neighbor

“A person should not raise a dog unless it is tied by a chain.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina said: About anybody who raises a biting dog the verse says: “He who refuses kindness to his neighbor,” etc.

HALAKHAH: “Even though he did pay,” etc. [And so you find with Job’s friends. “Now yourselves take seven bulls and seven rams, etc.” “Eliphas the Temanite, Bildad the Shuhite, and Ṣophar the Naamite went and did, etc.” What does it say at the end? “The Eternal changed Job’s fortunes.” When? “When he was praying for his neighbor, etc.” “The Eternal doubled everything that Job had had.”]

MISHNAH: He who robbed at least a peruṭa’s worth from a fellow man and swore to him should deliver it to him even in Media. He should deliver neither to [the victim’s] son nor to his agent, but he may deliver to an agent of the court, and if [the victim] had died, he has to make restitution to his heirs. If he had returned the capital but not the fifth, or [the victim] had forgiven him the capital but not the fifth or had forgiven him both except for less than a peruṭa’s worth of the capital, he need not follow him. If he had returned the fifth but not the capital, or [the victim] had forgiven him the fifth but not the capital or had forgiven him both except for a peruṭa’s worth of the capital, he has to follow him. If he paid the capital but swore on the fifth, he pays a fifth for the fifth until the capital becomes less than a peruṭa’s worth. And so “for a deposit, or a partnership, or robbery, or if he oppressed his neighbor, or found lost property and denied it, and swore falsely,” has to pay the capital, and a fifth, and a reparation sacrifice.

HALAKHAH: “Somebody had robbed a field from another person,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, but did they not say that “real estate cannot be robbed”? Why did they say, “he has to give him a field”? It is a fine by which they fined him. If the discharged veterans took it from the robber because of the robbed, could he tell him, in any case give me what is mine and let any claimant come and deal with me? Rebbi Johua ben Levi said, nobody is held responsible for his neighbor and the latter has to repay him except annona and head-tax. Rav said, he can tell him, you redeemed your pledge with my money.

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, “or buying from your neighbor’s hand”, from you neighbor’s hand you need an act of acquisition; you do not need an act of acquisition from the Gentile’s hand. In Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish’s opinion, why does one deliver a person to “Him Who exacted retribution”? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, it follows the Tanna who stated: “Nobody dealing in words only may one deliver to “Him Who exacted retribution”.

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, “or buying from your neighbor’s hand”, from you neighbor’s hand you need an act of acquisition; you do not need an act of acquisition from the Gentile’s hand. In Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish’s opinion, why does one deliver a person to “Him Who exacted retribution”? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, it follows the Tanna who stated: “Nobody dealing in words only may one deliver to “Him Who exacted retribution”.

HALAKHAH: “The following eat by Torah law,” etc. Rebbi La said, “if you come into your neighbor’s vineyard.” Could anybody think that he would eat wood or stones? Why does the verse say “grapes”? That he may not skin figs or suck grapes.

“If he was working with his hand but not with his feet.” Rebbi La said, it is written: “If you come into your neighbor’s standing grain,” etc. With his hands, binding. With his feet, he compresses. Even with his shoulder, he carries.

HALAKHAH: “If one was working on figs,” etc. Rebbi La said, it is written: “If you come into your neighbor’s vineyard, you may eat grapes to satisfy yourself.” What else is there in the vineyard to eat but grapes? To teach you that if he was working on grapes he may not eat figs.

“The resident proselyte is protected by ‘you must pay his wages on his day’ ”, etc. It is written: “Do not oppress your neighbor,” excluding the resident proselyte.

Those bearing columns. Rebbi Ze‘ira: He tells the bottom dweller, you are obliged to support me. Rebbi La: He tells the dweller in the upper floor, the builders say that both have to build the foundations. The following supports the builders: “If his ruined building was close to the wall of his neighbor’s courtyard, he should not tell him: I am contributing to the foundations of your wall where it comes up, but he has to contribute to the foundations from the bottom and up. If it was built on top of ditches or caves, he is not obligated for anything.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, explain it, for example those inhabitants of Bet Shean where the bottom dweller cannot build unless the builder of the upper floor builds.

MISHNAH: A person may not dig a cistern close to his neighbor’s cistern, nor a ditch, nor a cave, nor a water canal, nor a washer’s pond except if he distanced himself from his neighbor’s wall three handbreadths and lined with lime. One removes olive peat, and manure, and salt, and lime, and rocks from his neighbor’s wall three handbreadths or lines with lime. One distances seeds, and ploughs, and urine three handbreadths from the wall. One distances a grindstone three from the base, which means four from the moving stone, and the oven three from the base, which means four from its rim.

MISHNAH: A person may not dig a cistern close to his neighbor’s cistern, nor a ditch, nor a cave, nor a water canal, nor a washer’s pond except if he distanced himself from his neighbor’s wall three handbreadths and lined with lime. One removes olive peat, and manure, and salt, and lime, and rocks from his neighbor’s wall three handbreadths or lines with lime. One distances seeds, and ploughs, and urine three handbreadths from the wall. One distances a grindstone three from the base, which means four from the moving stone, and the oven three from the base, which means four from its rim.

MISHNAH: A person may not dig a cistern close to his neighbor’s cistern, nor a ditch, nor a cave, nor a water canal, nor a washer’s pond except if he distanced himself from his neighbor’s wall three handbreadths and lined with lime. One removes olive peat, and manure, and salt, and lime, and rocks from his neighbor’s wall three handbreadths or lines with lime. One distances seeds, and ploughs, and urine three handbreadths from the wall. One distances a grindstone three from the base, which means four from the moving stone, and the oven three from the base, which means four from its rim.

HALAKHAH: “A person may not dig a cistern,” etc. So is the Mishnah: “[A person may not dig a cistern close to the wall of his neighbor’s cistern. Nor a ditch, nor a cave, nor a water canal, nor a washer’s pond except if he distanced himself from his neighbor’s wall three handbreadths] and lined with lime. If he lined with lime, any distance. If he did not line with lime, three handbreadths. From the following: “One removes olive peat, and manure, and salt, and lime, and rocks from his neighbor’s wall three handbreadths or lines with lime.” Here you say, because rocks generate heat. But there you say that they do not generate heat. Rebbi Yose said, in no case do rocks generate heat. But because they loosen the earth and damage the ground around the wall.

HALAKHAH: “A person may not dig a cistern,” etc. So is the Mishnah: “[A person may not dig a cistern close to the wall of his neighbor’s cistern. Nor a ditch, nor a cave, nor a water canal, nor a washer’s pond except if he distanced himself from his neighbor’s wall three handbreadths] and lined with lime. If he lined with lime, any distance. If he did not line with lime, three handbreadths. From the following: “One removes olive peat, and manure, and salt, and lime, and rocks from his neighbor’s wall three handbreadths or lines with lime.” Here you say, because rocks generate heat. But there you say that they do not generate heat. Rebbi Yose said, in no case do rocks generate heat. But because they loosen the earth and damage the ground around the wall.

HALAKHAH: “A person may not dig a cistern,” etc. So is the Mishnah: “[A person may not dig a cistern close to the wall of his neighbor’s cistern. Nor a ditch, nor a cave, nor a water canal, nor a washer’s pond except if he distanced himself from his neighbor’s wall three handbreadths] and lined with lime. If he lined with lime, any distance. If he did not line with lime, three handbreadths. From the following: “One removes olive peat, and manure, and salt, and lime, and rocks from his neighbor’s wall three handbreadths or lines with lime.” Here you say, because rocks generate heat. But there you say that they do not generate heat. Rebbi Yose said, in no case do rocks generate heat. But because they loosen the earth and damage the ground around the wall.

It was stated: About his neighbor he may change his mind. Once he accepted it he can no longer change his mind. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, even after he accepted it, he can change his mind, for he can tell him, they come and go here, they are looking for you and do not find you, and they increase traffic here. Rebbi Ḥanina and Rebbi Mana, one said, what is “his neighbor”? He let him live in his house. Once he accepted it he can no longer change his mind. Rav Huna said, one said, what is “his neighbor”? He opened a store for him. Once he accepted it he can no longer change his mind. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel parallels Rebbi Meïr, as we have stated there: “For all of these says Rebbi Meїr that, even if he contracted with her, she can say ‘I thought that I could stand it, now I cannot.’ ”

It was stated: About his neighbor he may change his mind. Once he accepted it he can no longer change his mind. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, even after he accepted it, he can change his mind, for he can tell him, they come and go here, they are looking for you and do not find you, and they increase traffic here. Rebbi Ḥanina and Rebbi Mana, one said, what is “his neighbor”? He let him live in his house. Once he accepted it he can no longer change his mind. Rav Huna said, one said, what is “his neighbor”? He opened a store for him. Once he accepted it he can no longer change his mind. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel parallels Rebbi Meïr, as we have stated there: “For all of these says Rebbi Meїr that, even if he contracted with her, she can say ‘I thought that I could stand it, now I cannot.’ ”

It was stated: About his neighbor he may change his mind. Once he accepted it he can no longer change his mind. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, even after he accepted it, he can change his mind, for he can tell him, they come and go here, they are looking for you and do not find you, and they increase traffic here. Rebbi Ḥanina and Rebbi Mana, one said, what is “his neighbor”? He let him live in his house. Once he accepted it he can no longer change his mind. Rav Huna said, one said, what is “his neighbor”? He opened a store for him. Once he accepted it he can no longer change his mind. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel parallels Rebbi Meïr, as we have stated there: “For all of these says Rebbi Meїr that, even if he contracted with her, she can say ‘I thought that I could stand it, now I cannot.’ ”

HALAKHAH: “If a tree overhangs another’s field,” etc. “If a tree overhangs the public domain,,” etc. Rebbi Jonathan was careful in judging; there was a Roman there who was his neighbor both in the field and the house. Rebbi Jonathan had a tree overhanging the Roman’s property. A similar case came before him. He told them, go and return next morning. This Roman said, because of me he did not decide the case. Tomorrow I will abandon my work and see how the judgment goes. If he judges all people and does not judge himself, he is not human. At nightfall, Rebbi Jonathan sent for his carpenter and told him, go and cut everything that overhangs the Roman’s. In the morning, the parties appeared before him. He told him, go and cut what overhangs into his property. The Roman said to him, what is with yours? He told him, go and see; what was done with mine do with yours. He went out and looked. He said, praised be the Jews’ God.

Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba asked: One se’ah of wheat which fell into one hundred of barley, do the Cohen and the Israel split the increase in value? Rebbi Isaac bar Tebelai asked: One se’ah of heave which fell into one hundred of profane grain, do the seller and the buyer split the remainder? Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, let us hear from the following: He who takes out impurities from his neighbor’s heap has to give him good grain in their stead.

It was stated: Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai said, by the mouth of two witnesses shall the dead die. Does he die when dead? But to tell him by which kind of death he will be executed. It was stated: Rebbi Jehudah ben Rebbi Illai said, and if a man intentionally kill his neighbor knowingly; they shall inform him by which kind of death he will be executed.

HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Eliezer said,” etc. The argument of Rebbi Jehudah seems inverted. There, he says: “If her hair was beautiful, he did not uncover it.” And here, he says so? Here, anyhow she goes to her death, but there, maybe she will be found to be pure and the young priests would attack her. The argument of the rabbis seems inverted. There, they say: “A man is stoned naked, but no woman is stoned naked.” And here, they say so? Here, you shall love your neighbor as yourself, choose for him a decorous death. But here, all women should be taught.

HALAKHAH: “The deviant and rebellious son,” etc. Rebbi Zeˋira, Rebbi Abbahu, Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. It is written: If a man would concoct against his neighbor to kill him slyly. When does he become a man? When he concocts. When is he done cooking? When his palm expands. A simile: If the seed is fully cooked inside, the pot becomes black on the outside. Rebbi Zeˋira said that Rebbi Shila bar Bina stated: If a man have a son, not that the son be a father. From the moment that he may come to a woman and make her pregnant, he is a potential father, not a son. But the Torah said, a son, not a father. It parallels what Rebbi Yasa said in the name of Rebbi Sabbatai: The entire period of a “deviant and rebellious son” is only six months.

HALAKHAH: All its spoils you shall collect, etc. Rebbi Simeon said, is there not an argument de minore ad majus about this? Since properties, which have no knowledge of good or bad, but because they caused the just to dwell with the evildoers the Torah said, should be burned, if somebody has the intention of influencing his neighbor and influences him from good ways to bad ones, not so much more? Rebbi Eleazar said, the matter is demonstrated by Lot who dwelt in Sodom only because of his money but left there with his hands on his head. This is what is written: Quickly escape to there; it is enough for you that you escape with your life.

“And a prophet who transgressed his own word,” like the companion of Micha. That is what is written: An old prophet was dwelling at Bethel; his son came and told him all the actions which the man of God had wrought, etc. Their father asked them, which way did he go, etc. He told his sons, saddle the donkey for me, etc. He followed the man of God and found him sitting under the terebinth, etc. He said to him, come with me to my house and eat. He told him, I cannot return, etc., up to he said to him, I also am a prophet like you and an angel spoke to me the words of the Eternal as follows, etc., up to he should eat food and drink water; he tricked him. What means “tricked him”? He lied to him. While they were sitting at table, the word of the Eternal came to the prophet who had turned him back. It is not written “who had returned,” but “who had turned him back.” Is that not an argument de minore ad majus? Since one who fed his neighbor food in falsehood was worthy of the Word to be addressed to him, one who feeds his neighbor food in truth, so much more.

“And a prophet who transgressed his own word,” like the companion of Micha. That is what is written: An old prophet was dwelling at Bethel; his son came and told him all the actions which the man of God had wrought, etc. Their father asked them, which way did he go, etc. He told his sons, saddle the donkey for me, etc. He followed the man of God and found him sitting under the terebinth, etc. He said to him, come with me to my house and eat. He told him, I cannot return, etc., up to he said to him, I also am a prophet like you and an angel spoke to me the words of the Eternal as follows, etc., up to he should eat food and drink water; he tricked him. What means “tricked him”? He lied to him. While they were sitting at table, the word of the Eternal came to the prophet who had turned him back. It is not written “who had returned,” but “who had turned him back.” Is that not an argument de minore ad majus? Since one who fed his neighbor food in falsehood was worthy of the Word to be addressed to him, one who feeds his neighbor food in truth, so much more.

It is written: One of the young prophets said to his neighbor by the Word of the Eternal, etc. He told him, since you did not listen to the Word of the Eternal, when you depart from me the lion will hit you; he departed from him, the lion found him and hit him. He found another man, said to him, hit me, and he hit him etc. The prophet went, stood in the king’s way, and had disguised himself by a band over his eyes. When the king passed by, he cried to the king, etc. Your servant went to and fro, etc. He told him, so says the Eternal: Because you sent away from your hand the man whom I had banned, your life will be for his life, and your people for his people. And it is written: The man of God approached and said, so says the Eternal. Why two times “and said”? But in the first address he told him, if Ben Hadad falls into you hand, do not have mercy on him and do not spare him. In the second address he told him, because you sent away from your hand the man whom I had banned, how many traps and hunting nets I made for him until I delivered him into your hand, and you sent him away and he went in peace. Therefore, your life will be for his life, and your people for his people. You find that when Israel went to war, nobody of them died but Ahab, the king of Israel. That is what is written: A man shot from his bow without aiming and hit the king of Israel between the joints of his armor; he told the driver, take me out of the camp because I became sick. How can I confirm your people for his people? Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai: That drop of blood which was drawn from the just man did atone for all of Israel.

HALAKHAH: “One who prophesies in the name of foreign worship,” etc. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, everything was included in do not testify against your neighbor as a false witness. It came to judge whether by sign, or by miracle, whether about foreign worship or any other commandment. But about foreign worship, whether he intended to uproot the entire body or did not intend to uproot the entire body, by the words of Rebbi Simeon one does not prosecute him, but by the words of the Sages one stones him. For any other commandment by the words of the Sages one stones him, by the words of Rebbi Simeon he should understand his pywnṭ.

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

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

The argument of the House of Hillel seems inverted. If a person give to his neighbor, etc. If to teach that the court will not act on less than a peruṭah’s worth, is it not already written, to incur liability for it? To exclude anything not worth a peruṭah. From here, that it should be more than silver. And what is more than silver? Two oboloi. But maybe “silver” is a peruṭah, more than silver two peruṭot. The smallest silver coin is an obolos. So why is it not an obolos? Or vessels; since vessels are two, also “money” is two. How do the House of Shammai interpret or vessels? Following what Rebbi Nathan stated, or vessels, including clay vessels. Samuel said, if he claimed from him two needles and he admitted to one, he is liable. Rebbi Ḥinena said, only if they are worth two peruṭot, that the claim should be about a peruṭah’s worth and the confession about a peruṭah’s worth. This follows the House of Shammai who do not learn money’s worth from “vessels”. But following the House of Hillel who learn money’s worth from “vessels”, since vessels are two, also “money” is two. Similarly, since “money” means two oboloi, also “vessels” means two oboloi’s worth.

“And the acknowledgment of one peruṭah.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, if somebody claims that another had stolen, the latter is not liable unless he partially admit. But all his colleagues differ from him. How do the colleagues uphold for this is it? If he claims money from him. If he claims money from him, is that double he shall pay to his neighbor? But this is a mixture of paragraphs.

HALAKHAH: “One does not swear on the claim of a deaf-and-dumb person, an insane person, or a minor,” etc. It is written: If a man give to his neighbor, to exclude the minor. So far if a minor gave to him and the minor requested from him. If he gave it as a minor and requested it as an adult? The verse says, his neighbor; only if giving and requesting are equal. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, is that not obvious by what Rebbi Joḥanan said, one who claims a claim of theft in respect of his neighbor’s lost object is liable? “Where is my lost object?” He told him, it was stolen. Rebbi Abba said, explain it if he told him, you already asked me when you were underage and I was freed from swearing for you. An oath of the Eternal shall be between both of them, to exclude the heir. Rebbi Illa in the name of Rebbi Yasa: The baraita is about the heir.

HALAKHAH: “One does not swear on the claim of a deaf-and-dumb person, an insane person, or a minor,” etc. It is written: If a man give to his neighbor, to exclude the minor. So far if a minor gave to him and the minor requested from him. If he gave it as a minor and requested it as an adult? The verse says, his neighbor; only if giving and requesting are equal. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, is that not obvious by what Rebbi Joḥanan said, one who claims a claim of theft in respect of his neighbor’s lost object is liable? “Where is my lost object?” He told him, it was stolen. Rebbi Abba said, explain it if he told him, you already asked me when you were underage and I was freed from swearing for you. An oath of the Eternal shall be between both of them, to exclude the heir. Rebbi Illa in the name of Rebbi Yasa: The baraita is about the heir.

HALAKHAH: “One does not swear on the claim of a deaf-and-dumb person, an insane person, or a minor,” etc. It is written: If a man give to his neighbor, to exclude the minor. So far if a minor gave to him and the minor requested from him. If he gave it as a minor and requested it as an adult? The verse says, his neighbor; only if giving and requesting are equal. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, is that not obvious by what Rebbi Joḥanan said, one who claims a claim of theft in respect of his neighbor’s lost object is liable? “Where is my lost object?” He told him, it was stolen. Rebbi Abba said, explain it if he told him, you already asked me when you were underage and I was freed from swearing for you. An oath of the Eternal shall be between both of them, to exclude the heir. Rebbi Illa in the name of Rebbi Yasa: The baraita is about the heir.

“Rebbi Simeon says, both most holy and simple sancta; about any sancta for which he is responsible if alienated, I am reading against his neighbor and he lied; but about any sancta for which he is not responsible if alienated, I am reading against the Eternal and he lied.” Rav Huna said, both qualified and disqualified sancta, if he is responsible if alienated, even if they are for the Eternal, I am reading against his neighbor and he lied; but if he is not responsible if alienated, I am reading against the Eternal and he lied but not against his neighbor and he lied.

“Rebbi Simeon says, both most holy and simple sancta; about any sancta for which he is responsible if alienated, I am reading against his neighbor and he lied; but about any sancta for which he is not responsible if alienated, I am reading against the Eternal and he lied.” Rav Huna said, both qualified and disqualified sancta, if he is responsible if alienated, even if they are for the Eternal, I am reading against his neighbor and he lied; but if he is not responsible if alienated, I am reading against the Eternal and he lied but not against his neighbor and he lied.

“Rebbi Simeon says, both most holy and simple sancta; about any sancta for which he is responsible if alienated, I am reading against his neighbor and he lied; but about any sancta for which he is not responsible if alienated, I am reading against the Eternal and he lied.” Rav Huna said, both qualified and disqualified sancta, if he is responsible if alienated, even if they are for the Eternal, I am reading against his neighbor and he lied; but if he is not responsible if alienated, I am reading against the Eternal and he lied but not against his neighbor and he lied.

It is written, if a man give to his neighbor a donkey, or an ox, or a sheep etc. An oath before the Eternal shall be between the two of them. Stolen, if it was stolen stealing from him. Lost, and if, to include the lost one. So far following Rebbi Aqiba. Following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Ismael stated: Since you say that he pays for theft which is close to duress, for loss which is not close to duress not so much more?

“He said to the recipient of a fee,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, one who claims before his neighbor a claim of thief in a case of loss is liable. “Where is my lost object?” He told him, “it was stolen.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, one who claims before his neighbor a claim of thief is liable only after an oath. What is the reason? It is said here “grabbing” and it says there “grabbing.” Since “grabbing” mentioned there only applies after an oath, so also “grabbing” mentioned here only applies after an oath. Rebbi Joḥanan said, one who claims a claim of loss, swore to him, and afterwards claimed a claim of thief is not liable. Rebbi Joḥanan asked: May one be liable for a blurted oath in case of an oath regarding a claim of thief? The argument of Rebbi Joḥanan seems to be inverted. There he said, if he claimed a claim of loss, swore to him, and afterwards claimed a claim of thief is not liable. And here he says so? There it is obvious to him, here it is problematic for him. What is problematic for him? He saw and found it simple. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph said, one who claims before his neighbor a claim of thief is liable only after he denied in court. Where do we hold? If about him who already owes an oath to his neighbor, even if he was swearing out of court he is liable. But we must hold about him who saw them coming. They wanted to make him swear but he jumped in and swore. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: When it was standing at his feeding trough. Rebbi Ze`ira asked: how was it said? “If it was standing” or “even if it was standing”? If you say “even if it was standing,” it makes no difference. If you say “if it was standing,” then the argument of Rebbi Joḥanan is inverted. There, he said, if he claimed before him a claim of loss, had been swearing to him, selected a sacrifice, and then claimed a claim of duress, he is not liable. But here you are saying so? Rebbi La said, there is a difference since he absolved himself of confession by the oath. They objected to the opinion of Rebbi Ze`ira: “‘Where is my ox?’ He told him, ‘it was stolen.’ ‘I want you to swear;’ he answered ‘Amen’. Witnesses testify that he stole it: he has to pay double restitution. If he confessed himself he pays the value, and a fifth, and a reparation sacrifice.” But here when he moved it by claiming that it was lost. Afterwards he claimed a claim of thief and is not liable. Explain it that he swore to him but slaughtered it afterwards. The students of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Julianus say, explain it that he slaughtered it when it was lying down. Is there slaughter without sale? Following Symmachos who said, there can be slaughter and sale without theft. Samuel said, if there came no witnesses of the theft, but there came witnesses of the slaughter; he is liable.

“He said to the recipient of a fee,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, one who claims before his neighbor a claim of thief in a case of loss is liable. “Where is my lost object?” He told him, “it was stolen.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, one who claims before his neighbor a claim of thief is liable only after an oath. What is the reason? It is said here “grabbing” and it says there “grabbing.” Since “grabbing” mentioned there only applies after an oath, so also “grabbing” mentioned here only applies after an oath. Rebbi Joḥanan said, one who claims a claim of loss, swore to him, and afterwards claimed a claim of thief is not liable. Rebbi Joḥanan asked: May one be liable for a blurted oath in case of an oath regarding a claim of thief? The argument of Rebbi Joḥanan seems to be inverted. There he said, if he claimed a claim of loss, swore to him, and afterwards claimed a claim of thief is not liable. And here he says so? There it is obvious to him, here it is problematic for him. What is problematic for him? He saw and found it simple. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph said, one who claims before his neighbor a claim of thief is liable only after he denied in court. Where do we hold? If about him who already owes an oath to his neighbor, even if he was swearing out of court he is liable. But we must hold about him who saw them coming. They wanted to make him swear but he jumped in and swore. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: When it was standing at his feeding trough. Rebbi Ze`ira asked: how was it said? “If it was standing” or “even if it was standing”? If you say “even if it was standing,” it makes no difference. If you say “if it was standing,” then the argument of Rebbi Joḥanan is inverted. There, he said, if he claimed before him a claim of loss, had been swearing to him, selected a sacrifice, and then claimed a claim of duress, he is not liable. But here you are saying so? Rebbi La said, there is a difference since he absolved himself of confession by the oath. They objected to the opinion of Rebbi Ze`ira: “‘Where is my ox?’ He told him, ‘it was stolen.’ ‘I want you to swear;’ he answered ‘Amen’. Witnesses testify that he stole it: he has to pay double restitution. If he confessed himself he pays the value, and a fifth, and a reparation sacrifice.” But here when he moved it by claiming that it was lost. Afterwards he claimed a claim of thief and is not liable. Explain it that he swore to him but slaughtered it afterwards. The students of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Julianus say, explain it that he slaughtered it when it was lying down. Is there slaughter without sale? Following Symmachos who said, there can be slaughter and sale without theft. Samuel said, if there came no witnesses of the theft, but there came witnesses of the slaughter; he is liable.

“He said to the recipient of a fee,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, one who claims before his neighbor a claim of thief in a case of loss is liable. “Where is my lost object?” He told him, “it was stolen.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, one who claims before his neighbor a claim of thief is liable only after an oath. What is the reason? It is said here “grabbing” and it says there “grabbing.” Since “grabbing” mentioned there only applies after an oath, so also “grabbing” mentioned here only applies after an oath. Rebbi Joḥanan said, one who claims a claim of loss, swore to him, and afterwards claimed a claim of thief is not liable. Rebbi Joḥanan asked: May one be liable for a blurted oath in case of an oath regarding a claim of thief? The argument of Rebbi Joḥanan seems to be inverted. There he said, if he claimed a claim of loss, swore to him, and afterwards claimed a claim of thief is not liable. And here he says so? There it is obvious to him, here it is problematic for him. What is problematic for him? He saw and found it simple. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph said, one who claims before his neighbor a claim of thief is liable only after he denied in court. Where do we hold? If about him who already owes an oath to his neighbor, even if he was swearing out of court he is liable. But we must hold about him who saw them coming. They wanted to make him swear but he jumped in and swore. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: When it was standing at his feeding trough. Rebbi Ze`ira asked: how was it said? “If it was standing” or “even if it was standing”? If you say “even if it was standing,” it makes no difference. If you say “if it was standing,” then the argument of Rebbi Joḥanan is inverted. There, he said, if he claimed before him a claim of loss, had been swearing to him, selected a sacrifice, and then claimed a claim of duress, he is not liable. But here you are saying so? Rebbi La said, there is a difference since he absolved himself of confession by the oath. They objected to the opinion of Rebbi Ze`ira: “‘Where is my ox?’ He told him, ‘it was stolen.’ ‘I want you to swear;’ he answered ‘Amen’. Witnesses testify that he stole it: he has to pay double restitution. If he confessed himself he pays the value, and a fifth, and a reparation sacrifice.” But here when he moved it by claiming that it was lost. Afterwards he claimed a claim of thief and is not liable. Explain it that he swore to him but slaughtered it afterwards. The students of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Julianus say, explain it that he slaughtered it when it was lying down. Is there slaughter without sale? Following Symmachos who said, there can be slaughter and sale without theft. Samuel said, if there came no witnesses of the theft, but there came witnesses of the slaughter; he is liable.

“He said to the recipient of a fee,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, one who claims before his neighbor a claim of thief in a case of loss is liable. “Where is my lost object?” He told him, “it was stolen.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, one who claims before his neighbor a claim of thief is liable only after an oath. What is the reason? It is said here “grabbing” and it says there “grabbing.” Since “grabbing” mentioned there only applies after an oath, so also “grabbing” mentioned here only applies after an oath. Rebbi Joḥanan said, one who claims a claim of loss, swore to him, and afterwards claimed a claim of thief is not liable. Rebbi Joḥanan asked: May one be liable for a blurted oath in case of an oath regarding a claim of thief? The argument of Rebbi Joḥanan seems to be inverted. There he said, if he claimed a claim of loss, swore to him, and afterwards claimed a claim of thief is not liable. And here he says so? There it is obvious to him, here it is problematic for him. What is problematic for him? He saw and found it simple. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph said, one who claims before his neighbor a claim of thief is liable only after he denied in court. Where do we hold? If about him who already owes an oath to his neighbor, even if he was swearing out of court he is liable. But we must hold about him who saw them coming. They wanted to make him swear but he jumped in and swore. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: When it was standing at his feeding trough. Rebbi Ze`ira asked: how was it said? “If it was standing” or “even if it was standing”? If you say “even if it was standing,” it makes no difference. If you say “if it was standing,” then the argument of Rebbi Joḥanan is inverted. There, he said, if he claimed before him a claim of loss, had been swearing to him, selected a sacrifice, and then claimed a claim of duress, he is not liable. But here you are saying so? Rebbi La said, there is a difference since he absolved himself of confession by the oath. They objected to the opinion of Rebbi Ze`ira: “‘Where is my ox?’ He told him, ‘it was stolen.’ ‘I want you to swear;’ he answered ‘Amen’. Witnesses testify that he stole it: he has to pay double restitution. If he confessed himself he pays the value, and a fifth, and a reparation sacrifice.” But here when he moved it by claiming that it was lost. Afterwards he claimed a claim of thief and is not liable. Explain it that he swore to him but slaughtered it afterwards. The students of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Julianus say, explain it that he slaughtered it when it was lying down. Is there slaughter without sale? Following Symmachos who said, there can be slaughter and sale without theft. Samuel said, if there came no witnesses of the theft, but there came witnesses of the slaughter; he is liable.

“And salqonarit salt.” Some Tannaïm state, black one is forbidden but white permitted. But some Tannaïm state, white one is forbidden but black permitted. He who said black one is forbidden, because one puts a black crawling thing in it. He who said white one is forbidden, because one puts a white crawling thing in it. Rebbi Ḥanania ben Gamliel said in the name of Rebbi Jehudah ben Gamliel, both are forbidden. Rebbi Ḥanania said, we had a neighbor who was mixing it with pig fat.

Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Rav: Rebbi was sitting and teaching his son Rebbi Simeon. The Gentile annuls his own idol and that of his neighbor. He said to him, when you still were in full mental powers you quoted Tannaim stating that a Gentile annuls his own idol and that of a Jew. He answered him, no, my son. An idol which a Jew had worshipped can never be annulled. And it was stated so: “Rebbi Simeon ben Menassia says, an idol which a Jew had worshipped can never be annulled.” Rav stated in the name of the reason of this Tanna: Cursed be the man who makes a hewn or molten image, forever.

HALAKHAH: “How are plotting witnesses treated,” etc. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, everything was included in do not testify against your neighbor as a false witness. As an exception, do to him as he plotted to do to his neighbor. If you can satisfy do to him as he plotted then fulfill (do not testify) [do to him as he plotted to do]. But if you cannot satisfy do to him as he plotted to do to his neighbor then (do not) satisfy do not testify against your neighbor. Another explanation: Do to him, not to his descendants.

HALAKHAH: “How are plotting witnesses treated,” etc. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, everything was included in do not testify against your neighbor as a false witness. As an exception, do to him as he plotted to do to his neighbor. If you can satisfy do to him as he plotted then fulfill (do not testify) [do to him as he plotted to do]. But if you cannot satisfy do to him as he plotted to do to his neighbor then (do not) satisfy do not testify against your neighbor. Another explanation: Do to him, not to his descendants.

HALAKHAH: “How are plotting witnesses treated,” etc. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, everything was included in do not testify against your neighbor as a false witness. As an exception, do to him as he plotted to do to his neighbor. If you can satisfy do to him as he plotted then fulfill (do not testify) [do to him as he plotted to do]. But if you cannot satisfy do to him as he plotted to do to his neighbor then (do not) satisfy do not testify against your neighbor. Another explanation: Do to him, not to his descendants.

HALAKHAH: “How are plotting witnesses treated,” etc. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, everything was included in do not testify against your neighbor as a false witness. As an exception, do to him as he plotted to do to his neighbor. If you can satisfy do to him as he plotted then fulfill (do not testify) [do to him as he plotted to do]. But if you cannot satisfy do to him as he plotted to do to his neighbor then (do not) satisfy do not testify against your neighbor. Another explanation: Do to him, not to his descendants.

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: “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.

R. Elazar said: Sabbatical year produce is redeemed only by way of sale. But R. Yohanan said: Either by way of sale or by way of exchange. What is the reason of R. Elazar? As it is written, "In this year of Jubilee" (Leviticus 25:13) and then comes the following verse, "And if you sell something to your neighbor" [implying,] only by way of sale, but not by way of exchange.

But what does R. Yohanan do with the verse, "And if you sell something to your neighbor"? He requires it in accordance with the statement of R. Yose b. Hanina, as it has been taught, R. Yose b. Hanina said: Come and see how serious is [even] the dust of the Sabbatical Year. A man merely trades with the produce of the Sabbatical Year, in the end he sells his movable property and his clothes, as it is said, "In this year of Jubilee you shall return, each man to his possessions" and then comes immediately, "And if you sell something to your neighbor etc."

But what does R. Yohanan do with the verse, "And if you sell something to your neighbor"? He requires it in accordance with the statement of R. Yose b. Hanina, as it has been taught, R. Yose b. Hanina said: Come and see how serious is [even] the dust of the Sabbatical Year. A man merely trades with the produce of the Sabbatical Year, in the end he sells his movable property and his clothes, as it is said, "In this year of Jubilee you shall return, each man to his possessions" and then comes immediately, "And if you sell something to your neighbor etc."

Abaye said: Woe to the wicked, woe to his neighbor; it is good for the righteous and good for his neighbor; as it is said, “Say you of the righteous, that it shall be well with him, for they shall eat the fruit of their doings.”.

Abaye said: Woe to the wicked, woe to his neighbor; it is good for the righteous and good for his neighbor; as it is said, “Say you of the righteous, that it shall be well with him, for they shall eat the fruit of their doings.”.

What were the meritorious deeds of R. Adda b. 'Ahabah? They are as follows: R. Adda b. 'Ahabah's pupils once asked him, "Through what merits was such long life granted you?" He replied to them: I never lost my temper in my house, never walked in front of one who was my superior in learning, never thought of sacred subjects in filthy alleys, never walked four ells without meditating about the Torah or without the phylacteries, never slept or took a nap in the house of learning, never rejoiced in the misfortune of a fellow-man, and never called my neighbor by an opprobrious surname, which I gave him. Some say R. Adda said, "which others gave him."

because she was ashamed (to have it known that she had nothing to bake for the Sabbath). She had, however, a certain neighbor who said: "I surely know that she has nothing (to bake), let me go and see what causes that smoke." She went in and found the stove full of bread and a kneading-trough full of dough. She therefore exclaimed: "Hear! Hear! Bring a shovel, for your bread is getting charred!" It is taught in a Baraita that R. Ḥanina's wife actually went for a shovel, because she was used to miracles (and therefore did not assume that the woman was mocking her).

R. Ḥanina had a neighbor who once said to him: "I have built a house for myself and the joists are not long enough to reach from one wall to the other." Said he: "What is thy name?" "My name is 'Eiku," she replied. Said he: "'Eiku, 'Eiku! May thy joists reach the walls."

Does a cedar produce young shoots? Do we not read in a Baraita: He who buys a tree from his neighbor in order to fell it, must cut it a hand-breadth above the ground; if the tree is a virgin-sycamore, he must cut it three hand-breadths above the ground; and if it is a truncated sycamore, he must cut it two hand-breadths above ground; if he buys reeds and vine, he must cut them above the knot; in case of palm-trees and cedars he may dig deep in the ground and uproot them, because they do not produce young shoots! Answer. In the passage above (of R. Ḥiyya) reference is had to different kinds of cedars, which is in keeping with a statement of Rabbah b. R. Huna; for Rabbah b. R. Huna said that it was taught in the School of Rab: There are ten kinds of cedars, as it is said (Is., 41. 19): "I will plant in the wilderness the cedar, the acacia-tree, and the myrtle, and the oil-tree; I will set in the desert the cypress, the plane-tree and the larch together."

Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says, etc. Our Rabbis taught [in a baraita]: And “and found [his neighbor]” (Deuteronomy 19:5) excludes the one who places himself [in danger]. From here [it follows that] Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov said: If, from when the stone left his hand, another person stuck out their head and received [the stone and was killed], he is exempt [from exile].

Dovid came and established them on eleven, as it is written, (Psamls 15,1) "A psalm of Dovid. Hashem, who shall dwell in your live? Who will dwell upon your holy mountain? One who walks upright, and works righteously, and speaks truth in his heart, That has no slander upon his tongue, nor does evil to his fellow, nor takes up a reproach against his neighbor; In whose eyes a vile person is despised, But he honors those that fear Hashem; He swears to his own hurt, and does not changes; one who doesn't lend out his money on interest, Nor take a bribe against the innocent. He that does these things shall never falter.

"Who does not takes up a reproach against his neighbor" This refers to one who brings his relatives near him.