obligation

MISHNAH: If a person said to two nezirim: I saw one of you becoming impure but I do not know which one of you it was, they bring one sacrifice of impurity and one of purity. One of them says, if I am impure, the sacrifice of impurity is mine and that of purity is yours; otherwise the sacrifice of purity is mine and that of impurity is yours. Then they count another thirty days and bring one sacrifice of purity; (Mishnah 2) one of them says, if I was impure, the sacrifice of impurity was mine and that of purity was yours, hence this is my sacrifice of purity; otherwise the sacrifice of purity was mine and that of impurity was yours, hence this is your sacrifice of purity. If one of them died, Rebbi Joshua said, he should seek out a person from the general public who would make a vow of nazir corresponding to his needs and say: If I was impure, you are a nazir immediately, but if I was pure, you are a nazir after 30 days. They count 30 days and bring one sacrifice of impurity and one of purity (Mishnah 3) and he says: If I am impure, the sacrifice of impurity is mine and that of purity is yours; otherwise the sacrifice of purity is mine and that of impurity is questionable. Then they count another thirty days, bring one sacrifice of purity (Mishnah 4) and he says: If I was impure, the sacrifice of impurity was mine and that of purity was yours, hence this is my sacrifice of purity; otherwise the sacrifice of purity was mine and that of impurity was questionable; hence this is your sacrifice of purity. Ben Zoma said to him, who would accommodate him to make a vow of nazir corresponding to his needs? But he brings a bird as purification offering and an animal as elevation offering and says: If I was impure, the purification offering is for my obligation and the elevation offering is voluntary. But if I was pure, the elevation offering is for my obligation and the purification offering is questionable. Then he counts 30 days and brings one sacrifice (of impurity and one) of purity (Mishnah 5) and says: If I was impure, the first elevation offering was voluntary and the one now is for my obligation. But if I was pure, the first elevation offering was for my obligation and now I am bringing the remainder of my sacrifices. Rebbi Joshua said, then it turns out that he brings his sacrifices piecemeal! But the Sages accepted the words of Ben Zoma.

MISHNAH: If a person said to two nezirim: I saw one of you becoming impure but I do not know which one of you it was, they bring one sacrifice of impurity and one of purity. One of them says, if I am impure, the sacrifice of impurity is mine and that of purity is yours; otherwise the sacrifice of purity is mine and that of impurity is yours. Then they count another thirty days and bring one sacrifice of purity; (Mishnah 2) one of them says, if I was impure, the sacrifice of impurity was mine and that of purity was yours, hence this is my sacrifice of purity; otherwise the sacrifice of purity was mine and that of impurity was yours, hence this is your sacrifice of purity. If one of them died, Rebbi Joshua said, he should seek out a person from the general public who would make a vow of nazir corresponding to his needs and say: If I was impure, you are a nazir immediately, but if I was pure, you are a nazir after 30 days. They count 30 days and bring one sacrifice of impurity and one of purity (Mishnah 3) and he says: If I am impure, the sacrifice of impurity is mine and that of purity is yours; otherwise the sacrifice of purity is mine and that of impurity is questionable. Then they count another thirty days, bring one sacrifice of purity (Mishnah 4) and he says: If I was impure, the sacrifice of impurity was mine and that of purity was yours, hence this is my sacrifice of purity; otherwise the sacrifice of purity was mine and that of impurity was questionable; hence this is your sacrifice of purity. Ben Zoma said to him, who would accommodate him to make a vow of nazir corresponding to his needs? But he brings a bird as purification offering and an animal as elevation offering and says: If I was impure, the purification offering is for my obligation and the elevation offering is voluntary. But if I was pure, the elevation offering is for my obligation and the purification offering is questionable. Then he counts 30 days and brings one sacrifice (of impurity and one) of purity (Mishnah 5) and says: If I was impure, the first elevation offering was voluntary and the one now is for my obligation. But if I was pure, the first elevation offering was for my obligation and now I am bringing the remainder of my sacrifices. Rebbi Joshua said, then it turns out that he brings his sacrifices piecemeal! But the Sages accepted the words of Ben Zoma.

MISHNAH: If a person said to two nezirim: I saw one of you becoming impure but I do not know which one of you it was, they bring one sacrifice of impurity and one of purity. One of them says, if I am impure, the sacrifice of impurity is mine and that of purity is yours; otherwise the sacrifice of purity is mine and that of impurity is yours. Then they count another thirty days and bring one sacrifice of purity; (Mishnah 2) one of them says, if I was impure, the sacrifice of impurity was mine and that of purity was yours, hence this is my sacrifice of purity; otherwise the sacrifice of purity was mine and that of impurity was yours, hence this is your sacrifice of purity. If one of them died, Rebbi Joshua said, he should seek out a person from the general public who would make a vow of nazir corresponding to his needs and say: If I was impure, you are a nazir immediately, but if I was pure, you are a nazir after 30 days. They count 30 days and bring one sacrifice of impurity and one of purity (Mishnah 3) and he says: If I am impure, the sacrifice of impurity is mine and that of purity is yours; otherwise the sacrifice of purity is mine and that of impurity is questionable. Then they count another thirty days, bring one sacrifice of purity (Mishnah 4) and he says: If I was impure, the sacrifice of impurity was mine and that of purity was yours, hence this is my sacrifice of purity; otherwise the sacrifice of purity was mine and that of impurity was questionable; hence this is your sacrifice of purity. Ben Zoma said to him, who would accommodate him to make a vow of nazir corresponding to his needs? But he brings a bird as purification offering and an animal as elevation offering and says: If I was impure, the purification offering is for my obligation and the elevation offering is voluntary. But if I was pure, the elevation offering is for my obligation and the purification offering is questionable. Then he counts 30 days and brings one sacrifice (of impurity and one) of purity (Mishnah 5) and says: If I was impure, the first elevation offering was voluntary and the one now is for my obligation. But if I was pure, the first elevation offering was for my obligation and now I am bringing the remainder of my sacrifices. Rebbi Joshua said, then it turns out that he brings his sacrifices piecemeal! But the Sages accepted the words of Ben Zoma.

MISHNAH: If a person said to two nezirim: I saw one of you becoming impure but I do not know which one of you it was, they bring one sacrifice of impurity and one of purity. One of them says, if I am impure, the sacrifice of impurity is mine and that of purity is yours; otherwise the sacrifice of purity is mine and that of impurity is yours. Then they count another thirty days and bring one sacrifice of purity; (Mishnah 2) one of them says, if I was impure, the sacrifice of impurity was mine and that of purity was yours, hence this is my sacrifice of purity; otherwise the sacrifice of purity was mine and that of impurity was yours, hence this is your sacrifice of purity. If one of them died, Rebbi Joshua said, he should seek out a person from the general public who would make a vow of nazir corresponding to his needs and say: If I was impure, you are a nazir immediately, but if I was pure, you are a nazir after 30 days. They count 30 days and bring one sacrifice of impurity and one of purity (Mishnah 3) and he says: If I am impure, the sacrifice of impurity is mine and that of purity is yours; otherwise the sacrifice of purity is mine and that of impurity is questionable. Then they count another thirty days, bring one sacrifice of purity (Mishnah 4) and he says: If I was impure, the sacrifice of impurity was mine and that of purity was yours, hence this is my sacrifice of purity; otherwise the sacrifice of purity was mine and that of impurity was questionable; hence this is your sacrifice of purity. Ben Zoma said to him, who would accommodate him to make a vow of nazir corresponding to his needs? But he brings a bird as purification offering and an animal as elevation offering and says: If I was impure, the purification offering is for my obligation and the elevation offering is voluntary. But if I was pure, the elevation offering is for my obligation and the purification offering is questionable. Then he counts 30 days and brings one sacrifice (of impurity and one) of purity (Mishnah 5) and says: If I was impure, the first elevation offering was voluntary and the one now is for my obligation. But if I was pure, the first elevation offering was for my obligation and now I am bringing the remainder of my sacrifices. Rebbi Joshua said, then it turns out that he brings his sacrifices piecemeal! But the Sages accepted the words of Ben Zoma.

HALAKHAH: Who is doubtfully definitely [suffering]? Two who came to him. He declared one of them definitively affected but before he could declare the second one definitively affected, they were changed for him. That is a doubtfully definitely [suffering person]. This is the one about whom Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: A nazir, in doubt whether impure or pure, but certainly he was a nazir. A sufferer from skin disease, in doubt whether impure or pure, but certainly he was a sufferer from skin disease. He eats from sacrificial meat after 60 days, drinks wine and defiles himself for the dead after 120 days. How is that? One said to him, you are an impure nazir, go count seven [days]. He sprinkled, repeated, shaved, and brought. He then counted seven [days] and wanted to shave. One said to him, impure nazir, go count seven [days] and continue for 30. He counted 30 [days] and wanted to shave. One said to him, you are a pure nazir, does not a pure nazir shave on kinds of blood? He brings an elevation offering and shaves on it, a bird purification offering and stipulates, saying: “If I was impure, the purification offering is my obligation and the elevation offering is voluntary. If I was pure, the elevation offering is my obligation and the purification offering is in doubt.” He shaves his head, his beard, and his eyebrows in the way the sufferer from skin disease shaves.

HALAKHAH: Who is doubtfully definitely [suffering]? Two who came to him. He declared one of them definitively affected but before he could declare the second one definitively affected, they were changed for him. That is a doubtfully definitely [suffering person]. This is the one about whom Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: A nazir, in doubt whether impure or pure, but certainly he was a nazir. A sufferer from skin disease, in doubt whether impure or pure, but certainly he was a sufferer from skin disease. He eats from sacrificial meat after 60 days, drinks wine and defiles himself for the dead after 120 days. How is that? One said to him, you are an impure nazir, go count seven [days]. He sprinkled, repeated, shaved, and brought. He then counted seven [days] and wanted to shave. One said to him, impure nazir, go count seven [days] and continue for 30. He counted 30 [days] and wanted to shave. One said to him, you are a pure nazir, does not a pure nazir shave on kinds of blood? He brings an elevation offering and shaves on it, a bird purification offering and stipulates, saying: “If I was impure, the purification offering is my obligation and the elevation offering is voluntary. If I was pure, the elevation offering is my obligation and the purification offering is in doubt.” He shaves his head, his beard, and his eyebrows in the way the sufferer from skin disease shaves.

How does one deal with him in a restrictive way? He brings two swallows and slaughters one of them over a clay vessel filled from running water; one digs und buries it, for it is forbidden for usufruct. He shaves his head, beard, and eyebrows in the way the sufferers from skin disease do. He counts 30 days and brings another animal as elevation offering, saying: “If I was impure, the first elevation offering was voluntary and this one is obligatory, and the purification offering is my obligation. If I was pure, the first elevation offering was my obligation, this one is voluntary, and the purification offering is in doubt.” He shaves his head, his beard, and his eyebrows in the way the sufferer from skin disease shaves.

How does one deal with him in a restrictive way? He brings two swallows and slaughters one of them over a clay vessel filled from running water; one digs und buries it, for it is forbidden for usufruct. He shaves his head, beard, and eyebrows in the way the sufferers from skin disease do. He counts 30 days and brings another animal as elevation offering, saying: “If I was impure, the first elevation offering was voluntary and this one is obligatory, and the purification offering is my obligation. If I was pure, the first elevation offering was my obligation, this one is voluntary, and the purification offering is in doubt.” He shaves his head, his beard, and his eyebrows in the way the sufferer from skin disease shaves.

He cannot bring an animal as purification sacrifice since he does not have the right to an animal purification sacrifice. He cannot bring a bird as purification sacrifice since a rich person who brought the sacrifices prescribed for a poor person did not fulfill his obligation. What can he do? He shall write his property over to another person and bring the sacrifices prescribed for a poor person; this enables the rich person to bring a bird as a purification sacrifice. He stipulates and says: If I was impure, that is my obligation. Otherwise, this is in doubt.

He cannot bring an animal as purification sacrifice since he does not have the right to an animal purification sacrifice. He cannot bring a bird as purification sacrifice since a rich person who brought the sacrifices prescribed for a poor person did not fulfill his obligation. What can he do? He shall write his property over to another person and bring the sacrifices prescribed for a poor person; this enables the rich person to bring a bird as a purification sacrifice. He stipulates and says: If I was impure, that is my obligation. Otherwise, this is in doubt.

How does one treat him according to Ben Zoma? He brings an animal elevation offering and shaves for it, a bird as purification offering, stipulates, and says: “If I was impure, the purification offering is for my obligation and the elevation offering is voluntary. If I was pure, the elevation offering is for my obligation and the purification offering is in doubt.” He shaves his head, beard, and eyebrows, etc.

How does one treat him according to Ben Zoma? He brings an animal elevation offering and shaves for it, a bird as purification offering, stipulates, and says: “If I was impure, the purification offering is for my obligation and the elevation offering is voluntary. If I was pure, the elevation offering is for my obligation and the purification offering is in doubt.” He shaves his head, beard, and eyebrows, etc.

Rav Ḥisda said, [the Mishnah] implies that it is permitted to remove a corpse of obligation. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, explain it if the burial was unauthorized or subject to question. Should one not be afraid that it might be a corpse of obligation? Rebbi Ze‘ira thinks that corpses of obligation are infrequent. “It turns out that there are three kinds of burials. A grave which is found one removes; after removal the place is impure and forbidden for use. A known grave may not be removed; but if it was removed the place is pure and permitted for use. A grave which endangers the public is removed; after removal the place is impure and forbidden for use.” Rebbi Abba bar Cohen instructed in Kefar Aqabia that its place is permitted for use. Does he disagree? There if it preceded the village, here if the village preceded it. It was stated: “A grave surrounded by a village on three sides can be removed,” on two sides, some Tannaïm state that one removes it, some state that one may not remove it. Rav Ḥisda said, he who says that one removes it, if it is within slightly more than 70 cubits. He who says that one does not remove it, if it is outside slightly more than 70 cubits. He who says that one removes it, if [the village] is built in the form of a Γ. He who says that one does not remove it, if [the village] is built in the form of a ה. “All kinds of graves may be removed except the graves of a king or a prophet. They said to him, were not the graves of David’s sons removed but the graves of the sons of Ḥulda were in Jerusalem and nobody ever touched them to remove them. Rebbi Aqiba told them, is that a proof? A duct was there and the impurity exited from there horizontally into the Qidron valley.”

Rav Ḥisda said, [the Mishnah] implies that it is permitted to remove a corpse of obligation. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, explain it if the burial was unauthorized or subject to question. Should one not be afraid that it might be a corpse of obligation? Rebbi Ze‘ira thinks that corpses of obligation are infrequent. “It turns out that there are three kinds of burials. A grave which is found one removes; after removal the place is impure and forbidden for use. A known grave may not be removed; but if it was removed the place is pure and permitted for use. A grave which endangers the public is removed; after removal the place is impure and forbidden for use.” Rebbi Abba bar Cohen instructed in Kefar Aqabia that its place is permitted for use. Does he disagree? There if it preceded the village, here if the village preceded it. It was stated: “A grave surrounded by a village on three sides can be removed,” on two sides, some Tannaïm state that one removes it, some state that one may not remove it. Rav Ḥisda said, he who says that one removes it, if it is within slightly more than 70 cubits. He who says that one does not remove it, if it is outside slightly more than 70 cubits. He who says that one removes it, if [the village] is built in the form of a Γ. He who says that one does not remove it, if [the village] is built in the form of a ה. “All kinds of graves may be removed except the graves of a king or a prophet. They said to him, were not the graves of David’s sons removed but the graves of the sons of Ḥulda were in Jerusalem and nobody ever touched them to remove them. Rebbi Aqiba told them, is that a proof? A duct was there and the impurity exited from there horizontally into the Qidron valley.”

Rav Ḥisda said, [the Mishnah] implies that it is permitted to remove a corpse of obligation. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, explain it if the burial was unauthorized or subject to question. Should one not be afraid that it might be a corpse of obligation? Rebbi Ze‘ira thinks that corpses of obligation are infrequent. “It turns out that there are three kinds of burials. A grave which is found one removes; after removal the place is impure and forbidden for use. A known grave may not be removed; but if it was removed the place is pure and permitted for use. A grave which endangers the public is removed; after removal the place is impure and forbidden for use.” Rebbi Abba bar Cohen instructed in Kefar Aqabia that its place is permitted for use. Does he disagree? There if it preceded the village, here if the village preceded it. It was stated: “A grave surrounded by a village on three sides can be removed,” on two sides, some Tannaïm state that one removes it, some state that one may not remove it. Rav Ḥisda said, he who says that one removes it, if it is within slightly more than 70 cubits. He who says that one does not remove it, if it is outside slightly more than 70 cubits. He who says that one removes it, if [the village] is built in the form of a Γ. He who says that one does not remove it, if [the village] is built in the form of a ה. “All kinds of graves may be removed except the graves of a king or a prophet. They said to him, were not the graves of David’s sons removed but the graves of the sons of Ḥulda were in Jerusalem and nobody ever touched them to remove them. Rebbi Aqiba told them, is that a proof? A duct was there and the impurity exited from there horizontally into the Qidron valley.”

“This is your bill of divorce on condition that you give it to me,” is invalid. “On condition that you return it to me,” is valid. Is that not the prior case? Rebbi Yose said, after you went to court. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, “after you have acquired all the rights for which it was made, return it to me.” Similar to that: Etrogim were scarce over there. Rav Naḥman bar Jacob gave an etrog to his son and said to him, if you have acquired it and fulfilled its obligation, return it to me.

Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Cahana: It is written (Prov. 5:6): “She does not smooth the way of life, her tracks deviate and you will not notice it.” The Holy One, praise to Him, moved the rewards of those who fulfill the commandments (to the future world) so that they should act in faith. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Isaac: It is written (Prov. 4:23): “Observe carefully everything which must be kept, for from it comes life,” observe carefully all the things you were told in the Torah, for you do not know from which of them life will come to you. Rebbi Abba bar Cahana said, the verse equals the easiest commandment with the most difficult one. The easiest commandment is sending away [the mother] from the nest. The most difficult one is honoring father and mother. For both of them it is written: “Your days will be lengthened.” Rebbi Abun said, if for anything that is repayment of debt it is written (Deut. 5:16): “That you shall be well and that your days shall be lengthened,” so much more something that involves monetary loss and personal danger. Rebbi Levi said, this one is greater; repaying a debt is greater than fulfilling an obligation that does not involve repaying a debt. Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai stated: Just as their rewards are the same, so their punishments are identical. (Prov. 30:17) “The eye that scoffs at the father and despises to obey the mother,” the eye that scoffs about honoring father and mother and despises the commandment not to take the mother with the chicks, “the river ravens should pick it out,” the cruel raven should come, pick it out, and not have any enjoyment from it, “the sons of the eagle should eat it,” the merciful eagle should come and enjoy it.

Rebbi Eleazar said: The Passover sacrifice of women is voluntary but one pushes the Sabbath away for it. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: The Passover sacrifice by women and slaves is voluntary; certainly one does push the Sabbath away for it. What is their maẓẓah? He said to him, it is obligatory. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, this is in dispute. Rebbi Hila said, it is everybody’s [opinion]. A baraita supports the one and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Ze‘ira: Lettuce, maẓẓah and Passover sacrifice are obligatory in the first night; on all other days they are voluntary. A baraita supports Rebbi Hila: It was said: “Do not eat leavened matter with it,” and it was said: “For seven days you shall eat with it maẓẓot, the bread of deprivation’.” Anybody under the prohibition of leavened matter is under the obligation to eat maẓẓah, and women, being under the prohibition of leavened matter, are under the obligation to eat maẓẓah. But did we not state: “For any positive commandment triggered by time, men are obligated but women are free”? Rebby Mana said, it is a positive commandment which is implied by a prohibition.

Rebbi Eleazar said: The Passover sacrifice of women is voluntary but one pushes the Sabbath away for it. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: The Passover sacrifice by women and slaves is voluntary; certainly one does push the Sabbath away for it. What is their maẓẓah? He said to him, it is obligatory. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, this is in dispute. Rebbi Hila said, it is everybody’s [opinion]. A baraita supports the one and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Ze‘ira: Lettuce, maẓẓah and Passover sacrifice are obligatory in the first night; on all other days they are voluntary. A baraita supports Rebbi Hila: It was said: “Do not eat leavened matter with it,” and it was said: “For seven days you shall eat with it maẓẓot, the bread of deprivation’.” Anybody under the prohibition of leavened matter is under the obligation to eat maẓẓah, and women, being under the prohibition of leavened matter, are under the obligation to eat maẓẓah. But did we not state: “For any positive commandment triggered by time, men are obligated but women are free”? Rebby Mana said, it is a positive commandment which is implied by a prohibition.

Does it follow him who says the Pesaḥ of women is voluntary? It was stated: “A woman may make the First Pesaḥ by herself and the Second joining others, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Yose says, a woman may make the Second Pesaḥ by herself, and certainly the First. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon says, a woman may make the First Pesaḥ joining others but does not make the Second.” What is the reason of Rebbi Meïr? (Ex. 12:3) “Every man a sheep for the family,” if they want “a sheep for the house.” What is the reason of Rebbi Yose, “Every man a sheep for the family,” a fortiori “a sheep for the house.” What is the reason of Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon? “Every man”, not woman. How do the rabbis uphold “man”? A man, not a minor. Rebbi Jonah said, even according to him who says it is an obligation, it is different here since the occasion was news, lest it become an obligation.

Does it follow him who says the Pesaḥ of women is voluntary? It was stated: “A woman may make the First Pesaḥ by herself and the Second joining others, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Yose says, a woman may make the Second Pesaḥ by herself, and certainly the First. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon says, a woman may make the First Pesaḥ joining others but does not make the Second.” What is the reason of Rebbi Meïr? (Ex. 12:3) “Every man a sheep for the family,” if they want “a sheep for the house.” What is the reason of Rebbi Yose, “Every man a sheep for the family,” a fortiori “a sheep for the house.” What is the reason of Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon? “Every man”, not woman. How do the rabbis uphold “man”? A man, not a minor. Rebbi Jonah said, even according to him who says it is an obligation, it is different here since the occasion was news, lest it become an obligation.

MISHNAH: If somebody performed preliminary marriage with a woman on condition that she had no obligation of vows on her and it turns out that she had vows to fulfill, she is not preliminarily married. If he married her definitively without inquiry and she had vows to fulfill, she should leave without ketubah. For all defects which disqualify a priest disqualify a woman.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody performed preliminary marriage with a woman etc. We have stated defects. Which vows? Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Yoṣadaq: If she vowed not to eat meat, or not to drink wine, or not to wear dyed garments. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, the fine linen garments which come from Bet She‘an have the status of dyed garments. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah deals with the case that he said to her, “on condition that you have no obligation of vows on you.” But if he said to her, “on condition that you have no vow on you,” then even if she made a vow not to eat carob fruit it is a vow.

MISHNAH: The obligation to make double restitution is more frequent than that of paying quadruple or quintuple restitution since the obligation to make double restitution applies both to living things and to inanimate objects; but the obligation of paying quadruple or quintuple restitution only applies to oxen and sheep, as it is said: “If a man steal an ox or a sheep,” etc. He who steals from a thief does not pay double restitution, nor does the one who slaughters or sells after a thief pay quadruple or quintuple restitution.

MISHNAH: The obligation to make double restitution is more frequent than that of paying quadruple or quintuple restitution since the obligation to make double restitution applies both to living things and to inanimate objects; but the obligation of paying quadruple or quintuple restitution only applies to oxen and sheep, as it is said: “If a man steal an ox or a sheep,” etc. He who steals from a thief does not pay double restitution, nor does the one who slaughters or sells after a thief pay quadruple or quintuple restitution.

MISHNAH: The obligation to make double restitution is more frequent than that of paying quadruple or quintuple restitution since the obligation to make double restitution applies both to living things and to inanimate objects; but the obligation of paying quadruple or quintuple restitution only applies to oxen and sheep, as it is said: “If a man steal an ox or a sheep,” etc. He who steals from a thief does not pay double restitution, nor does the one who slaughters or sells after a thief pay quadruple or quintuple restitution.

HALAKHAH: “The obligation to make double restitution is more frequent,” etc. From where does he get this? From “if being found it is found”. This includes not only ox, or donkey, or sheep: Since He says “alive”, it includes all living beings. “The stolen goods”, to include movables. Why “ox, or donkey, or sheep”? If it were restricted to anything useful for the altar, one should have stated “ox and sheep”. [If it were restricted to anything useful for the priests, one should have stated “ox and donkey.] Rebbi Ismael stated: It excludes real estate which is not movable; it excludes slaves from whom you only have service; it excludes documents which only are for proof.

HALAKHAH: “If he was drawing it to lead it out but it died,” etc.; “If he gave it for his first-born son,” etc. Rebbi Mana said, if somebody would explain to me the following, I would carry his בנרייה: What means “is not liable”? Is he not liable for his obligation or not liable for theft?

MISHNAH: If he gave the money to Yehoiarib and the reparation offering to Yedaiah, he has fulfilled his obligation. The reparation offering to Yehoiarib and the money to Yedaiah, if the offering still is alive it should be brought by Yedaiah; otherwise he was to come back and bring another reparation offering; for he who brings the robbed item before he brings the reparation offering has fulfilled his obligation, but he who brings the reparation offering before he brings the robbed item has not fulfilled his obligation. If he paid the capital but not the fifth, the fifth is no obstacle.

MISHNAH: If he gave the money to Yehoiarib and the reparation offering to Yedaiah, he has fulfilled his obligation. The reparation offering to Yehoiarib and the money to Yedaiah, if the offering still is alive it should be brought by Yedaiah; otherwise he was to come back and bring another reparation offering; for he who brings the robbed item before he brings the reparation offering has fulfilled his obligation, but he who brings the reparation offering before he brings the robbed item has not fulfilled his obligation. If he paid the capital but not the fifth, the fifth is no obstacle.

MISHNAH: If he gave the money to Yehoiarib and the reparation offering to Yedaiah, he has fulfilled his obligation. The reparation offering to Yehoiarib and the money to Yedaiah, if the offering still is alive it should be brought by Yedaiah; otherwise he was to come back and bring another reparation offering; for he who brings the robbed item before he brings the reparation offering has fulfilled his obligation, but he who brings the reparation offering before he brings the robbed item has not fulfilled his obligation. If he paid the capital but not the fifth, the fifth is no obstacle.

HALAKHAH: “If he gave the money to Yehoiarib,” etc. Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, they disagree about two weeks, Rebbi Yose said about one week. He who said about two weeks, “if he gave the money to Yehoiarib on Yedaiah’s watch and the reparation offering to Yedaiah on Yehoiarib’s watch, he has fulfilled his obligation. Rebbi said, following Rebbi Jehudah’s words if the men from Yehoiarib offered the reparation offering there was no atonement; but the money should be transferred from the men of Yedaiah to the men of Yehoiarib; the men from Yehoiarib then shall offer the reparation offering for atonement.” This implies that one removes the money given to men of a watch not during their week. He who said that they disagree about one week, if he gave the money to Yehoiarib on Yedaiah’s watch and the reparation offering to Yedaiah on Yehoiarib’s watch, means that he did not fulfill his obligation, etc. This implies that one does not remove a sacrifice which men of a watch received during their week. But if the watch of the men of Yehoiarib dragged their feet, then the baraita implies that they dragged their feet after the men of Yehoiarib received the reparation offering after days, and there is no atonement. But one has to transfer the money from the men of Yedaiah to the men of Yehoiarib, the men of Yedaiah shall offer the reparation offering, and there will be atonement. This implies that if men of a watch received a sacrifice during their week but were lazy and did not offer it, one removes it from their hand.

HALAKHAH: “If he gave the money to Yehoiarib,” etc. Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, they disagree about two weeks, Rebbi Yose said about one week. He who said about two weeks, “if he gave the money to Yehoiarib on Yedaiah’s watch and the reparation offering to Yedaiah on Yehoiarib’s watch, he has fulfilled his obligation. Rebbi said, following Rebbi Jehudah’s words if the men from Yehoiarib offered the reparation offering there was no atonement; but the money should be transferred from the men of Yedaiah to the men of Yehoiarib; the men from Yehoiarib then shall offer the reparation offering for atonement.” This implies that one removes the money given to men of a watch not during their week. He who said that they disagree about one week, if he gave the money to Yehoiarib on Yedaiah’s watch and the reparation offering to Yedaiah on Yehoiarib’s watch, means that he did not fulfill his obligation, etc. This implies that one does not remove a sacrifice which men of a watch received during their week. But if the watch of the men of Yehoiarib dragged their feet, then the baraita implies that they dragged their feet after the men of Yehoiarib received the reparation offering after days, and there is no atonement. But one has to transfer the money from the men of Yedaiah to the men of Yehoiarib, the men of Yedaiah shall offer the reparation offering, and there will be atonement. This implies that if men of a watch received a sacrifice during their week but were lazy and did not offer it, one removes it from their hand.

MISHNAH: What is a lost animal? If he found a donkey or a cow grazing on the road, this is no lost animal. A donkey whose gear is upside-down or a cow running in a vineyard are lost animals. If he returned it but it ran away, returned it but it ran away even four or five times, he is obligated to return it since it is said: “Return it returning.” If he was losing time worth a tetradrachma, he cannot say, give me a tetradrachma but [the owner] may pay him at the rate of an unemployed worker. If there is a court, he can stipulate with him before the court. If there is no court, before whom could he stipulate? His own comes first. If one found it in the cow-shed, he has no obligation; in the public domain he is obligated. But if it was between graves, he may not defile himself. If his father told him to defile himself, or told him not to return it, he should not listen to him. If he unloaded and loaded, unloaded and loaded even four or five times, he is obligated since it is said: “restoring restore”. If he sat down and said, since it is your religious obligation, if you want to unload, unload, he is free since it is said: “with him”. It is a religious obligation to unload, but not to load; Rebbi Simeon says, also to load. Rebbi Yose the Galilean said, if the load was more than the ordinary, he need not do anything since it is said: “under its load,” a load which it can carry.

MISHNAH: What is a lost animal? If he found a donkey or a cow grazing on the road, this is no lost animal. A donkey whose gear is upside-down or a cow running in a vineyard are lost animals. If he returned it but it ran away, returned it but it ran away even four or five times, he is obligated to return it since it is said: “Return it returning.” If he was losing time worth a tetradrachma, he cannot say, give me a tetradrachma but [the owner] may pay him at the rate of an unemployed worker. If there is a court, he can stipulate with him before the court. If there is no court, before whom could he stipulate? His own comes first. If one found it in the cow-shed, he has no obligation; in the public domain he is obligated. But if it was between graves, he may not defile himself. If his father told him to defile himself, or told him not to return it, he should not listen to him. If he unloaded and loaded, unloaded and loaded even four or five times, he is obligated since it is said: “restoring restore”. If he sat down and said, since it is your religious obligation, if you want to unload, unload, he is free since it is said: “with him”. It is a religious obligation to unload, but not to load; Rebbi Simeon says, also to load. Rebbi Yose the Galilean said, if the load was more than the ordinary, he need not do anything since it is said: “under its load,” a load which it can carry.

MISHNAH: What is a lost animal? If he found a donkey or a cow grazing on the road, this is no lost animal. A donkey whose gear is upside-down or a cow running in a vineyard are lost animals. If he returned it but it ran away, returned it but it ran away even four or five times, he is obligated to return it since it is said: “Return it returning.” If he was losing time worth a tetradrachma, he cannot say, give me a tetradrachma but [the owner] may pay him at the rate of an unemployed worker. If there is a court, he can stipulate with him before the court. If there is no court, before whom could he stipulate? His own comes first. If one found it in the cow-shed, he has no obligation; in the public domain he is obligated. But if it was between graves, he may not defile himself. If his father told him to defile himself, or told him not to return it, he should not listen to him. If he unloaded and loaded, unloaded and loaded even four or five times, he is obligated since it is said: “restoring restore”. If he sat down and said, since it is your religious obligation, if you want to unload, unload, he is free since it is said: “with him”. It is a religious obligation to unload, but not to load; Rebbi Simeon says, also to load. Rebbi Yose the Galilean said, if the load was more than the ordinary, he need not do anything since it is said: “under its load,” a load which it can carry.

HALAKHAH: “What is a lost animal,” etc. “If one found it in the cowshed, he has no obligation; in the public domain he is obligated. Between graves, he may not defile himself. If his father told him to defile himself, or told him not to return it, he should not listen to him.” Everywhere you say that a positive commandment has precedence over a prohibition, but here, you say that a positive commandment does not have precedence over a prohibition? There is a difference since both he and his father are required to honor the Omnipresent.

“if you hit upon.” I could think, really if you hit upon him; the verse says, “if you see.” Concerning “if you see,” I could think even at a distance of a hundred mil? The verse says, “if you hit upon.” How is this? The Sages estimated one in 7 1/2 of a mil, i. e., a stadion. Putting in order you shall put in order,” this is unloading. “Uplifting you shall uplift,” this is loading. Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai says, just as his unloading is [an obligation] from the Torah, so his loading is from the Torah. If the donkey was a Jew’s but the load a Gentile’s, everybody says that he unloads and loads. If the donkey was a Gentile’s but the load a Jew’s, according to the Sages one neither unloads nor loads. According to Rebbi Simeon one unloads but does not load.

“Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah says, threshing. Since threshing is special in that it refers to something grown from the earth, this excludes the one who milks, makes cheese with rennet or with mold, which is not something grown from the earth. Since threshing is special in that it refers to something not completely processed; this excludes wine after it was fermented, [olive oil] after it descended into the vat, one who isolates dates or separates dried figs, done after complete processing. Since threshing comes before the obligation of tithes, this excludes him who kneads dough, separates into cakes, or bakes, which comes after it became obligated for tithes.”

There, we have stated: “If somebody find a corpse in original position, lying as usual, he takes him and his surroundings.” Rav Ḥisda said, this implies that it is permitted to remove a corpse of obligation, since we have stated: “he takes him and his surroundings.” And how much? Rebbi Samuel in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: Up to three finger-breadths, the place where fluid penetrates. Rebbi Ze‘ira says, this is not reasonable; it is forbidden to remove a corpse of obligation. If you would say, it is permitted to remove him, since you are going to ruin the whole field, would it be permitted to remove him? Since it is obvious for the Tanna that it is forbidden to remove a corpse of obligation, therefore, one needs the Mishnah. Rav Ḥisda said, it follows him who said, it is permitted to remove a corpse of obligation; I am saying that he was buried on a permitted path. But whould one not have to worry that maybe he was a corpse of obligation? Corpses of obligation are infrequent.

There, we have stated: “If somebody find a corpse in original position, lying as usual, he takes him and his surroundings.” Rav Ḥisda said, this implies that it is permitted to remove a corpse of obligation, since we have stated: “he takes him and his surroundings.” And how much? Rebbi Samuel in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: Up to three finger-breadths, the place where fluid penetrates. Rebbi Ze‘ira says, this is not reasonable; it is forbidden to remove a corpse of obligation. If you would say, it is permitted to remove him, since you are going to ruin the whole field, would it be permitted to remove him? Since it is obvious for the Tanna that it is forbidden to remove a corpse of obligation, therefore, one needs the Mishnah. Rav Ḥisda said, it follows him who said, it is permitted to remove a corpse of obligation; I am saying that he was buried on a permitted path. But whould one not have to worry that maybe he was a corpse of obligation? Corpses of obligation are infrequent.

There, we have stated: “If somebody find a corpse in original position, lying as usual, he takes him and his surroundings.” Rav Ḥisda said, this implies that it is permitted to remove a corpse of obligation, since we have stated: “he takes him and his surroundings.” And how much? Rebbi Samuel in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: Up to three finger-breadths, the place where fluid penetrates. Rebbi Ze‘ira says, this is not reasonable; it is forbidden to remove a corpse of obligation. If you would say, it is permitted to remove him, since you are going to ruin the whole field, would it be permitted to remove him? Since it is obvious for the Tanna that it is forbidden to remove a corpse of obligation, therefore, one needs the Mishnah. Rav Ḥisda said, it follows him who said, it is permitted to remove a corpse of obligation; I am saying that he was buried on a permitted path. But whould one not have to worry that maybe he was a corpse of obligation? Corpses of obligation are infrequent.

There, we have stated: “If somebody find a corpse in original position, lying as usual, he takes him and his surroundings.” Rav Ḥisda said, this implies that it is permitted to remove a corpse of obligation, since we have stated: “he takes him and his surroundings.” And how much? Rebbi Samuel in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: Up to three finger-breadths, the place where fluid penetrates. Rebbi Ze‘ira says, this is not reasonable; it is forbidden to remove a corpse of obligation. If you would say, it is permitted to remove him, since you are going to ruin the whole field, would it be permitted to remove him? Since it is obvious for the Tanna that it is forbidden to remove a corpse of obligation, therefore, one needs the Mishnah. Rav Ḥisda said, it follows him who said, it is permitted to remove a corpse of obligation; I am saying that he was buried on a permitted path. But whould one not have to worry that maybe he was a corpse of obligation? Corpses of obligation are infrequent.

There, we have stated: “If somebody find a corpse in original position, lying as usual, he takes him and his surroundings.” Rav Ḥisda said, this implies that it is permitted to remove a corpse of obligation, since we have stated: “he takes him and his surroundings.” And how much? Rebbi Samuel in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: Up to three finger-breadths, the place where fluid penetrates. Rebbi Ze‘ira says, this is not reasonable; it is forbidden to remove a corpse of obligation. If you would say, it is permitted to remove him, since you are going to ruin the whole field, would it be permitted to remove him? Since it is obvious for the Tanna that it is forbidden to remove a corpse of obligation, therefore, one needs the Mishnah. Rav Ḥisda said, it follows him who said, it is permitted to remove a corpse of obligation; I am saying that he was buried on a permitted path. But whould one not have to worry that maybe he was a corpse of obligation? Corpses of obligation are infrequent.

There, we have stated: “If somebody find a corpse in original position, lying as usual, he takes him and his surroundings.” Rav Ḥisda said, this implies that it is permitted to remove a corpse of obligation, since we have stated: “he takes him and his surroundings.” And how much? Rebbi Samuel in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: Up to three finger-breadths, the place where fluid penetrates. Rebbi Ze‘ira says, this is not reasonable; it is forbidden to remove a corpse of obligation. If you would say, it is permitted to remove him, since you are going to ruin the whole field, would it be permitted to remove him? Since it is obvious for the Tanna that it is forbidden to remove a corpse of obligation, therefore, one needs the Mishnah. Rav Ḥisda said, it follows him who said, it is permitted to remove a corpse of obligation; I am saying that he was buried on a permitted path. But whould one not have to worry that maybe he was a corpse of obligation? Corpses of obligation are infrequent.

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

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

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

“If he ate in a company of obligation, or at the lengthening of a month, or ate Second Tithe in Jerusalem.” They would discipline him, but he does not listen to their voice. This excludes one who listens to the voice of his Father in Heaven.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, if you were nominated for the city council, may the Jordan be the master of your border. Rebbi Joḥanan said, one complains to the government to be freed from the city council. Rebbi Joḥanan said, one borrows against interest for a company of obligation and the sanctification of the month. Rebbi Joḥanan used to go to the assembly hall in the morning, collect the crumbs, and eat them, saying: May my part be with those who in the evening were sanctifying the month.

If a father became obligated to swear in court and died, his son cannot collect. If it were otherwise, what could we say? Can a man let his son inherit an obligation to swear? Rebbi Ba said, it was said as follows: if a man compromised his document in court, his son cannot collect. Rav Ḥisda asked: Because he walked two steps, does he lose? If he compromised it outside the court, he collects. Because he compromised it in court, he cannot collect?

Rav said, Koraḥ was an Epicurean. What did he do? He went and made togas completely of blue wool. He came before Moses and asked him, does a toga made completely out of blue wool need ṣiṣit? He answered, it is an obligation since it is written: braids you shall make for yourselves. Does a house full of Torah scrolls need a mezuzah? He answered, it needs a mezuzah since it is written, you shall write them on the door-posts of your house, etc. He asked him, what is the rule for a white spot the size of a bean? He answered him, it is impure. If it spread over his entire body? He answered him, it is pure. At that moment, Koraḥ said that the Torah is not from Heaven, nor is Moses a [true] prophet, nor Aaron a High Priest. Then Moses said, Master of all worlds! If a mouth of the earth had been created during the Six Days of Creation, it is fine. Otherwise it should be created now: If the Eternal would create a Creation.

HALAKHAH: “If there is no knowledge at the start,” etc. What can you see to say? Does the one inside suspend and the one outside atone, or the one outside suspend and the one inside atone, or both of them suspend, or both of them atone? What about it? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, I saw something. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish was asking before Rebbi Joḥanan and asked him, what are the differences in atoning? I do not know what he answered him. Rebbi Ze`ira said to him, maybe it is the following: How did you understand to explain it? About an impure person who ate pure [meat], or a pure person who ate impure [meat]? The verse says: his impurity is on him. Impurity of the body, not impurity of the meat. Or both of them atone? What about it? He should over it confess sins, these are intentional sins, their crimes, these are rebellions, their mistakes, these are unintentional sins. Then He said, he will atone. Rebbi Immi said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, the he-goat will carry all their sins, he grabbed intentional sins and left out unintentional sins, to indicate that just as intentional sins do not carry the obligation of a sacrifice, so those unintentional sins which do not carry the obligation of a sacrifice. And why did they come here? Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Yasa, for suspension. Would it be understood to suspend for those who eat abominations and crawling things? Rebbi Samuel in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira: Their mistakes, their mistakes. Since their mistakes mentioned there are those which carry the obligation of a sacrifice, also their mistakes mentioned here are those which carry the obligation of a sacrifice. This excludes intentional sins which do not carry the obligation of a sacrifice. What is left out by the he-goat brought inside the Day of Atonement suspends. What did it leave out? If there is no knowledge at the start but there is knowledge at the end.

HALAKHAH: “If there is no knowledge at the start,” etc. What can you see to say? Does the one inside suspend and the one outside atone, or the one outside suspend and the one inside atone, or both of them suspend, or both of them atone? What about it? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, I saw something. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish was asking before Rebbi Joḥanan and asked him, what are the differences in atoning? I do not know what he answered him. Rebbi Ze`ira said to him, maybe it is the following: How did you understand to explain it? About an impure person who ate pure [meat], or a pure person who ate impure [meat]? The verse says: his impurity is on him. Impurity of the body, not impurity of the meat. Or both of them atone? What about it? He should over it confess sins, these are intentional sins, their crimes, these are rebellions, their mistakes, these are unintentional sins. Then He said, he will atone. Rebbi Immi said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, the he-goat will carry all their sins, he grabbed intentional sins and left out unintentional sins, to indicate that just as intentional sins do not carry the obligation of a sacrifice, so those unintentional sins which do not carry the obligation of a sacrifice. And why did they come here? Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Yasa, for suspension. Would it be understood to suspend for those who eat abominations and crawling things? Rebbi Samuel in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira: Their mistakes, their mistakes. Since their mistakes mentioned there are those which carry the obligation of a sacrifice, also their mistakes mentioned here are those which carry the obligation of a sacrifice. This excludes intentional sins which do not carry the obligation of a sacrifice. What is left out by the he-goat brought inside the Day of Atonement suspends. What did it leave out? If there is no knowledge at the start but there is knowledge at the end.

HALAKHAH: “If there is no knowledge at the start,” etc. What can you see to say? Does the one inside suspend and the one outside atone, or the one outside suspend and the one inside atone, or both of them suspend, or both of them atone? What about it? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, I saw something. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish was asking before Rebbi Joḥanan and asked him, what are the differences in atoning? I do not know what he answered him. Rebbi Ze`ira said to him, maybe it is the following: How did you understand to explain it? About an impure person who ate pure [meat], or a pure person who ate impure [meat]? The verse says: his impurity is on him. Impurity of the body, not impurity of the meat. Or both of them atone? What about it? He should over it confess sins, these are intentional sins, their crimes, these are rebellions, their mistakes, these are unintentional sins. Then He said, he will atone. Rebbi Immi said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, the he-goat will carry all their sins, he grabbed intentional sins and left out unintentional sins, to indicate that just as intentional sins do not carry the obligation of a sacrifice, so those unintentional sins which do not carry the obligation of a sacrifice. And why did they come here? Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Yasa, for suspension. Would it be understood to suspend for those who eat abominations and crawling things? Rebbi Samuel in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira: Their mistakes, their mistakes. Since their mistakes mentioned there are those which carry the obligation of a sacrifice, also their mistakes mentioned here are those which carry the obligation of a sacrifice. This excludes intentional sins which do not carry the obligation of a sacrifice. What is left out by the he-goat brought inside the Day of Atonement suspends. What did it leave out? If there is no knowledge at the start but there is knowledge at the end.

HALAKHAH: “If there is no knowledge at the start,” etc. What can you see to say? Does the one inside suspend and the one outside atone, or the one outside suspend and the one inside atone, or both of them suspend, or both of them atone? What about it? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, I saw something. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish was asking before Rebbi Joḥanan and asked him, what are the differences in atoning? I do not know what he answered him. Rebbi Ze`ira said to him, maybe it is the following: How did you understand to explain it? About an impure person who ate pure [meat], or a pure person who ate impure [meat]? The verse says: his impurity is on him. Impurity of the body, not impurity of the meat. Or both of them atone? What about it? He should over it confess sins, these are intentional sins, their crimes, these are rebellions, their mistakes, these are unintentional sins. Then He said, he will atone. Rebbi Immi said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, the he-goat will carry all their sins, he grabbed intentional sins and left out unintentional sins, to indicate that just as intentional sins do not carry the obligation of a sacrifice, so those unintentional sins which do not carry the obligation of a sacrifice. And why did they come here? Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Yasa, for suspension. Would it be understood to suspend for those who eat abominations and crawling things? Rebbi Samuel in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira: Their mistakes, their mistakes. Since their mistakes mentioned there are those which carry the obligation of a sacrifice, also their mistakes mentioned here are those which carry the obligation of a sacrifice. This excludes intentional sins which do not carry the obligation of a sacrifice. What is left out by the he-goat brought inside the Day of Atonement suspends. What did it leave out? If there is no knowledge at the start but there is knowledge at the end.

HALAKHAH: “If there is no knowledge at the start,” etc. What can you see to say? Does the one inside suspend and the one outside atone, or the one outside suspend and the one inside atone, or both of them suspend, or both of them atone? What about it? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, I saw something. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish was asking before Rebbi Joḥanan and asked him, what are the differences in atoning? I do not know what he answered him. Rebbi Ze`ira said to him, maybe it is the following: How did you understand to explain it? About an impure person who ate pure [meat], or a pure person who ate impure [meat]? The verse says: his impurity is on him. Impurity of the body, not impurity of the meat. Or both of them atone? What about it? He should over it confess sins, these are intentional sins, their crimes, these are rebellions, their mistakes, these are unintentional sins. Then He said, he will atone. Rebbi Immi said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, the he-goat will carry all their sins, he grabbed intentional sins and left out unintentional sins, to indicate that just as intentional sins do not carry the obligation of a sacrifice, so those unintentional sins which do not carry the obligation of a sacrifice. And why did they come here? Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Yasa, for suspension. Would it be understood to suspend for those who eat abominations and crawling things? Rebbi Samuel in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira: Their mistakes, their mistakes. Since their mistakes mentioned there are those which carry the obligation of a sacrifice, also their mistakes mentioned here are those which carry the obligation of a sacrifice. This excludes intentional sins which do not carry the obligation of a sacrifice. What is left out by the he-goat brought inside the Day of Atonement suspends. What did it leave out? If there is no knowledge at the start but there is knowledge at the end.

HALAKHAH: “Together Israel, Cohanim,” etc. But we did not state “the Anointed.” Why did we not state “the Anointed”? If you say that we are discussing things which do not imply the obligation of a sacrifice, it is correct not to state “Anointed”. If you say about things which imply the obligation of a sacrifice, why do we not state “Anointed”? It was found stated “also the Anointed Priest.” This implies that we are discussing things which do not imply the obligation of a sacrifice. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, even if you say, about things which imply the obligation of a sacrifice, if it was done intentionally. As you say, intentionally it needs atoning and the atoning of the Day of Atonement, here also it needs atoning and the atoning of the Day of Atonement.

HALAKHAH: “Together Israel, Cohanim,” etc. But we did not state “the Anointed.” Why did we not state “the Anointed”? If you say that we are discussing things which do not imply the obligation of a sacrifice, it is correct not to state “Anointed”. If you say about things which imply the obligation of a sacrifice, why do we not state “Anointed”? It was found stated “also the Anointed Priest.” This implies that we are discussing things which do not imply the obligation of a sacrifice. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, even if you say, about things which imply the obligation of a sacrifice, if it was done intentionally. As you say, intentionally it needs atoning and the atoning of the Day of Atonement, here also it needs atoning and the atoning of the Day of Atonement.

HALAKHAH: “Together Israel, Cohanim,” etc. But we did not state “the Anointed.” Why did we not state “the Anointed”? If you say that we are discussing things which do not imply the obligation of a sacrifice, it is correct not to state “Anointed”. If you say about things which imply the obligation of a sacrifice, why do we not state “Anointed”? It was found stated “also the Anointed Priest.” This implies that we are discussing things which do not imply the obligation of a sacrifice. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, even if you say, about things which imply the obligation of a sacrifice, if it was done intentionally. As you say, intentionally it needs atoning and the atoning of the Day of Atonement, here also it needs atoning and the atoning of the Day of Atonement.

HALAKHAH: “Together Israel, Cohanim,” etc. But we did not state “the Anointed.” Why did we not state “the Anointed”? If you say that we are discussing things which do not imply the obligation of a sacrifice, it is correct not to state “Anointed”. If you say about things which imply the obligation of a sacrifice, why do we not state “Anointed”? It was found stated “also the Anointed Priest.” This implies that we are discussing things which do not imply the obligation of a sacrifice. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, even if you say, about things which imply the obligation of a sacrifice, if it was done intentionally. As you say, intentionally it needs atoning and the atoning of the Day of Atonement, here also it needs atoning and the atoning of the Day of Atonement.

HALAKHAH: “Give me the deposit, the loan,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Simeon implies that if it turns out that he had no wheat, he is not liable for the rest. Rebbi Abba said, even Rebbi (Yasa) will agree with this. If it turns out that he had no wheat, does [the oath] refer to the other kinds? The colleagues said, it does not. Rebbi Ze`ira said, it does. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, a baraita supports what the colleagues said. “A woman made a vow as a nazir and her friend heard it and said, ‘so am I’; the first woman’s husband heard it and dissolved [the vow] for her; the first one is permitted and the second forbidden. If she said, ‘my intention was only to be like her,’ both are permitted.” Because she said, “to be like her, in her state”. Therefore, if she did not say “to be like her, in her state”, the first is permitted and the second forbidden. Since there, where the essence is not an oath, you say it applies, here, where there was an original oath, not so much more? What Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Simeon implies if it turns out that he had no wheat, he is not liable for the rest, if he connects: If he says, [my obligation for] barley shall be like that for wheat; [my obligation for] spelt shall be like that for wheat.

HALAKHAH: “Give me the deposit, the loan,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Simeon implies that if it turns out that he had no wheat, he is not liable for the rest. Rebbi Abba said, even Rebbi (Yasa) will agree with this. If it turns out that he had no wheat, does [the oath] refer to the other kinds? The colleagues said, it does not. Rebbi Ze`ira said, it does. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, a baraita supports what the colleagues said. “A woman made a vow as a nazir and her friend heard it and said, ‘so am I’; the first woman’s husband heard it and dissolved [the vow] for her; the first one is permitted and the second forbidden. If she said, ‘my intention was only to be like her,’ both are permitted.” Because she said, “to be like her, in her state”. Therefore, if she did not say “to be like her, in her state”, the first is permitted and the second forbidden. Since there, where the essence is not an oath, you say it applies, here, where there was an original oath, not so much more? What Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Simeon implies if it turns out that he had no wheat, he is not liable for the rest, if he connects: If he says, [my obligation for] barley shall be like that for wheat; [my obligation for] spelt shall be like that for wheat.

Nowhere does one sell large animals to them.” Why? For a large animal there might be an obligation for a purification offering; for a small animal there can be no obligation for a purification offering. But does he not shear, does he not milk? One says, there it is liable, here he is liable. But if it is sold, is it not the Gentile’s animal? The Babylonian Rebbi Immi in the name of the rabbis there: Sometimes he sells it on trial and returns it after three days, then it turns out that he did do work with the Jew’s animal. Then on trial it should be forbidden, not on trial permitted. One is because of the other.

Nowhere does one sell large animals to them.” Why? For a large animal there might be an obligation for a purification offering; for a small animal there can be no obligation for a purification offering. But does he not shear, does he not milk? One says, there it is liable, here he is liable. But if it is sold, is it not the Gentile’s animal? The Babylonian Rebbi Immi in the name of the rabbis there: Sometimes he sells it on trial and returns it after three days, then it turns out that he did do work with the Jew’s animal. Then on trial it should be forbidden, not on trial permitted. One is because of the other.

HALAKHAH: “Criminal courts apply in the Land,” etc. “Criminal courts apply in the Land and outside the Land, as it is written: This shall be for you a law statute for your generations, in all your dwellings. And why does the verse say, judges and marshals you shall appoint for yourself in all your gates, in the towns of the Land of Israel. Only that in the Land of Israel one installs judges in every town and outside the Land one appoints them by circuits.” It was stated: “Rebbi Dositheos ben Rebbi Yannai says, there is an obligation for every tribe to judge his own tribe, as it is written: Judges and marshals you shall appoint for yourself in all your gates which the Eternal, your God, gives you for your tribes.”

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

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

HALAKHAH: "If the Court of one of the tribes ruled," etc. Rebbi Meïr says, it is the Court's obligation. Rebbi Jehudah says, it is the public's obligation. Rebbi Simeon said, it is an obligation of the Court and an obligation of the public. What is Rebbi Meïr's reason? It is said here from the eyes, and it is said there from the eyes. Since from the eyes said there refers to the Court, here it also refers to the Court. What is Rebbi Jehudah's reason? It is said here from the eyes, and it is said there from the eyes. Since from the eyes said there refers to the public, here it also refers to the public. What is Rebbi Simeon's reason? It is said here from the eyes, and it is said there from the eyes. Since from the eyes said there refers to the Court, also from the eyes here refers to the Court. Since from the eyes said there refers to the public, here it also refers to the public. For him who says, it is the Court's obligation, the Court has to bring. For him who says, it is the public's obligation, who brings? As we have stated, "one imposes and collects, the words of Rebbi Meïr; Rebbi Jehudah says, they are brought from the Temple tax". For him who says, it is the Court's obligation, the Court has to lay their hands on. For him who says, it is the public's obligation, who lays their hands on? As we have stated, three from every tribe, led by the president of the Court, lay their hands on the head of the bull. "Their hands, the hands of each single one. Their hands on the head of the bull; the bull needs laying on of hands but the goats of idolatry do not need laying on of hands, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Simeon said, the bull needs laying on of hands by the Elders but the goats of idolatry do not need laying on of hands by the Elders; for Rebbi Simeon says, every public purification offering whose blood is brought inside needs laying on of hands. " One objected to Rebbi Jehudah, is it not written, they presented the goats of the purification offering? Rebbi Hiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, it was a temporary ruling.

HALAKHAH: "If the Court of one of the tribes ruled," etc. Rebbi Meïr says, it is the Court's obligation. Rebbi Jehudah says, it is the public's obligation. Rebbi Simeon said, it is an obligation of the Court and an obligation of the public. What is Rebbi Meïr's reason? It is said here from the eyes, and it is said there from the eyes. Since from the eyes said there refers to the Court, here it also refers to the Court. What is Rebbi Jehudah's reason? It is said here from the eyes, and it is said there from the eyes. Since from the eyes said there refers to the public, here it also refers to the public. What is Rebbi Simeon's reason? It is said here from the eyes, and it is said there from the eyes. Since from the eyes said there refers to the Court, also from the eyes here refers to the Court. Since from the eyes said there refers to the public, here it also refers to the public. For him who says, it is the Court's obligation, the Court has to bring. For him who says, it is the public's obligation, who brings? As we have stated, "one imposes and collects, the words of Rebbi Meïr; Rebbi Jehudah says, they are brought from the Temple tax". For him who says, it is the Court's obligation, the Court has to lay their hands on. For him who says, it is the public's obligation, who lays their hands on? As we have stated, three from every tribe, led by the president of the Court, lay their hands on the head of the bull. "Their hands, the hands of each single one. Their hands on the head of the bull; the bull needs laying on of hands but the goats of idolatry do not need laying on of hands, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Simeon said, the bull needs laying on of hands by the Elders but the goats of idolatry do not need laying on of hands by the Elders; for Rebbi Simeon says, every public purification offering whose blood is brought inside needs laying on of hands. " One objected to Rebbi Jehudah, is it not written, they presented the goats of the purification offering? Rebbi Hiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, it was a temporary ruling.

HALAKHAH: "If the Court of one of the tribes ruled," etc. Rebbi Meïr says, it is the Court's obligation. Rebbi Jehudah says, it is the public's obligation. Rebbi Simeon said, it is an obligation of the Court and an obligation of the public. What is Rebbi Meïr's reason? It is said here from the eyes, and it is said there from the eyes. Since from the eyes said there refers to the Court, here it also refers to the Court. What is Rebbi Jehudah's reason? It is said here from the eyes, and it is said there from the eyes. Since from the eyes said there refers to the public, here it also refers to the public. What is Rebbi Simeon's reason? It is said here from the eyes, and it is said there from the eyes. Since from the eyes said there refers to the Court, also from the eyes here refers to the Court. Since from the eyes said there refers to the public, here it also refers to the public. For him who says, it is the Court's obligation, the Court has to bring. For him who says, it is the public's obligation, who brings? As we have stated, "one imposes and collects, the words of Rebbi Meïr; Rebbi Jehudah says, they are brought from the Temple tax". For him who says, it is the Court's obligation, the Court has to lay their hands on. For him who says, it is the public's obligation, who lays their hands on? As we have stated, three from every tribe, led by the president of the Court, lay their hands on the head of the bull. "Their hands, the hands of each single one. Their hands on the head of the bull; the bull needs laying on of hands but the goats of idolatry do not need laying on of hands, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Simeon said, the bull needs laying on of hands by the Elders but the goats of idolatry do not need laying on of hands by the Elders; for Rebbi Simeon says, every public purification offering whose blood is brought inside needs laying on of hands. " One objected to Rebbi Jehudah, is it not written, they presented the goats of the purification offering? Rebbi Hiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, it was a temporary ruling.

HALAKHAH: "If the Court of one of the tribes ruled," etc. Rebbi Meïr says, it is the Court's obligation. Rebbi Jehudah says, it is the public's obligation. Rebbi Simeon said, it is an obligation of the Court and an obligation of the public. What is Rebbi Meïr's reason? It is said here from the eyes, and it is said there from the eyes. Since from the eyes said there refers to the Court, here it also refers to the Court. What is Rebbi Jehudah's reason? It is said here from the eyes, and it is said there from the eyes. Since from the eyes said there refers to the public, here it also refers to the public. What is Rebbi Simeon's reason? It is said here from the eyes, and it is said there from the eyes. Since from the eyes said there refers to the Court, also from the eyes here refers to the Court. Since from the eyes said there refers to the public, here it also refers to the public. For him who says, it is the Court's obligation, the Court has to bring. For him who says, it is the public's obligation, who brings? As we have stated, "one imposes and collects, the words of Rebbi Meïr; Rebbi Jehudah says, they are brought from the Temple tax". For him who says, it is the Court's obligation, the Court has to lay their hands on. For him who says, it is the public's obligation, who lays their hands on? As we have stated, three from every tribe, led by the president of the Court, lay their hands on the head of the bull. "Their hands, the hands of each single one. Their hands on the head of the bull; the bull needs laying on of hands but the goats of idolatry do not need laying on of hands, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Simeon said, the bull needs laying on of hands by the Elders but the goats of idolatry do not need laying on of hands by the Elders; for Rebbi Simeon says, every public purification offering whose blood is brought inside needs laying on of hands. " One objected to Rebbi Jehudah, is it not written, they presented the goats of the purification offering? Rebbi Hiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, it was a temporary ruling.

HALAKHAH: "If the Court of one of the tribes ruled," etc. Rebbi Meïr says, it is the Court's obligation. Rebbi Jehudah says, it is the public's obligation. Rebbi Simeon said, it is an obligation of the Court and an obligation of the public. What is Rebbi Meïr's reason? It is said here from the eyes, and it is said there from the eyes. Since from the eyes said there refers to the Court, here it also refers to the Court. What is Rebbi Jehudah's reason? It is said here from the eyes, and it is said there from the eyes. Since from the eyes said there refers to the public, here it also refers to the public. What is Rebbi Simeon's reason? It is said here from the eyes, and it is said there from the eyes. Since from the eyes said there refers to the Court, also from the eyes here refers to the Court. Since from the eyes said there refers to the public, here it also refers to the public. For him who says, it is the Court's obligation, the Court has to bring. For him who says, it is the public's obligation, who brings? As we have stated, "one imposes and collects, the words of Rebbi Meïr; Rebbi Jehudah says, they are brought from the Temple tax". For him who says, it is the Court's obligation, the Court has to lay their hands on. For him who says, it is the public's obligation, who lays their hands on? As we have stated, three from every tribe, led by the president of the Court, lay their hands on the head of the bull. "Their hands, the hands of each single one. Their hands on the head of the bull; the bull needs laying on of hands but the goats of idolatry do not need laying on of hands, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Simeon said, the bull needs laying on of hands by the Elders but the goats of idolatry do not need laying on of hands by the Elders; for Rebbi Simeon says, every public purification offering whose blood is brought inside needs laying on of hands. " One objected to Rebbi Jehudah, is it not written, they presented the goats of the purification offering? Rebbi Hiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, it was a temporary ruling.

HALAKHAH: "If the Court of one of the tribes ruled," etc. Rebbi Meïr says, it is the Court's obligation. Rebbi Jehudah says, it is the public's obligation. Rebbi Simeon said, it is an obligation of the Court and an obligation of the public. What is Rebbi Meïr's reason? It is said here from the eyes, and it is said there from the eyes. Since from the eyes said there refers to the Court, here it also refers to the Court. What is Rebbi Jehudah's reason? It is said here from the eyes, and it is said there from the eyes. Since from the eyes said there refers to the public, here it also refers to the public. What is Rebbi Simeon's reason? It is said here from the eyes, and it is said there from the eyes. Since from the eyes said there refers to the Court, also from the eyes here refers to the Court. Since from the eyes said there refers to the public, here it also refers to the public. For him who says, it is the Court's obligation, the Court has to bring. For him who says, it is the public's obligation, who brings? As we have stated, "one imposes and collects, the words of Rebbi Meïr; Rebbi Jehudah says, they are brought from the Temple tax". For him who says, it is the Court's obligation, the Court has to lay their hands on. For him who says, it is the public's obligation, who lays their hands on? As we have stated, three from every tribe, led by the president of the Court, lay their hands on the head of the bull. "Their hands, the hands of each single one. Their hands on the head of the bull; the bull needs laying on of hands but the goats of idolatry do not need laying on of hands, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Simeon said, the bull needs laying on of hands by the Elders but the goats of idolatry do not need laying on of hands by the Elders; for Rebbi Simeon says, every public purification offering whose blood is brought inside needs laying on of hands. " One objected to Rebbi Jehudah, is it not written, they presented the goats of the purification offering? Rebbi Hiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, it was a temporary ruling.

HALAKHAH: "If the Court of one of the tribes ruled," etc. Rebbi Meïr says, it is the Court's obligation. Rebbi Jehudah says, it is the public's obligation. Rebbi Simeon said, it is an obligation of the Court and an obligation of the public. What is Rebbi Meïr's reason? It is said here from the eyes, and it is said there from the eyes. Since from the eyes said there refers to the Court, here it also refers to the Court. What is Rebbi Jehudah's reason? It is said here from the eyes, and it is said there from the eyes. Since from the eyes said there refers to the public, here it also refers to the public. What is Rebbi Simeon's reason? It is said here from the eyes, and it is said there from the eyes. Since from the eyes said there refers to the Court, also from the eyes here refers to the Court. Since from the eyes said there refers to the public, here it also refers to the public. For him who says, it is the Court's obligation, the Court has to bring. For him who says, it is the public's obligation, who brings? As we have stated, "one imposes and collects, the words of Rebbi Meïr; Rebbi Jehudah says, they are brought from the Temple tax". For him who says, it is the Court's obligation, the Court has to lay their hands on. For him who says, it is the public's obligation, who lays their hands on? As we have stated, three from every tribe, led by the president of the Court, lay their hands on the head of the bull. "Their hands, the hands of each single one. Their hands on the head of the bull; the bull needs laying on of hands but the goats of idolatry do not need laying on of hands, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Simeon said, the bull needs laying on of hands by the Elders but the goats of idolatry do not need laying on of hands by the Elders; for Rebbi Simeon says, every public purification offering whose blood is brought inside needs laying on of hands. " One objected to Rebbi Jehudah, is it not written, they presented the goats of the purification offering? Rebbi Hiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, it was a temporary ruling.

HALAKHAH: "If the Court of one of the tribes ruled," etc. Rebbi Meïr says, it is the Court's obligation. Rebbi Jehudah says, it is the public's obligation. Rebbi Simeon said, it is an obligation of the Court and an obligation of the public. What is Rebbi Meïr's reason? It is said here from the eyes, and it is said there from the eyes. Since from the eyes said there refers to the Court, here it also refers to the Court. What is Rebbi Jehudah's reason? It is said here from the eyes, and it is said there from the eyes. Since from the eyes said there refers to the public, here it also refers to the public. What is Rebbi Simeon's reason? It is said here from the eyes, and it is said there from the eyes. Since from the eyes said there refers to the Court, also from the eyes here refers to the Court. Since from the eyes said there refers to the public, here it also refers to the public. For him who says, it is the Court's obligation, the Court has to bring. For him who says, it is the public's obligation, who brings? As we have stated, "one imposes and collects, the words of Rebbi Meïr; Rebbi Jehudah says, they are brought from the Temple tax". For him who says, it is the Court's obligation, the Court has to lay their hands on. For him who says, it is the public's obligation, who lays their hands on? As we have stated, three from every tribe, led by the president of the Court, lay their hands on the head of the bull. "Their hands, the hands of each single one. Their hands on the head of the bull; the bull needs laying on of hands but the goats of idolatry do not need laying on of hands, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Simeon said, the bull needs laying on of hands by the Elders but the goats of idolatry do not need laying on of hands by the Elders; for Rebbi Simeon says, every public purification offering whose blood is brought inside needs laying on of hands. " One objected to Rebbi Jehudah, is it not written, they presented the goats of the purification offering? Rebbi Hiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, it was a temporary ruling.

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

If one ate half the volume of an olive before he was appointed, half the volume of an olive after he was appointed, half the volume of an olive after he was removed from office. Since [no] obligation of a sacrifice came in between, do they combine? Let us hear from the following: Before him were three [olive sized pieces]. He ate the first but did not realize it; the second (and the third) while he was oblivious of the first. He was informed of the first but was not informed of the second. [He ate] the third while oblivious of the second. Afterwards he was informed about all of them. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he is liable for the first and the second but not liable for the third. Rebbi Yose said, the second depends on his intention. If he wishes, he atones for it with the first; if he wishes, he atones for it with the third. The colleagues compare it to four half-olives. If he was intelligent, he brings one sacrifice; otherwise, he brings two sacrifices. How is that? He brings one for the first and the second together; one for the third and fourth together. (Rebbi Yose compares it to full olive sizes. If he was intelligent, he brings two sacrifices; otherwise, he brings three sacrifices. How is that? He brings one for the first and the second together, and one for the third and fourth together.) If he brought for the middle ones, he is not liable for the first and the fourth. Rebbi Yose compares it to full olive sizes. If he was intelligent, he brings two sacrifices; otherwise, he brings three sacrifices. How is that? He brings one for the first and the second together, and one for the third and fourth together. If he brought for the middle ones, he is liable for the first separately and for the fourth separately.

Rebbi Isaac asked: Is it the same with the eating of half loaves? Rebbi Yose said, this question of Rebbi Isaac is nothing. (Is it written) [Does] the matter depend on eating half loaves? If one ate the volume of half an olive during the time allotted for this half loaf and another volume of half an olive during the time allotted for that half loaf, is that anything? If one ate the volume of several olives during times allotted for several half-loaves in one oblivion, he is liable only for one [sacrifice]. The rabbis of Caesarea say, instead of comparing it to kinds of fat, why not compare it to [the laws of] Sabbath? If he wove a single thread for one cloth and a single thread for another cloth, is that anything? If he wove several threads for several pieces of cloth in one oblivion, he is liable only for one [sacrifice]. Was there not an obligation for a sacrifice in the meantime, and you say that they are counted together? Rebbi Abun said, there it is about the obligation of a sacrifice; but here [a change] of sacrifice.

Rebbi Isaac asked: Is it the same with the eating of half loaves? Rebbi Yose said, this question of Rebbi Isaac is nothing. (Is it written) [Does] the matter depend on eating half loaves? If one ate the volume of half an olive during the time allotted for this half loaf and another volume of half an olive during the time allotted for that half loaf, is that anything? If one ate the volume of several olives during times allotted for several half-loaves in one oblivion, he is liable only for one [sacrifice]. The rabbis of Caesarea say, instead of comparing it to kinds of fat, why not compare it to [the laws of] Sabbath? If he wove a single thread for one cloth and a single thread for another cloth, is that anything? If he wove several threads for several pieces of cloth in one oblivion, he is liable only for one [sacrifice]. Was there not an obligation for a sacrifice in the meantime, and you say that they are counted together? Rebbi Abun said, there it is about the obligation of a sacrifice; but here [a change] of sacrifice.

It once happened that his sons returned from a feast [after midnight] and said to him, "We have not read the Shema' !" He told them, "If the dawn has not yet risen, you are still under the obligation of reading it. And not only in this connection do they so decide; but wherever the Sages use the expression 'Until midnight,' the obligation continues until the rise of dawn."

It once happened that his sons returned from a feast [after midnight] and said to him, "We have not read the Shema' !" He told them, "If the dawn has not yet risen, you are still under the obligation of reading it. And not only in this connection do they so decide; but wherever the Sages use the expression 'Until midnight,' the obligation continues until the rise of dawn."

If thou wilt, I can say that here there is the danger of the overpowering force of sleep; or if thou wilt, I can say that it is intended to exclude the opinion of those who maintain that the evening prayer is voluntary; and hence we are informed that it is an obligation.

There is a teaching : R. Simeon b. Johai said : There are times when a man reads the Shema twice in a night, once before the rise of dawn and once after the rise of dawn, and thereby fulfils his obligation both for the day and night.

This is self-contradictory ! Thou sayest, "There are times when a man reads the Shema' twice in a night"; consequently, after the rise of dawn is still night ! And it continues, "The man thereby fulfils his obligation both for the day and night" ; consequently, it is day !

There are some who apply the statement of Rab Aha b. Hannina to the following : There is a teaching : R. Simeon b. Johai said in the name of R. 'Akiba : There are times when a man reads the Shema' twice in a day, once before sunrise and once after sunrise, and thereby fulfils his obligation both for the day and night.

This is self-contradictory ! Thou sayest, "There are times when a man reads the Shema' twice in a day"; consequently, before sunrise is day ! And it continues, "The man thereby fulfils his obligation [[fol. 9a.]] both for the day and night" ; consequently it is still night !

But they spoke to him thus : The Rabbis differ from thee, and where an individual differs from the many, the Halakah is in accord with the many. Or perhaps, the Rabbis agree with thee, and the reason that they declare [that the evening Shema' may be read] "Until midnight" is in order to keep a man far from transgression ? He answered them. The Rabbis hold the same view as myself, and you are under the obligation [to read the Shema']; and the reason they say "Until midnight" is to keep a man far from transgression.

Nay, thus spake Rabban Gamaliel to his sons : Even according to the Rabbis who say "Until midnight," the obligation continues until the rise of dawn ; and the reason they say "Until midnight" is to keep a man far from transgression.

And I quote against the Mishnah: The reading of the evening Shema', and Hallel on the Passover night, and the eating of the Paschal offering — their obligation continues until the rise of dawn !

This is required in accordance with the teaching : " When thou sittest in thy house" excludes one occupied with a religious duty; "and when thou walkest by the way" excludes a bridegroom. Hence they say : He who takes a virgin to his house as wife is exempt [from the obligation of reading the Shema' on the night of his marriage] ; but if he marry a widow, he has that obligation.

This is required in accordance with the teaching : " When thou sittest in thy house" excludes one occupied with a religious duty; "and when thou walkest by the way" excludes a bridegroom. Hence they say : He who takes a virgin to his house as wife is exempt [from the obligation of reading the Shema' on the night of his marriage] ; but if he marry a widow, he has that obligation.

Are we not here dealing with one who is on his way to perform a religious duty, and even so, the All-merciful requires of him the reading [of the Shema']? In that case, the All-merciful should have written "when sitting and when walking." What means "when thou sittest and when thou walkest"? When sitting for thine own purpose and when walking for thine own purpose, thou art under the obligation [to read the Shema'] ; but when it is the performance of a religious duty, thou art exempt.

Should the reason [of exemption] be on account of anxiety, then it ought also to apply to one whose ship has sunk at sea ! Shouldest thou say that he likewise is exempt, why does R. Abba b. Zabda declare in the name of Rab : A mourner is under the obligation to observe all the commandments mentioned in the Torah except Tefillin, because they are called an adornment ; as it is said, "Bind thine adornment upon thee" (Ezek. xxiv. 17)?

Rab Judah said in the name of Samuel : When one rises early to study [Torah], if he had not yet read the Shema', he must utter a benediction [prefatory to study] ; but should he have read the Shema', it is not necessary to utter a benediction, for he has freed himself from the obligation by having recited "With abounding love."

Where [the Rabbis] order to say a long benediction, it is not permissible to say a short one. It is evident that one who took a cup of wine, and thinking that it was beer, commenced saying the benediction on the supposition that it was beer, and then concluded the benediction for wine, has complied with the requirements of the law ; because even if he had said "[Blessed]... by Whose word all things exist," he would also have complied with the requirements of the law. For there is a Mishnaic teaching : [not translated.] If one has uttered the benediction "By Whose word all things exist" over any kind of liquor, he has fulfilled his obligation.

Rabbah b. Hinnana the Elder said in the name of Rab : Whoever does not recite "True and firm" in the morning and "True and trustworthy" in the evening has not fulfilled his obligation ; as it is said, "To declare Thy lovingkindness in the morning and Thy faithfulness in the night-seasons" (Ps. xcii. 3).

MISHNAH Should a man be reading in the Torah [the section of the Shema'] and the time of reciting the Shema' arrived, if he directed his heart, he has fulfilled his obligation.

And the Sages ? They agree with him who says that if one does not read [the Shema'] audibly, he has still fulfilled his obligation.

R. Ila b. Rab Samuel b. Marta said in the name of Rab: [If one recited only the verse] "Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one" and was then overcome by sleep, he has fulfilled his obligation. Rab Nahman said to Daro his servant : With the first verse worry me [to keep awake], but do not so after that. Rab Joseph asked Rab Joseph b. Raba, "How used thy father to do ?" He replied, "With the first verse he took pains [to keep awake], but he did not so after that."