. There came a case before Rebbi Immi. He said, yes, my daughter, you are permitted to him. But you should know that he is infertile. Rebbi Ze‘ira praised him for making the case clear.

Would missing limbs disable it? That would not be even like sacrifices of the descendants of Noah! Did not Rebbi Yasa say that Rebbi Eleazar explained to the colleagues: “From all living, from all flesh,” that they should be complete in their limbs? There, some were for the altar, but here, the altar has no part. Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah: Since you say, purgation is written there as for sacrifices, it is as if some of it were for the altar. Does ṭerefa disable it? Since you say, it is as if some of it were for the altar, in that it should be clear to you that ṭerefa disables it. If its foot was undeveloped, as a donkey’s foot, how do you treat that? If you treat it as if missing a limb, can it be enabled? If you treat it as a bodily defect, can it be disabled? Does its blood prepare? Since Rebbi Ḥiyya stated that its blood is impure, its blood prepares.

Would missing limbs disable it? That would not be even like sacrifices of the descendants of Noah! Did not Rebbi Yasa say that Rebbi Eleazar explained to the colleagues: “From all living, from all flesh,” that they should be complete in their limbs? There, some were for the altar, but here, the altar has no part. Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah: Since you say, purgation is written there as for sacrifices, it is as if some of it were for the altar. Does ṭerefa disable it? Since you say, it is as if some of it were for the altar, in that it should be clear to you that ṭerefa disables it. If its foot was undeveloped, as a donkey’s foot, how do you treat that? If you treat it as if missing a limb, can it be enabled? If you treat it as a bodily defect, can it be disabled? Does its blood prepare? Since Rebbi Ḥiyya stated that its blood is impure, its blood prepares.

It was stated: Rebbi Jehudah said, in Judea in earlier times they appointed two best men, one for the bride and one for the groom, but they appointed them only for the wedding day. In contrast, this was not done in Galilee. In Judea in earlier times one let the fiancé be alone with the fiancée for an hour so that he became familiar with her; in contrast, this was not done in Galilee. In Judea in earlier times the best men were investigating the places of groom and bride; in contrast, this was not done in Galilee. In Judea in earlier times the best men were sleeping in the room with groom and bride; in contrast, this was not done in Galilee. Anybody who did not follow these rules could not present a claim of missing virginity.

There, we have stated: “Every vine gives wine; if there is no wine it is dried up.” Rebbi Jeremiah asked: Does that mean that Rebbi Jehudah does not admit claims of missing virginity? Rebbi Yose said, in itself it means that Rebbi Jehudah admits claims of missing virginity, as it was stated: Rebbi Jehudah said, in Judea in earlier times they appointed two best men, one for the groom and one for the bride, but they appointed them only for the wedding day. In contrast, this was not done in Galilee … they were sleeping in the room with groom and bride; in contrast, this was not done in Galilee. How is this? She has to bring proof that she comes from a family of dryness.

There, we have stated: “Every vine gives wine; if there is no wine it is dried up.” Rebbi Jeremiah asked: Does that mean that Rebbi Jehudah does not admit claims of missing virginity? Rebbi Yose said, in itself it means that Rebbi Jehudah admits claims of missing virginity, as it was stated: Rebbi Jehudah said, in Judea in earlier times they appointed two best men, one for the groom and one for the bride, but they appointed them only for the wedding day. In contrast, this was not done in Galilee … they were sleeping in the room with groom and bride; in contrast, this was not done in Galilee. How is this? She has to bring proof that she comes from a family of dryness.

The blind woman and the she-ram are subject to claims of missing virginity. Symmachos said in the name of Rebbi Meïr that the blind woman is not subject to claims of missing virginity. What is Rebbi Meïr’s reason? I say, he found [her to be a virgin] and destroyed [the evidence]. What is the rabbi’s reason? She can catch him. What does Rebbi Meïr with this argument? He can cleanse it with spittle.

The blind woman and the she-ram are subject to claims of missing virginity. Symmachos said in the name of Rebbi Meïr that the blind woman is not subject to claims of missing virginity. What is Rebbi Meïr’s reason? I say, he found [her to be a virgin] and destroyed [the evidence]. What is the rabbi’s reason? She can catch him. What does Rebbi Meïr with this argument? He can cleanse it with spittle.

MISHNAH: If somebody eats at his father-in-law’s in Judea without chaperones cannot claim missing virginity since he is alone with her. Both for an Israel widow as a Cohanim widow the ketubah is a mina. The court of priests collected 400 zuz for a virgin, to which the Sages did not object.

HALAKHAH: “Somebody married a woman and found that she was no virgin”, etc. Rebbi Jeremiah asked: Does this mean that a claim of missing virginity is impossible following Rabban Gamliel and Rebbi Eliezer, only following Rebbi Joshua? He turned around and said, a claim of missing virginity is possible following Rabban Gamliel and Rebbi Eliezer, if she remains silent. And even if you say that she talks, if she said that he found her a virgin and destroyed the evidence. Why should she not be believed? One cannot tolerate it, since Rebbi Hila said in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, if he found the door open, he is forbidden to keep her because she might have been unfaithful. Here you say, she is believed. There, you say that she is not believed. In this case, both agree that the door was open.

HALAKHAH: “Somebody married a woman and found that she was no virgin”, etc. Rebbi Jeremiah asked: Does this mean that a claim of missing virginity is impossible following Rabban Gamliel and Rebbi Eliezer, only following Rebbi Joshua? He turned around and said, a claim of missing virginity is possible following Rabban Gamliel and Rebbi Eliezer, if she remains silent. And even if you say that she talks, if she said that he found her a virgin and destroyed the evidence. Why should she not be believed? One cannot tolerate it, since Rebbi Hila said in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, if he found the door open, he is forbidden to keep her because she might have been unfaithful. Here you say, she is believed. There, you say that she is not believed. In this case, both agree that the door was open.

There, we have stated: “If she had bodily defects while still in her father’s house, the father has to bring proof.” Rebbi Eleazar asked Rebbi Joḥanan: Is this Mishnah from Rabban Gamliel and Rebbi Eliezer? Not from Rebbi Joshua? He said to him, those are everybody’s words. There is a difference because bodily defects have a way to appear. Rebbi Yose said, formerly we saw rabbis who compared bodily defects to [defects of] virginity. These can be inferred from those and those can be inferred from these. Bodily defects from claims of missing virginity: For if he slept with her in her father’s house, the father has to provide proof. Claims of missing virginity from bodily defects: For if she developed bodily defects and there is a doubt whether it happened after she entered his domain or before she entered his domain, the husband has to provide proof, from claims of missing virginity. But if she lost her virginity, was it not in her father’s house? Nevertheless, you say, the husband has to provide proof; so here also, the husband has to provide proof.

There, we have stated: “If she had bodily defects while still in her father’s house, the father has to bring proof.” Rebbi Eleazar asked Rebbi Joḥanan: Is this Mishnah from Rabban Gamliel and Rebbi Eliezer? Not from Rebbi Joshua? He said to him, those are everybody’s words. There is a difference because bodily defects have a way to appear. Rebbi Yose said, formerly we saw rabbis who compared bodily defects to [defects of] virginity. These can be inferred from those and those can be inferred from these. Bodily defects from claims of missing virginity: For if he slept with her in her father’s house, the father has to provide proof. Claims of missing virginity from bodily defects: For if she developed bodily defects and there is a doubt whether it happened after she entered his domain or before she entered his domain, the husband has to provide proof, from claims of missing virginity. But if she lost her virginity, was it not in her father’s house? Nevertheless, you say, the husband has to provide proof; so here also, the husband has to provide proof.

There, we have stated: “If she had bodily defects while still in her father’s house, the father has to bring proof.” Rebbi Eleazar asked Rebbi Joḥanan: Is this Mishnah from Rabban Gamliel and Rebbi Eliezer? Not from Rebbi Joshua? He said to him, those are everybody’s words. There is a difference because bodily defects have a way to appear. Rebbi Yose said, formerly we saw rabbis who compared bodily defects to [defects of] virginity. These can be inferred from those and those can be inferred from these. Bodily defects from claims of missing virginity: For if he slept with her in her father’s house, the father has to provide proof. Claims of missing virginity from bodily defects: For if she developed bodily defects and there is a doubt whether it happened after she entered his domain or before she entered his domain, the husband has to provide proof, from claims of missing virginity. But if she lost her virginity, was it not in her father’s house? Nevertheless, you say, the husband has to provide proof; so here also, the husband has to provide proof.

HALAKHAH: “An unspecified nezirut is for thirty days,” etc. Bar Qappara said “ιʼεʼιʼεʼ” is thirty. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: Corresponding to the 29 times that in the Chapter about the nazir in the Torah is written “vow, nazir, to vow as nazir”. Are they not 30? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, one has to be removed for its definition. In the opinion of Bar Qappara, if he shaved on the 30th day, he did not fulfill his obligation. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan, if he shaved on the 30th day, he fulfilled his obligation. Some want to understand it from here: “To let his head’s hair grow wildly.” How much is a hair growth? 30 days. Some want to understand it from here: “She shall cry for her father and her mother the days of a month.” Since “days” mentioned there are 30, so also “days” mentioned here. Some want to understand it from here: “The prior days shall fall, for his nezirut is impure.” The days which became permitted, which Moses and his court had permitted, and that is no less than 30 days. Some want to understand it from here: “Until the days are fulfilled”. How much are full days? 30 days. Then if he shaved on the 30th day, he did not fulfill his obligation! Rebbi Isaac bar Eleazar said, “days” are written defectively יָמִם, with a letter י missing.

If his foot was cut off, from above the joint there is no “decay”, from below the joint there is “decay”. If it was buried together with him, from below the joint it becomes an attachment to him, from above the joint it does not become an attachment to him. The colleagues asked before Rebbi Samuel ben Eudaimon: If he bound from below the joint as attachment? He said to them, if it were so, even if it was not cut I should consider it as if cut and it should be an attachment! Since it is connected to him, it forms one body. If there is something missing, can it have “decay”? Let us hear from the following: If it is imcomplete, there is no “decay”, it does not require the surrounding earth, and it is not part of a row of graves. Rebbi Joḥanan asked, how much must be missing that it have no “decay”? Might it follow what we have stated there: “That he will die if it was removed.” Is it the same here? Think of it, if the esophagus was perforated, nothing was missing but he could not survive. You have only the following: If his foot was cut off, from below the joint there is “decay”, from above the joint there is no “decay”. If it was buried together with him, from below the joint it becomes an attachment to him, from above the joint it does not become an attachment to him.

If his foot was cut off, from above the joint there is no “decay”, from below the joint there is “decay”. If it was buried together with him, from below the joint it becomes an attachment to him, from above the joint it does not become an attachment to him. The colleagues asked before Rebbi Samuel ben Eudaimon: If he bound from below the joint as attachment? He said to them, if it were so, even if it was not cut I should consider it as if cut and it should be an attachment! Since it is connected to him, it forms one body. If there is something missing, can it have “decay”? Let us hear from the following: If it is imcomplete, there is no “decay”, it does not require the surrounding earth, and it is not part of a row of graves. Rebbi Joḥanan asked, how much must be missing that it have no “decay”? Might it follow what we have stated there: “That he will die if it was removed.” Is it the same here? Think of it, if the esophagus was perforated, nothing was missing but he could not survive. You have only the following: If his foot was cut off, from below the joint there is “decay”, from above the joint there is no “decay”. If it was buried together with him, from below the joint it becomes an attachment to him, from above the joint it does not become an attachment to him.

If his foot was cut off, from above the joint there is no “decay”, from below the joint there is “decay”. If it was buried together with him, from below the joint it becomes an attachment to him, from above the joint it does not become an attachment to him. The colleagues asked before Rebbi Samuel ben Eudaimon: If he bound from below the joint as attachment? He said to them, if it were so, even if it was not cut I should consider it as if cut and it should be an attachment! Since it is connected to him, it forms one body. If there is something missing, can it have “decay”? Let us hear from the following: If it is imcomplete, there is no “decay”, it does not require the surrounding earth, and it is not part of a row of graves. Rebbi Joḥanan asked, how much must be missing that it have no “decay”? Might it follow what we have stated there: “That he will die if it was removed.” Is it the same here? Think of it, if the esophagus was perforated, nothing was missing but he could not survive. You have only the following: If his foot was cut off, from below the joint there is “decay”, from above the joint there is no “decay”. If it was buried together with him, from below the joint it becomes an attachment to him, from above the joint it does not become an attachment to him.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, the Mishnah applies if one witness is missing, but only if there are three or more. Two or three at the beginning is invalid, one below the three is valid. Rebbi Mana asked: That is, if they are continuous. If they are with interruptions? As one says, they are considered like testimony at a distance, they only serve to certify the testimony. And so it is here. If there were nine, can he untie two and have two sign? Or are two witnesses on a knotted document nothing? If there were five, it is obvious that he unties one and has it signed. It turns out that his untying permits it following Rebbi Ḥananiah ben Gamliel, for Rebbi Ḥananiah ben Gamliel says, the essential part is what validates, even if he ties and signs after that. That is, if he ties all knots and after that the first three [witnesses] did sign. But if he tied the first three and had them signed, even if he makes many ties and lets many sign it is valid. Practice is that a knotted document is first knotted and then signed. If he made the first knots and had them signed right away, it is obvious that the first two did not sign the knotted document.