owes

And in those days shall the earth also give back that which has been entrusted to it, And Sheol also shall give back that which it has received, And hell shall give back that which it owes.

The Jew, moreover, in the treatise, addresses the Saviour thus: “If you say that every man, born according to the decree of Divine Providence, is a son of God, in what respect should you differ from another?” In reply to whom we say, that every man who, as Paul expresses it, is no longer under fear, as a schoolmaster, but who chooses good for its own sake, is “a son of God;” but this man is distinguished far and wide above every man who is called, on account of his virtues, a son of God, seeing He is, as it were, a kind of source and beginning of all such. The words of Paul are as follow: “For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.” But, according to the Jew of Celsus, “countless individuals will convict Jesus of falsehood, alleging that those predictions which were spoken of him were intended of them.” We are not aware, indeed, whether Celsus knew of any who, after coming into this world, and having desired to act as Jesus did, declared themselves to be also the “sons of God,” or the “power” of God. But since it is in the spirit of truth that we examine each passage, we shall mention that there was a certain Theudas among the Jews before the birth of Christ, who gave himself out as some great one, after whose death his deluded followers were completely dispersed. And after him, in the days of the census, when Jesus appears to have been born, one Judas, a Galilean, gathered around him many of the Jewish people, saying he was a wise man, and a teacher of certain new doctrines. And when he also had paid the penalty of his rebellion, his doctrine was overturned, having taken hold of very few persons indeed, and these of the very humblest condition. And after the times of Jesus, Dositheus the Samaritan also wished to persuade the Samaritans that he was the Christ predicted by Moses; and he appears to have gained over some to his views. But it is not absurd, in quoting the extremely wise observation of that Gamaliel named in the book of Acts, to show how those persons above mentioned were strangers to the promise, being neither “sons of God” nor “powers” of God, whereas Christ Jesus was truly the Son of God. Now Gamaliel, in the passage referred to, said: “If this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought” (as also did the designs of those men already mentioned after their death); “but if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow this doctrine, lest haply ye be found even to fight against God.” There was also Simon the Samaritan magician, who wished to draw away certain by his magical arts. And on that occasion he was successful; but now-a-days it is impossible to find, I suppose, thirty of his followers in the entire world, and probably I have even overstated the number. There are exceedingly few in Palestine; while in the rest of the world, through which he desired to spread the glory of his name, you find it nowhere mentioned. And where it is found, it is found quoted from the Acts of the Apostles; so that it is to Christians that he owes this mention of himself, the unmistakeable result having proved that Simon was in no respect divine.

In a passage previously quoted Celsus asks us why we do not worship demons, and to his remarks on demons we gave such an answer as seemed to us in accordance with the divine word. After having put this question for the purpose of leading us to the worship of demons, he represents us as answering that it is impossible to serve many masters. “This,” he goes on to say, “is the language of sedition, and is only used by those who separate themselves and stand aloof from all human society. Those who speak in this way ascribe,” as he supposes, “their own feelings and passions to God. It does hold true among men, that he who is in the service of one master cannot well serve another, because the service which he renders to the one interferes with that which he owes to the other; and no one, therefore, who has already engaged himself to the service of one, must accept that of another. And, in like manner, it is impossible to serve at the same time heroes or demons of different natures. But in regard to God, who is subject to no suffering or loss, it is,” he thinks, “absurd to be on our guard against serving more gods, as though we had to do with demi-gods, or other spirits of that sort.” He says also, “He who serves many gods does that which is pleasing to the Most High, because he honours that which belongs to Him.” And he adds, “It is indeed wrong to give honour to any to whom God has not given honour.” “Wherefore,” he says, “in honouring and worshipping all belonging to God, we will not displease Him to whom they all belong.”

How do witnesses become liable [to punishment] as perjurers? [If they say:] “We testify that so and so [a priest] is a son of a woman who had [formerly] been divorced or a haluzah,” it is not said that each witness should himself be as if he was born of a divorcee or a haluzah; rather he receives forty [lashes]. [If they say]: “We testify that so and so is guilty of [a crime entailing] exile”, it is not said that each witness should himself be exiled; rather he receives forty [lashes]. [If they say:] “We testify that so and so divorced his wife and has not paid her kethubah” seeing that either today or tomorrow he [the husband] will pay her kethubah, the assessment should be made how much a man will be willing to pay [now] for the ownership of her kethubah, on the condition that if she should be widowed or divorced [he will take it over] but if she should die, her husband will inherit her [estate including the kethubah]. [If they say]: “We testify that so and so owes his friend one thousand zuz on the condition that he will pay him within thirty days”, while the debtor says “ten years”, the assessment should be made how much a man is willing to pay for the use of a thousand zuz, whether he pays them in thirty days or ten years.

[If they say]: “We testify that so and so owes his friend two hundred zuz”, and they are found to be perjurers, they are flogged and ordered to make restitution, because the count which brings upon them the flogging is not the count that brings upon them the necessity to make restitution, these are the words of Rabbi Meir. But the Sages say: “Anyone who makes restitution is not flogged.”

“I adjure you that you come and bear testimony for me that so-and-so owes me full damages, or half damages, or double payment, or four or five payment; Or that so-and-so raped my daughter, or seduced my daughter; Or that my son struck me; Or that my neighbor injured me, or set fire to my haystack on the Day of Atonement”; [And they deny knowledge of testimony] they are liable.

We must not redeem [a first-born] with slaves, nor with notes of indebtedness, nor with immovable properties, nor with objects of hekdesh. If one gives a written acknowledgment to a priest that he owes him five selas he is bound to give them to him, although his son is not considered as redeemed. Therefore, if the priest wishes to give him [the note of indebtedness] as a gift he is permitted to do so. If one set aside the redemption money of his son and it became lost, he is responsible for it, because it says: “Shall be for you [but] you shall surely redeem” (Numbers 18:15).

Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Aḥa were sitting together. Rebbi Yose said to Rebbi Aḥa: Is it not reasonable that the end of the half a mil of Rebbi Neḥemiah is the moment (of Rebbi Yose)? He answered: I also am of that opinion. Rebbi Ḥizqiah does not say so but every single moment in the half a mil of Rebbi Neḥemiah is in doubt. Rebbi Mana said: I pointed out the difficulty before Rebbi Ḥizqiah from what we have taught (Zabim I,6): “He saw one emission during daytime and one at dusk or one at dusk and the next one the next day; if he knows that the emission at dusk was partially during daytime and partially during nighttime, he certainly is impure and needs a sacrifice but if it is questionable whether the emission occurred partially during daytime and partially during nighttime he certainly is impure but it is questionable whether he owes a sacrifice.” Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Josef asked before Rebbi Yoḥanan: Who is the Tanna who will split an emission into two? Rebbi Yose! I said to him: Here is your problem since you say that every single moment in the half a mil of Rebbi Neḥemiah is in doubt. What is his question good for? For the time when Elijah will come and say: that is dusk.

If he has no real estate but his debtors have real estate, one writes a prozbol for him. How is that done? Ruben owes Simeon and Levi owes Ruben. Ruben has no real estate, Levi has real estate. One writes for Simeon on the properties of Levi.

If he has no real estate but his debtors have real estate, one writes a prozbol for him. How is that done? Ruben owes Simeon and Levi owes Ruben. Ruben has no real estate, Levi has real estate. One writes for Simeon on the properties of Levi.

Rav said, only if both lender and borrower have real estate. But Rebbi Joḥanan says, if the creditor does but not the borrower, or the borrower but not the lender. If he has no real estate but one who owes him has real estate then one writes him a prozbol. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav: Even if he has only one stalk in a field, one writes him a prozbol. But did we not state: Partners, sharecroppers, and guardians have no prozbol? They say, there each single stalk is property of the partnership but here it is his.

HALAKHAH: “If one gives a green melon”, etc. We understand a water melon and it turned out rotten, but a green melon and it turned out bitter, was it not always bitter? Rebbi Joḥanan said, they made it doubtful whether it is food. Rebbi Jonah inquired: Is it doubtful as food in all respects, to become impure as food, that one burns it if impure, one owes a fifth for it, and one whips for it outside the walls, if one made an ‘eruv with it does he become a donkey-camel driver? There, Rebbi Joḥanan said, a loaf which became impure in a domain that possibly is private and was touched in the public domain is impure. But in our case it is pure because there are two doubts.

Where do they disagree? If he robbed it smoothed. But if he robbed it and smoothed it, he owes him money. If he robbed a lulav from one, a myrtle branch from another, and a willow branch from a third and tied them together? Let us hear from the following: A robbed sukkah, there are Tannaim who stated, it is qualified; there are Tannaim who stated, it is disqualified. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: He who said, it is qualified, if he robbed the real estate. He who said, it is disqualified, if he robbed the agricultural waste. It is impossible that he not tie them together. If he places it from the top. The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: In every case it is disqualified. What is the robbed one which is disqualified? Any time a person enters another’s sukkah without his knowledge. As the following. Gamliel the twin made himself a sukkah on the market. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish passed by and told him, who gave you permission?

If somebody claimed a mina, the [defendant] denied it, and the [claimant] produced witnesses that the [defendant] owes him 50 [zuz]. The older Rebbi Ḥiyya said, [the defendant] has to swear about the remainder. Rebbi Joḥanan says, he does not have to swear. The older Rebbi Ḥiyya learned it from two who are grabbing a toga, as we have stated there: “Two are grabbing a toga, one says, I found it, and the other says, I found it.” The one who grabs half of it is as if he brought witnesses that that half belongs to him. The other says, “it belongs to me entirely”, and the fact that he grabs half of it is as if he brought witnesses that this half belongs to him. The one who says, “it belongs to me entirely”, swears that not the entire [toga] is the other’s. But he did not hear that Rebbi Hila said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan that this oath is a rabbinic institution, that a man should not see another in the market and tell him, the toga which you are wearing is mine, come and split your toga with me! Rebbi Abin in the name of Rav: My uncle agrees in the case of a document. How is that? He claimed a mina, the [defendant] denied it, and the [claimant] produced a document that the [defendant] owed him 50 [zuz]. He has only fifty. And Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, we can understand it from the following: “‘The amount of … tetradrachmas’ and it was illegible, he owes no less than two. “If it is more, if the lender says five but the borrower says three, Ben Azzay says since he partially agreed to the claim, he has to swear, but the Sages say, what he agreed to is not of the kind which was claimed. Because it was not of the kind which was claimed! Therefore, if it were of the kind which was claimed, he would be obligated. And is it not here that the agreed sum was part of the claim? Everybody agrees that he owes her a mina. But she claimsanother mina from him, to which he does not agree. The burden of proof is on the claimant.

If somebody claimed a mina, the [defendant] denied it, and the [claimant] produced witnesses that the [defendant] owes him 50 [zuz]. The older Rebbi Ḥiyya said, [the defendant] has to swear about the remainder. Rebbi Joḥanan says, he does not have to swear. The older Rebbi Ḥiyya learned it from two who are grabbing a toga, as we have stated there: “Two are grabbing a toga, one says, I found it, and the other says, I found it.” The one who grabs half of it is as if he brought witnesses that that half belongs to him. The other says, “it belongs to me entirely”, and the fact that he grabs half of it is as if he brought witnesses that this half belongs to him. The one who says, “it belongs to me entirely”, swears that not the entire [toga] is the other’s. But he did not hear that Rebbi Hila said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan that this oath is a rabbinic institution, that a man should not see another in the market and tell him, the toga which you are wearing is mine, come and split your toga with me! Rebbi Abin in the name of Rav: My uncle agrees in the case of a document. How is that? He claimed a mina, the [defendant] denied it, and the [claimant] produced a document that the [defendant] owed him 50 [zuz]. He has only fifty. And Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, we can understand it from the following: “‘The amount of … tetradrachmas’ and it was illegible, he owes no less than two. “If it is more, if the lender says five but the borrower says three, Ben Azzay says since he partially agreed to the claim, he has to swear, but the Sages say, what he agreed to is not of the kind which was claimed. Because it was not of the kind which was claimed! Therefore, if it were of the kind which was claimed, he would be obligated. And is it not here that the agreed sum was part of the claim? Everybody agrees that he owes her a mina. But she claimsanother mina from him, to which he does not agree. The burden of proof is on the claimant.

If somebody claimed a mina, the [defendant] denied it, and the [claimant] produced witnesses that the [defendant] owes him 50 [zuz]. The older Rebbi Ḥiyya said, [the defendant] has to swear about the remainder. Rebbi Joḥanan says, he does not have to swear. The older Rebbi Ḥiyya learned it from two who are grabbing a toga, as we have stated there: “Two are grabbing a toga, one says, I found it, and the other says, I found it.” The one who grabs half of it is as if he brought witnesses that that half belongs to him. The other says, “it belongs to me entirely”, and the fact that he grabs half of it is as if he brought witnesses that this half belongs to him. The one who says, “it belongs to me entirely”, swears that not the entire [toga] is the other’s. But he did not hear that Rebbi Hila said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan that this oath is a rabbinic institution, that a man should not see another in the market and tell him, the toga which you are wearing is mine, come and split your toga with me! Rebbi Abin in the name of Rav: My uncle agrees in the case of a document. How is that? He claimed a mina, the [defendant] denied it, and the [claimant] produced a document that the [defendant] owed him 50 [zuz]. He has only fifty. And Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, we can understand it from the following: “‘The amount of … tetradrachmas’ and it was illegible, he owes no less than two. “If it is more, if the lender says five but the borrower says three, Ben Azzay says since he partially agreed to the claim, he has to swear, but the Sages say, what he agreed to is not of the kind which was claimed. Because it was not of the kind which was claimed! Therefore, if it were of the kind which was claimed, he would be obligated. And is it not here that the agreed sum was part of the claim? Everybody agrees that he owes her a mina. But she claimsanother mina from him, to which he does not agree. The burden of proof is on the claimant.

HALAKHAH: “Even though they said that a virgin collects 200,” etc. How does he become indebted to her? Do not Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both say, if somebody writes a debenture for another person under the assumption that he owes him and it turns out that he does not owe, [he does not have] to give to him! He wants to give much to be called X’s son-in-law. That is, if he decided this at the time of the preliminary marriage. What if he decided this at the time of the definitive marriage? He wants to give much for sexual relations with her, which are sweet. That is if he slept with her. If he did not sleep with her? He wants to give much for the acquisition he made. If he had decided at the preliminary marriage, at the definitive marriage, he already is called X’s son-in-law, sexual relations are nothing new, there is no new acquisition; from thereon he wants to give much that she should not change her mind. But can she? Was it not stated that “a man divorces only by his own will”? Rebbi Abin said, she makes his life miserable and he frees her.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody marries a woman and had contracted with her,” etc. How does he become indebted to her? Do not Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both say, if somebody writes a debenture for another person under the assumption that he owes him and it turns out that he does not owe, he does not have to give to him! Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, they gave it the status of an addition to the ketubah. Then he should have to pay in the end! They gave it the status of the gift for a woman’s preliminary marriage. Then he should pay up front! They treated it as when one marries a woman preliminarily by promising to give her twelve silver denars within one year by delivering one silver denar’s worth every month.

MISHNAH: If somebody sues another for amphoras of oil, and the defendant admits [that he owes him] vessels, Admon says, since he admitted part of the claim he is made to swear, but the Sages say, what he admitted was not of the kind that was claimed. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, I am convinced by Admon’s statement,

Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The Mishnah, if he sued him for wheat and he admitted barley; but if he sued him for two kinds and he admitted one of them, according to everybody he is free. And why did we state: “Rabban Gamliel obligates him”? This comes to tell you the power of Rabban Gamliel, how far he obligates people. Rebbi Abbahu [supported] that of Rebbi Immi. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish says, the Mishnah, if he sued him for wheat and he admitted barley; but if he sued him for two kinds and he admitted one of them, according to everybody he is obligated. Rav followed Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: A person went with another to court before Rav. He started claiming from him barley, wheat and spelt. Rav told him, charge him with anything you have to charge, and in the end he will swear one oath about everything. Rebbi Abbahu said, so argued Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish against Rebbi Joḥanan: In your opinion, since you say that if he sued him for two kinds and he admitted one of them, according to everybody he is free, did we not state “if he sued him for vessels and real estate; if he admitted the vessels and denied the real estate, the real estate and denied the vessels”? If he is obligated for vessels about vessels, not so much more vessels for real estate? What does he do with it? He explains it, to transfer an oath to him. But did we not state: If somebody sues another for amphoras of oil, and the defendant admits [that he owes him] vessels”? How do we hold? If he sued him for vessels and oil, and he admitted one of them, everybody agrees that this refers to the claim. But if he sued him for oil and he admitted vessels, everybody agrees that what he admitted does not refer to the claim, for Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rebbi Abuna said in the name of Rav: The Mishnah deals with the case that he sued for vessels full of oil; the ones are full, the others empty. One understands vessels but not oil. Oil but not vessels? Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Abun formulates it as oil bucket. Can one not ask him in the end? If he lost his speech.

There, we have stated: “The public sale of orphans’ property goes on for 30 days, the public sale of Temple property goes on for 30 days, and they are publicly announed mornings and evenings.” Rebbi Mana said, Rebbi Eliezer is afraid of trickery, Rebbi Joshua is not afraid of trickery. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rebbi Eliezer follows the House of Shammai and Rebbi Joshua the House of Hillel. Rebbi Eliezer follows the House of Shammai, since the House of Shammai say, a person may ask about his dedication; could he say that he does not have to vow usufruct? Rebbi Joshua follows the House of Hillel, since the House of Hillel say, a person may not ask about his dedication; could he say that he has to vow usufruct? In any case, could not a man ask about his vow of usufruct? Rebbi Joshua agrees that a guarantor must execute a vow of usufruct. What does Rebbi Joshua say about a gift? Since he gives voluntarily, he does not have to vow usufruct, or since [the recipient’s] power is small and [the donor] may change his mind, does he have to vow usufruct? Let us hear from the following: The husband of a relative of Rebbi Ḥaggai owed on a document. The creditor came and foreclosed. The case came before Rebbi Aḥa, who said, he owes a vow of usufruct. Rebbi Yose said, he does not have to vow usufruct. The colleagues said before Rebbi Aḥa [and] Rebbi Yose: Does Rebbi Aḥa say it correctly? Since if he takes her back, does not the creditor come and foreclose? Rebbi Yose said to them, she turns it into jewelry or keeps it as additions to her dowry. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, by Moses! Rebbi Yose says it correctly. It was executed following Rebbi Aḥa.

“If somebody stole a log and used it in building. The House of Shammai say, he has to tear down the entire building and return it. But the House of Hillel say, for the benefit of repenting sinners, that he has to pay its full value.” Rebbi Eleazar said, where do they disagree? If he stole it planed, but if he stole and planed it himself, he owes him money. If he stole and planed it on the spot, what is the rule? Let us hear from the following: “If somebody appropriates another person’s ruin and rebuilds it without prermission, one appraises it and his hand is weak. If he wants to take his logs and stones, one does not listen to him.” Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: It was asked in the name of Rav Naḥman bar Jacob: If somebody stores his bundle in somebody else’s ruin and wants to take it from there, does one not listen to him? He had not heard that Rebbi Jacob bar Idi said in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Because of civilisation. Rebbi Yose said, this is correct. We would have thought that they disagree only in the Land, but not outside the Land. Since Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, because of civilisation, this implies that there is no difference between the Land and outside the Land. If he wants to take [the value of] his logs and stones, what is the rule? One tells him, wait until he dwells in it. Samuel said, one pays him immediately.

There, we have stated: “The father bestows on his son beauty, strength, riches, wisdom, and years.” From where beauty? “May Your deeds appear on Your servants, and Your glory on their sons.” Strength, “strong on earth will be his descendants.” Riches, “I was young and became old, but never saw a just man abandoned and his descendants in need of bread.” Wisdom, “you shall teach your sons to argue about them.” Years, “that your and your sons’ days be many.” And just as he inherits five qualities, so he owes him the following five things. He feeds him, he gives him to drink, he clothes him, he puts on his shoes, he leads him. That is what is written: “This should fall on Joab’s head: sufferer from flux and from skin disease, holding the distaff, falling by the sword, and senseless.” Sufferer from flux, weak. From skin disease, abandoned. Holding the distaff, uneducated. Falling by the sword, short lived. Without bread, poor. When Solomon came to kill Joab, he said to him: Your father gave me five sentences; accept them and I can be killed. He accepted them and all of them came to pass on the House of David. Sufferer from flux was Rehabeam: “King Rehabeam with difficulty climbed on his chariot to flee to Jerusalem;” some say, he suffered from flux; some say, he was weak. Suffering from skin disease was Uziahu: “King Uziahu suffered from skin disease until the day of his death.” Holding the distaff was Joash: “They punished Joash.” Rebbi Ismael stated: This teaches that they gave him over to hardened hoodlums who had never known a woman and they raped him the way women are raped. That is what is written: “Israel’s pride will testify against it,” Israel’s pride will be raped in its face. Falling by the sword, this is Josiah, as is written: “The archers shot at king Josia,” and Rebbi Joḥanan said, this teaches that they made his body like a sieve. Rebbi Ismael stated: 300 arrows were shot at the Eternal’s anointed. Without bread, that is Jehoiachin: “And his meal, a permanent meal was given to him,.”

Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Immi: Reuben owes to Simeon; he transferred [the debt] to Levi. Levi became poor; then Reuben owes nothing to Simeon. That is, if it was not done in bad faith, but if it was done in bad faith, he is obligated.

Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Immi: Reuben owes to Simeon; he transferred [the debt] to Levi. Levi became poor; then Reuben owes nothing to Simeon. That is, if it was not done in bad faith, but if it was done in bad faith, he is obligated.

MISHNAH: One who injures another person owes him under five categories: Damages, suffering, medical costs, loss of earnings, and embarrassment. How are damages determined? If he blinded his eye, or cut off his hand, or broke his leg, one considers it as if he were sold as a slave; how much was he worth and how much is he worth now. Suffering: If he burned him with a spit, or with a nail, even on his fingernails where it does not cause a wound, one estimates how much a person in his state would ask to be paid in order to be willing to suffer such pain.

MISHNAH: Somebody who lent to another by a document collects from encumbered property, by witnesses collects from free property. If he presents a note in his own handwriting that he owes him, he collects from free property. From a guarantor who endorsed after the signature of the witnesses, one collects from free property. This case came before Rebbi Ismael who said, he collects from free property. Ben Nannas said to him, he collects neither from encumbered nor from free property. He asked, why? He answered, if one would strangle another in the market place and a third person would say, let him go, I shall pay you, he is not liable since the loan was not made on his faith. Who is the guarantor who is liable? If he told him, “lend to him and I shall pay you,” he is liable because the loan was extended on his faith. Rebbi Ismael said, anybody who wants to train to become wise should study the laws of money matters since nothing greater is there in the Torah; they are like a flowing source, and anybody wanting to study the laws of money matters should serve Simeon ben Nannas.

MISHNAH: How does one check out the witnesses? One brings them to court and instills fear into them, then removes them but retains the greatest among them. One says to him, tell why you know that this person owes to the other one. If he said, he himself confessed to me that he owes the money, or another person told me that he owes it, he did not say anything until he says, before us he confessed to him that he owed him 200 denar.

MISHNAH: How does one check out the witnesses? One brings them to court and instills fear into them, then removes them but retains the greatest among them. One says to him, tell why you know that this person owes to the other one. If he said, he himself confessed to me that he owes the money, or another person told me that he owes it, he did not say anything until he says, before us he confessed to him that he owed him 200 denar.

MISHNAH: How does one check out the witnesses? One brings them to court and instills fear into them, then removes them but retains the greatest among them. One says to him, tell why you know that this person owes to the other one. If he said, he himself confessed to me that he owes the money, or another person told me that he owes it, he did not say anything until he says, before us he confessed to him that he owed him 200 denar.

HALAKHAH: “Both civil suits,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, to protect Israel’s money they said, “tell why you know that this person owes the other.” Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba asked before Rebbi Yasa: What does one do in practice? He answered, following Rebbi Joḥanan, as Rebbi Joḥanan said, to protect Israel’s money they said, “tell why you know that this person owes the other.” Ze‘ir bar Ḥinena in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina and Rav Jehudah, one said: You shall cross-examine, investigate, and inquire well. The other said, equity, equity you shall pursue. How is that? If you see that the verdict will be the truth, investigate it; otherwise, act in equity.

HALAKHAH: “Both civil suits,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, to protect Israel’s money they said, “tell why you know that this person owes the other.” Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba asked before Rebbi Yasa: What does one do in practice? He answered, following Rebbi Joḥanan, as Rebbi Joḥanan said, to protect Israel’s money they said, “tell why you know that this person owes the other.” Ze‘ir bar Ḥinena in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina and Rav Jehudah, one said: You shall cross-examine, investigate, and inquire well. The other said, equity, equity you shall pursue. How is that? If you see that the verdict will be the truth, investigate it; otherwise, act in equity.

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

When does one accept one who is suspect in matters of oaths? From when he comes to the court and says, I am suspect. Where do we hold? If one who stands here and is obligated to swear for another, does the court deliver an oath to a suspect person? But we must hold about one who has a suit at a court where he is unknown and tells them, this man is suspect. Also about one who stands and another owes him an oath and he forgives it.

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

Assi said, the proceeds of libation wine in the hands of a Gentile are prohibited. The proceeds of an idol in the hand of a Gentile, Rebbi Jonathan said it is permitted, Rebbi Joḥanan said it is prohibited. A baraita supports one and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “A Gentile who owed money to a Jew should not tell him, wait until I sell libation wine, until I sell an idol, and I shall give it to you. I am saying, maybe he exchanged.” A baraita supports Rebbi Jonathan: “A Gentile who owes money to a Jew may sell libation wine and give to him, an idol and give to him. Because of the bad impression?”

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

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

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

MISHNA: We testified that so-and-so owes 1000 zuz to his friend in thirty days, and he says it is a ten-year loan.

MISHNAH: Witnesses testify this person owes his friend two hundred zuz and they are found to be false, they are lashed and made to pay because the category of lashes is not of payment. These are the words of R' Meir, and the Rabbis say everyone who pays does not receive lashes.