owners

Rebbi Ḥaggai asked the colleagues: What is the reason we stated here that “he is free”? They said to him, because he is eating a snack in the field and is free. He said to them, is our Mishnah needed for that, because he is eating a snack in the field and is free? It must be because of abandoned property since if he brings it to his house he still is free. As it is stated: “If somebody found a harvesting basket covered with leaves, that is forbidden because of robbery and is subject to tithes.” It is forbidden because of robbery since it is something with distinguishing marks. It is subject to tithes since the owners still have it in mind. How far, that he could give heave from abandoned property? He cannot give heave from abandoned property! “He turns it into money’s worth and eats.”

Rebbi Jonah asked: Does the fixing of the price create ṭevel in a sale? Or maybe, since the owners can take it back there is no ṭevel? Rebbi Mana asked: Think of it if one was put in his mouth! Is it not unappetizing? Can he give it back? If you say so, is he not eating ṭevel retroactively? That means, the fixing of the price is like a sale.

If he pickled or cooked without the owners’ knowledge, there is a difference between Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish since these differ: If somebody made a heap [of somebody’s grain] without the latter’s knowledge, Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is ṭevel, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it is not ṭevel. Rebbi Yudan said, there it is impossible for him not to make a heap, here it is possible for him not to pickle.

Rebbi Yose said, we teach all these words but a Mishnah supports Rebbi Zeïra: “He should not bring from wheat of Second Tithe but from money of Second Tithe.” What is the difference between wheat and money? It must be that when it was bought, the holiness of tithe left it. Rebbi Ḥinena asked before Rebbi Mana: Why should he not bring wheat, the heave to the Cohen and the rest for the owners, why does he not bring? He said to him, think of it, if the blood is spilled does the bread not become unusable?

Rebbi Joḥanan said, one redeems Second Tithe by the offers of three buyers, even if one of them is a Gentile, even if one of them is an owner. Rebbi Jonah asked: Not two Gentiles, not two owners; also not one Gentile and one owner? No, it was said separately.

“The people from Hyena Mountain brought their First Fruits before Pentecost but they did not accept from them.” There, we have stated: “One does not bring First Fruits as drinks.” Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: So says the Mishnah, “one does not turn First Fruits into drinks” even after they became property of the owners. But did we not state: “If he pressed First Fruits as a drink in order to bring them, from where that he should bring them? The verse says (Ex. 23:19, 34:26), ‘bring!’ ”. That is, if he harvested them from the start for this purpose. But here, if he did not harvest them from the start for this purpose.

“Ariston brought his First Fruits from Apamea and they accepted them.” There, we have stated: “One does not bring heave from outside the Land into the Land.” Should they be brought as First Fruits? Rebbi Hoshaia said, First Fruits are the responsibility of the owners, heave is not the responsibility of the owners. If you would say so, they would run after it there.

“Ariston brought his First Fruits from Apamea and they accepted them.” There, we have stated: “One does not bring heave from outside the Land into the Land.” Should they be brought as First Fruits? Rebbi Hoshaia said, First Fruits are the responsibility of the owners, heave is not the responsibility of the owners. If you would say so, they would run after it there.

In a baraita one disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “What does one understand from what has been said (Ex. 21:28): ‘The ox shall certainly be stoned’? Do we not know that its meat is forbidden as food? Then why does the verse say, ‘its meat shall not be eaten’? To tell you that just as it is forbidden as food so it is forbidden for usufruct.” What does Rebbi Joḥanan do with this? He explained it if the owners slaughtered it before sentence was pronounced.

So far about a robbery when the owners did not give up hope. Even about a robbery when the owners did give up hope? They thought to say that we can hear it from the following: “This applies to heave and tithe but not to First Fruits.” For what is this needed? Not for a robbery when the owners did not give up hope, but for a robbery when the owners did give up hope? Even for heave he did not do anything, as we stated: “A strongman, a thief, or a robber, as long as the owners pursue them, their heave is no heave, his tithes no tithes, and their dedications no dedications. If the owners do not pursue them, their heave is heave, their tithes are tithes, and their dedications dedications.” Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Neither of them can give heave. Rebbi Ammi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Even if the owners declare heave, it is no heave. Rebbi Yose said, so far we deal with a robbery when the owners did not give up hope. Then why did we state: “This applies to heave and tithe but not to First Fruits”? It is possible for fruits to be usable without First Fruits. It is impossible for fruits to be usable without heave and tithes! But a robbery when the owners did give up hope remains a question.

So far about a robbery when the owners did not give up hope. Even about a robbery when the owners did give up hope? They thought to say that we can hear it from the following: “This applies to heave and tithe but not to First Fruits.” For what is this needed? Not for a robbery when the owners did not give up hope, but for a robbery when the owners did give up hope? Even for heave he did not do anything, as we stated: “A strongman, a thief, or a robber, as long as the owners pursue them, their heave is no heave, his tithes no tithes, and their dedications no dedications. If the owners do not pursue them, their heave is heave, their tithes are tithes, and their dedications dedications.” Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Neither of them can give heave. Rebbi Ammi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Even if the owners declare heave, it is no heave. Rebbi Yose said, so far we deal with a robbery when the owners did not give up hope. Then why did we state: “This applies to heave and tithe but not to First Fruits”? It is possible for fruits to be usable without First Fruits. It is impossible for fruits to be usable without heave and tithes! But a robbery when the owners did give up hope remains a question.

So far about a robbery when the owners did not give up hope. Even about a robbery when the owners did give up hope? They thought to say that we can hear it from the following: “This applies to heave and tithe but not to First Fruits.” For what is this needed? Not for a robbery when the owners did not give up hope, but for a robbery when the owners did give up hope? Even for heave he did not do anything, as we stated: “A strongman, a thief, or a robber, as long as the owners pursue them, their heave is no heave, his tithes no tithes, and their dedications no dedications. If the owners do not pursue them, their heave is heave, their tithes are tithes, and their dedications dedications.” Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Neither of them can give heave. Rebbi Ammi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Even if the owners declare heave, it is no heave. Rebbi Yose said, so far we deal with a robbery when the owners did not give up hope. Then why did we state: “This applies to heave and tithe but not to First Fruits”? It is possible for fruits to be usable without First Fruits. It is impossible for fruits to be usable without heave and tithes! But a robbery when the owners did give up hope remains a question.

So far about a robbery when the owners did not give up hope. Even about a robbery when the owners did give up hope? They thought to say that we can hear it from the following: “This applies to heave and tithe but not to First Fruits.” For what is this needed? Not for a robbery when the owners did not give up hope, but for a robbery when the owners did give up hope? Even for heave he did not do anything, as we stated: “A strongman, a thief, or a robber, as long as the owners pursue them, their heave is no heave, his tithes no tithes, and their dedications no dedications. If the owners do not pursue them, their heave is heave, their tithes are tithes, and their dedications dedications.” Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Neither of them can give heave. Rebbi Ammi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Even if the owners declare heave, it is no heave. Rebbi Yose said, so far we deal with a robbery when the owners did not give up hope. Then why did we state: “This applies to heave and tithe but not to First Fruits”? It is possible for fruits to be usable without First Fruits. It is impossible for fruits to be usable without heave and tithes! But a robbery when the owners did give up hope remains a question.

So far about a robbery when the owners did not give up hope. Even about a robbery when the owners did give up hope? They thought to say that we can hear it from the following: “This applies to heave and tithe but not to First Fruits.” For what is this needed? Not for a robbery when the owners did not give up hope, but for a robbery when the owners did give up hope? Even for heave he did not do anything, as we stated: “A strongman, a thief, or a robber, as long as the owners pursue them, their heave is no heave, his tithes no tithes, and their dedications no dedications. If the owners do not pursue them, their heave is heave, their tithes are tithes, and their dedications dedications.” Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Neither of them can give heave. Rebbi Ammi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Even if the owners declare heave, it is no heave. Rebbi Yose said, so far we deal with a robbery when the owners did not give up hope. Then why did we state: “This applies to heave and tithe but not to First Fruits”? It is possible for fruits to be usable without First Fruits. It is impossible for fruits to be usable without heave and tithes! But a robbery when the owners did give up hope remains a question.

So far about a robbery when the owners did not give up hope. Even about a robbery when the owners did give up hope? They thought to say that we can hear it from the following: “This applies to heave and tithe but not to First Fruits.” For what is this needed? Not for a robbery when the owners did not give up hope, but for a robbery when the owners did give up hope? Even for heave he did not do anything, as we stated: “A strongman, a thief, or a robber, as long as the owners pursue them, their heave is no heave, his tithes no tithes, and their dedications no dedications. If the owners do not pursue them, their heave is heave, their tithes are tithes, and their dedications dedications.” Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Neither of them can give heave. Rebbi Ammi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Even if the owners declare heave, it is no heave. Rebbi Yose said, so far we deal with a robbery when the owners did not give up hope. Then why did we state: “This applies to heave and tithe but not to First Fruits”? It is possible for fruits to be usable without First Fruits. It is impossible for fruits to be usable without heave and tithes! But a robbery when the owners did give up hope remains a question.

So far about a robbery when the owners did not give up hope. Even about a robbery when the owners did give up hope? They thought to say that we can hear it from the following: “This applies to heave and tithe but not to First Fruits.” For what is this needed? Not for a robbery when the owners did not give up hope, but for a robbery when the owners did give up hope? Even for heave he did not do anything, as we stated: “A strongman, a thief, or a robber, as long as the owners pursue them, their heave is no heave, his tithes no tithes, and their dedications no dedications. If the owners do not pursue them, their heave is heave, their tithes are tithes, and their dedications dedications.” Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Neither of them can give heave. Rebbi Ammi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Even if the owners declare heave, it is no heave. Rebbi Yose said, so far we deal with a robbery when the owners did not give up hope. Then why did we state: “This applies to heave and tithe but not to First Fruits”? It is possible for fruits to be usable without First Fruits. It is impossible for fruits to be usable without heave and tithes! But a robbery when the owners did give up hope remains a question.

So far about a robbery when the owners did not give up hope. Even about a robbery when the owners did give up hope? They thought to say that we can hear it from the following: “This applies to heave and tithe but not to First Fruits.” For what is this needed? Not for a robbery when the owners did not give up hope, but for a robbery when the owners did give up hope? Even for heave he did not do anything, as we stated: “A strongman, a thief, or a robber, as long as the owners pursue them, their heave is no heave, his tithes no tithes, and their dedications no dedications. If the owners do not pursue them, their heave is heave, their tithes are tithes, and their dedications dedications.” Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Neither of them can give heave. Rebbi Ammi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Even if the owners declare heave, it is no heave. Rebbi Yose said, so far we deal with a robbery when the owners did not give up hope. Then why did we state: “This applies to heave and tithe but not to First Fruits”? It is possible for fruits to be usable without First Fruits. It is impossible for fruits to be usable without heave and tithes! But a robbery when the owners did give up hope remains a question.

So far about a robbery when the owners did not give up hope. Even about a robbery when the owners did give up hope? They thought to say that we can hear it from the following: “This applies to heave and tithe but not to First Fruits.” For what is this needed? Not for a robbery when the owners did not give up hope, but for a robbery when the owners did give up hope? Even for heave he did not do anything, as we stated: “A strongman, a thief, or a robber, as long as the owners pursue them, their heave is no heave, his tithes no tithes, and their dedications no dedications. If the owners do not pursue them, their heave is heave, their tithes are tithes, and their dedications dedications.” Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Neither of them can give heave. Rebbi Ammi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Even if the owners declare heave, it is no heave. Rebbi Yose said, so far we deal with a robbery when the owners did not give up hope. Then why did we state: “This applies to heave and tithe but not to First Fruits”? It is possible for fruits to be usable without First Fruits. It is impossible for fruits to be usable without heave and tithes! But a robbery when the owners did give up hope remains a question.

Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Ḥiyya, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The Mishnah speaks of hereditary tenant farmers. Rebbi Hila, Rebbi Assi, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The Mishnah speaks of owners of sharecropping or tenant farming rights. They wanted to say, he who says the Mishnah speaks of owners of sharecropping or tenant farming rights, therefore not about simple sharecroppers or tenants. About a temporary sharecropper or tenant farmer; therefore a permanent sharecropper or tenant farmer might bring. Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya came in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Even a permanent sharecropper or tenant farmer cannot bring. Why? The Mishnah speaks of owners of sharecropping or tenant farming rights.

Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Ḥiyya, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The Mishnah speaks of hereditary tenant farmers. Rebbi Hila, Rebbi Assi, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The Mishnah speaks of owners of sharecropping or tenant farming rights. They wanted to say, he who says the Mishnah speaks of owners of sharecropping or tenant farming rights, therefore not about simple sharecroppers or tenants. About a temporary sharecropper or tenant farmer; therefore a permanent sharecropper or tenant farmer might bring. Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya came in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Even a permanent sharecropper or tenant farmer cannot bring. Why? The Mishnah speaks of owners of sharecropping or tenant farming rights.

Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Ḥiyya, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The Mishnah speaks of hereditary tenant farmers. Rebbi Hila, Rebbi Assi, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The Mishnah speaks of owners of sharecropping or tenant farming rights. They wanted to say, he who says the Mishnah speaks of owners of sharecropping or tenant farming rights, therefore not about simple sharecroppers or tenants. About a temporary sharecropper or tenant farmer; therefore a permanent sharecropper or tenant farmer might bring. Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya came in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Even a permanent sharecropper or tenant farmer cannot bring. Why? The Mishnah speaks of owners of sharecropping or tenant farming rights.

HALAKHAH: If a tree why a vegetable, if a vegetable, why a tree? There, they say that if it grows from the sixth [year] into the Sabbatical [year] it belongs to the owners as if from a tree and is free from tithes as if a vegetable. Rav Hamnuna told them, look at the following [year]! If it grows from the Sabbatical to the eighth year, it should be ownerless as if from a tree and subject to tithes as if a vegetable. Is anything ownerless subject to tithes?

In a baraita one disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: What does one understand from what has been said: the ox shall certainly be stoned? Do we not know that its meat is forbidden as food? Then why does the verse say, its meat shall not be eaten? To tell you that just as it is forbidden as food so it is forbidden for usufruct. What does Rebbi Joḥanan do with this? He explained it if the owners slaughtered it before sentence was pronounced.

MISHNAH: He is liable if he slaughtered it not for its eaters, or not for its subscribers, for the uncircumcised, or for the impure. He is not liable if for its eaters and not for its eaters, for its subscribers and not for its subscribers, for the circumcised and the uncircumcised, for the pure and the impure. If he slaughtered and it was found defective, he is liable. If he slaughtered and it was found internally tom, he is not liable. He is not liable if he slaughtered and it became known that the owners became disinterested in it, or they died, or they became impure, because he slaughtered with permission.

Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, it is Rebbi Jehudah’s, as we have stated there: “One does not slaughter the Pesaḥ for a single individual, the words of Rebbi Jehudah, but Rebbi Yose permits.” Rebbi Zeˋira asked before Rebbi Mana: Where do we find “not liable and qualified”? He told him, here we stated “not liable”, and there we stated “qualified”. But about all of them did Rebbi Ismael the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa say, it should lose its shape and be brought to be burned. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose asked before Rebbi Yose, one understands if they died or became impure. If the owners became disinterested? If they are alive, does disqualification qualify? It is disqualified. If after it was slaughtered, can one become disinterested after slaughter? Since he has the right to become disinterested, the disqualification qualifies, and it needs {losing its} shape.

MISHNAH: Pesaḥ which left or which became impure has to be burned immediately. If the owners became impure or died it shall lose its shape and be brought to the place of burning. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa says, this one also has to be burned immediately since it has no eaters.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: “A disqualification of the body [is piggul and] is immediately burned. [If the owners became impure or died it is] a disqualification of enabler and needs to lose its shape. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah says so: “Pesaḥ which left or which became impure is a disqualification of the body and has to be burned immediately. If the owner became impure or died it is a disqualification of the enabler and it shall lose its shape.”

MISHNAH: Pesaḥ which left or which became impure has to be burned immediately. If the owners became impure or died it shall lose its shape and be brought to the place of burning. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa says, this one also has to be burned immediately since it has no eaters.

MISHNAH: A woman living in her husband’s house, and both her husband and her father slaughtered for her, should eat of her husband’s. If she went to her father’s house for the first holiday and both her father and her husband slaughtered for her, she may eat where she desires. An orphan for whom guardians slaughtered may eat where he desires. A slave of two owners may not eat from either of them. A person who is half slave and half freedman may not eat of his master’s.

“A slave of two owners may not eat from either of them.” Rebbi Yose said, his master has no right to say, it is impossible that you should be counted for a Pesaḥ, but he may say to him, you may not be counted for this one, only for that one. Sometimes he is counted for three Pesaḥim simultaneously. How is this? A slave of two owners must subscribe to a Pesaḥ. If one of them freed his part, he has to subscribe to another Pesaḥ. If both of them freed, he has to subscribe to yet another Pesaḥ. Samuel bar Abba asked, may the slave eat from all three of them? If you are saying that the slave may not eat from all three of them, then he should not be able to subscribe to a Pesaḥ, since perhaps his master might want to free him and it turns out that an invalid dedication is mixed up in the offering. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said that Rebbi Zeˋira asked, may the owner fulfill his obligation by the slave’s dedication? Is that not a Mishnah: “One says to his slave, go and slaughter the Pesaḥ for me.” The Mishnah on the instruction of his master, what is problematic for him not on the instruction of his master.

“A slave of two owners may not eat from either of them.” Rebbi Yose said, his master has no right to say, it is impossible that you should be counted for a Pesaḥ, but he may say to him, you may not be counted for this one, only for that one. Sometimes he is counted for three Pesaḥim simultaneously. How is this? A slave of two owners must subscribe to a Pesaḥ. If one of them freed his part, he has to subscribe to another Pesaḥ. If both of them freed, he has to subscribe to yet another Pesaḥ. Samuel bar Abba asked, may the slave eat from all three of them? If you are saying that the slave may not eat from all three of them, then he should not be able to subscribe to a Pesaḥ, since perhaps his master might want to free him and it turns out that an invalid dedication is mixed up in the offering. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said that Rebbi Zeˋira asked, may the owner fulfill his obligation by the slave’s dedication? Is that not a Mishnah: “One says to his slave, go and slaughter the Pesaḥ for me.” The Mishnah on the instruction of his master, what is problematic for him not on the instruction of his master.

“And which was lost and found.” (Defective.) [Is it not certainly permitted?] Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: No body of a Pesaḥ is brought as well-being sacrifice except the one which was lost but found only after the owners propitiated.

“Since no public purification sacrifice is let to die. Rebbi Jehudah says, it shall die.” It is difficult for Rebbi Jehudah: does one draw lots originally to die? Rebbi Abun said, do we not find this following Rebbi Eliezer, as Rebbi Eliezer said, they shall die? Rebbi Mana said, what you ask about Rebbi Jehudah you should ask about the Mishnah, as we have stated there, “the calf of a purification offering, and the replacement of a purification offering, and a purification offering whose owners died, shall die.” Would a person replace originally to die?

A roast kid goat was found in the main street of Gufta. They permitted it because of two things, as a find, and because of the majority of passers-by. As a find, as it was stated: If one saves from before a lion, from before an army, from a surge of the sea, or the surge of a river, from a wide road, or a wide plaza, it belongs to him, since the owners give up on them. Because of the majority of passers-by, because of a Gentile’s slaughter. It turned out that it was from the House of Rebbi.

A wheel of cheese was found in the hostelry of Levi. They permitted it because of two things, as a find, and because of the majority of passers-by. As a find, as it was stated: If one saves from before a lion, from before an army, from a surge of the sea, or the surge of a river, from a wide road, or a wide plaza, it belongs to him, since the owners give up on them. Because of the majority of passers-by, because of Gentile’s cheese. It turned out that it was from Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose.

It is called by five names: fog, canopy, cloud, prince, and storm-cloud. From where “fog”? And fog rose from the earth. “Thick cloud,” [which thickens the sky], behold, I shall come to you in a canopy of cloud. “Cloud”, because it makes people meek with one another. “Prince” because it turns owners of houses into princes: He raises rain-clouds from the ends of the earth. “Storm-clouds” because it turns the sky into multiple visions: The Eternal makes storm clouds.

HALAKHAH: “A rabbi who forbade a woman to her husband because of a vow”, etc. “A rabbi who forbade a woman to her husband because of a vow cannot marry her.” I would say, that was his intention from the start. “If she repudiated or performed ḥalîṣah before him he may marry her since he acts as a court”, because two will not usually sin for the benefit of a third. There, we have stated: “If somebody deposits fruit with another person, that one should not touch it even if it spoils. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, he shall sell it under the supervision of a court because one is obliged to return a find to its owners.” Rebbi Abba bar Jacob said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, practice follows Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. What does one do with the money? Rav Jehudah said, the disagreement of Rebbi Aqiba and Rebbi Ṭarphon. It is a condition that the members of the court cannot buy. Rebbi Aqiba said, Rebbi Ḥiyya ben Rebbi Sabbatai asked: Here, you say, “if she repudiated or performed ḥalîṣah before him he may marry her since he acts as a court,” and here, you say so? Rebbi Yose said, there, the buy could be in thirds, but here, two will not usually sin for the benefit of a third.

“One who says, I am impure” Is it not like a purification offering whose owners died? And for a purification offering whose owners died, the money should be thrown into the Dead Sea. It is compared to a hung reparation offering. If it is compared to a hung reparation offering, even if it was sanctified in a Temple vessel! Rebbi Mattaniah said, it is compared to a hung reparation offering that was slaughtered, as we stated there: “If it became clear to him after it was slaughtered, the blood has to be poured out and the meat has to be taken out to the burning place.”

“One who says, I am impure” Is it not like a purification offering whose owners died? And for a purification offering whose owners died, the money should be thrown into the Dead Sea. It is compared to a hung reparation offering. If it is compared to a hung reparation offering, even if it was sanctified in a Temple vessel! Rebbi Mattaniah said, it is compared to a hung reparation offering that was slaughtered, as we stated there: “If it became clear to him after it was slaughtered, the blood has to be poured out and the meat has to be taken out to the burning place.”

“A man is sold for his theft,” for his theft but not for the double restitution. For his theft but not for his perjury. For his theft he is not sold twice. There is only a monetary claim on him. That means, for one theft, but for two thefts he can be sold a second time. Rebbi Jeremiah asked: If he stole from a partnership, how are you treating this? As one theft or as two thefts? If he stole and removed [things] in the night, we would say that if the owners realized [the loss] in the meantime, there are two thefts; otherwise, it is one theft.

There, we have stated: “If somebody leases a cow from another person and lends it to a third party; if it died naturally, the lessee has to swear that it died naturally and the borrower has to pay to the lessee.” Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Yannai: Only if he gave permission to lend to others. Also Rebbi Ḥiyya stated thus: “The borrower cannot lend, nor the lessee lease, nor the borrower lease, nor the lessee lend, nor the trustee give to another unless they received permission from the owners. And all who changed the titles without the owners’ knowledge are liable. But the borrower is liable even if he did not change.” But it is because we stated: “An unpaid watchman can stipulate to be exempt from an oath and the borrower may stipulate that he not have to pay.” This means that even if he stipulated to be exempt that he is obligated. What if he wanted to let the borrower swear? Let us hear from the following: “If he wrote to her: ‘I have no vow or oath against you,’ he cannot make her swear, but he can ask an oath from the heirs or her business associates.” This implies that if he wanted to make the borrower swear, he can force him to swear. The first case teaches about the second and the second about the first. The first case teaches about the second, that if he wanted to make the borrower swear, he can force him to swear. The second case teaches about the first, that if he wants to force the wife to swear, that he can make her swear. Rebbi Ḥanina said, it is not necessary to derive the first case from the second, and what does one learn for the second case from the first? Following what Rebbi Hila said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: Only if he gave permission to lend to others. And here, only if he gave permission to let her sons be stewards. Rebbi Yose said, he has to pay the lease all the time it is leased to him. Rebbi Ze‘ira asked Rebbi Abuna: If the owners borrowed it and it died? He said to him, in that case we say, they ate it. Rebbi Yose bar Abun said, if they ate it, they ate their own property. Rebbi Ze‘ira asked before Rebbi Yasa: How does one act? He said to him, there are two against four; one does not act following the argument. He said to him, they are two against two! Rebbi Eleazar is the elder Rebbi Ḥiyya’s student; Rebbi Joḥanan is Rebbi Yannai’s student.

There, we have stated: “If somebody leases a cow from another person and lends it to a third party; if it died naturally, the lessee has to swear that it died naturally and the borrower has to pay to the lessee.” Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Yannai: Only if he gave permission to lend to others. Also Rebbi Ḥiyya stated thus: “The borrower cannot lend, nor the lessee lease, nor the borrower lease, nor the lessee lend, nor the trustee give to another unless they received permission from the owners. And all who changed the titles without the owners’ knowledge are liable. But the borrower is liable even if he did not change.” But it is because we stated: “An unpaid watchman can stipulate to be exempt from an oath and the borrower may stipulate that he not have to pay.” This means that even if he stipulated to be exempt that he is obligated. What if he wanted to let the borrower swear? Let us hear from the following: “If he wrote to her: ‘I have no vow or oath against you,’ he cannot make her swear, but he can ask an oath from the heirs or her business associates.” This implies that if he wanted to make the borrower swear, he can force him to swear. The first case teaches about the second and the second about the first. The first case teaches about the second, that if he wanted to make the borrower swear, he can force him to swear. The second case teaches about the first, that if he wants to force the wife to swear, that he can make her swear. Rebbi Ḥanina said, it is not necessary to derive the first case from the second, and what does one learn for the second case from the first? Following what Rebbi Hila said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: Only if he gave permission to lend to others. And here, only if he gave permission to let her sons be stewards. Rebbi Yose said, he has to pay the lease all the time it is leased to him. Rebbi Ze‘ira asked Rebbi Abuna: If the owners borrowed it and it died? He said to him, in that case we say, they ate it. Rebbi Yose bar Abun said, if they ate it, they ate their own property. Rebbi Ze‘ira asked before Rebbi Yasa: How does one act? He said to him, there are two against four; one does not act following the argument. He said to him, they are two against two! Rebbi Eleazar is the elder Rebbi Ḥiyya’s student; Rebbi Joḥanan is Rebbi Yannai’s student.

There, we have stated: “If somebody leases a cow from another person and lends it to a third party; if it died naturally, the lessee has to swear that it died naturally and the borrower has to pay to the lessee.” Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Yannai: Only if he gave permission to lend to others. Also Rebbi Ḥiyya stated thus: “The borrower cannot lend, nor the lessee lease, nor the borrower lease, nor the lessee lend, nor the trustee give to another unless they received permission from the owners. And all who changed the titles without the owners’ knowledge are liable. But the borrower is liable even if he did not change.” But it is because we stated: “An unpaid watchman can stipulate to be exempt from an oath and the borrower may stipulate that he not have to pay.” This means that even if he stipulated to be exempt that he is obligated. What if he wanted to let the borrower swear? Let us hear from the following: “If he wrote to her: ‘I have no vow or oath against you,’ he cannot make her swear, but he can ask an oath from the heirs or her business associates.” This implies that if he wanted to make the borrower swear, he can force him to swear. The first case teaches about the second and the second about the first. The first case teaches about the second, that if he wanted to make the borrower swear, he can force him to swear. The second case teaches about the first, that if he wants to force the wife to swear, that he can make her swear. Rebbi Ḥanina said, it is not necessary to derive the first case from the second, and what does one learn for the second case from the first? Following what Rebbi Hila said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: Only if he gave permission to lend to others. And here, only if he gave permission to let her sons be stewards. Rebbi Yose said, he has to pay the lease all the time it is leased to him. Rebbi Ze‘ira asked Rebbi Abuna: If the owners borrowed it and it died? He said to him, in that case we say, they ate it. Rebbi Yose bar Abun said, if they ate it, they ate their own property. Rebbi Ze‘ira asked before Rebbi Yasa: How does one act? He said to him, there are two against four; one does not act following the argument. He said to him, they are two against two! Rebbi Eleazar is the elder Rebbi Ḥiyya’s student; Rebbi Joḥanan is Rebbi Yannai’s student.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody went overseas,” etc. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, if he sues with reasons. This means, only if four [owners] surround him. Samuel says, even if one surrounds him on all sides. Joshua’s stipulation! “If he was lost in vineyards or fields, he crosses and leaves until he reaches a road to his house, even a plot full of vineyards, for this is one of the conditions under which Joshua distributed the Land to Israel.” Joshua stated this to leave, maybe to enter? Joshua stipulated for a person, perhaps for his cow? Rebbi Yose said, his cow usually returns; since a swarm of bees does not usually return, they treated it as if it were his body.

HALAKHAH: It was stated: Rebbi Meïr says that as soon as a person abandons anything from his property, it is no longer in his possession. Rebbi Yose says, nothing may leave the hands of its owners except if it is taken up by another person. Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Abba bar Ḥiyya, both say, Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: The words of Rebbi Yose [deal with the case] that a person gave a gift to ten people and this one was one of them. If somebody abandoned his field, some Tannaïm say, he can retract, but some Tannaïm say, he cannot retract. Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: The one who says that he can retract follows Rebbi Yose. But the one who says that he cannot retract follows Rebbi Meïr. Does this mean that abandoned property in the sense of Rebbi Yose is subject to tithes? What did he say? Abandoned property, not gift! Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa came in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Abandoned property in the sense of Rebbi Yose is subject to tithes. There, they say that abandoned property in the sense of Rebbi Yose is not subject to tithes, since Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: “The Levite shall come,” etc. You are obliged to give him from what you have but he has not. This excludes abandoned property for which your and his hands are equal. Gleanings, forgotten sheaves, peah, and abandoned property are all equal.

If the public became publicly impure in a doubtful case of a grave in the abyss, does the diadem make it acceptable? It is a conclusion de minore ad maius. Since in the case of a single person, whose position you clarified to his disadvantage in the case of known impurity, you clarified to his advantage in the case of a grave in the abyss, it should be only logical that for the public, whose position you clarified to its advantage in the case of known impurity, you should clarify it to its advantage in the case of a grave in the abyss. A leniency which you apply to a single person you treat as a restriction for the public. A leniency which you apply to a single person, so that if it became known to him after sprinkling he should be treated as if he became impure before sprinkling, that he should eat the meat. The leniency which you apply to the pure nazir is a restriction for the impure nazir. The leniency which you apply to the pure nazir, so that if it became known to him after sprinkling he is treated as impure after sprinkling, that he should bring a sacrifice of impurity. You treat it as a restriction for the impure nazir, that if it became known to him after sprinkling he is treated as somebody repeatedly becoming impure so that he has to bring a sacrifice of impurity for each single case. As it was stated: If he repeatedly became impure, he has to bring a sacrifice for each single case. If somebody is officiating for the Passover sacrifice, does the diadem make it acceptable? It is a conclusion de minore ad maius. Since for the owners [of the Passover sacrifice] whose position you clarified to their disadvantage in the case of the infirm and the aged, you clarified to their advantage in the case of a grave in the abyss, it should be only logical that for the officiating, whose position you clarified to his advantage in the case of the infirm and the aged, you should clarify it to his advantage in the case of a grave in the abyss. No. For the owners [of sacrifices] you clarify to their disadvantage in the case of impurity during the rest of the year; you also say for the officiating that you clarify their position to their disadvantage in the case of impurity during the rest of the year. Since you clarify their position to their disadvantage in the case of impurity during the rest of the year, you also clarify their position to their disadvantage in the case of the impurity of the dead on Passover. How is it really? “For you”, whether for him or for the one officiating for him. So far for the people celebrating Passover. From where the nazir? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav Ḥisda: We thought, “on him”, not on the one officiating for him. Since we stated that the same rules apply to the nazir and to those celebrating Passover, it means that what holds for the one holds for the other.

If the public became publicly impure in a doubtful case of a grave in the abyss, does the diadem make it acceptable? It is a conclusion de minore ad maius. Since in the case of a single person, whose position you clarified to his disadvantage in the case of known impurity, you clarified to his advantage in the case of a grave in the abyss, it should be only logical that for the public, whose position you clarified to its advantage in the case of known impurity, you should clarify it to its advantage in the case of a grave in the abyss. A leniency which you apply to a single person you treat as a restriction for the public. A leniency which you apply to a single person, so that if it became known to him after sprinkling he should be treated as if he became impure before sprinkling, that he should eat the meat. The leniency which you apply to the pure nazir is a restriction for the impure nazir. The leniency which you apply to the pure nazir, so that if it became known to him after sprinkling he is treated as impure after sprinkling, that he should bring a sacrifice of impurity. You treat it as a restriction for the impure nazir, that if it became known to him after sprinkling he is treated as somebody repeatedly becoming impure so that he has to bring a sacrifice of impurity for each single case. As it was stated: If he repeatedly became impure, he has to bring a sacrifice for each single case. If somebody is officiating for the Passover sacrifice, does the diadem make it acceptable? It is a conclusion de minore ad maius. Since for the owners [of the Passover sacrifice] whose position you clarified to their disadvantage in the case of the infirm and the aged, you clarified to their advantage in the case of a grave in the abyss, it should be only logical that for the officiating, whose position you clarified to his advantage in the case of the infirm and the aged, you should clarify it to his advantage in the case of a grave in the abyss. No. For the owners [of sacrifices] you clarify to their disadvantage in the case of impurity during the rest of the year; you also say for the officiating that you clarify their position to their disadvantage in the case of impurity during the rest of the year. Since you clarify their position to their disadvantage in the case of impurity during the rest of the year, you also clarify their position to their disadvantage in the case of the impurity of the dead on Passover. How is it really? “For you”, whether for him or for the one officiating for him. So far for the people celebrating Passover. From where the nazir? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav Ḥisda: We thought, “on him”, not on the one officiating for him. Since we stated that the same rules apply to the nazir and to those celebrating Passover, it means that what holds for the one holds for the other.

HALAKHAH: “There was no law of siqariqon in Judea” etc. In earlier times they decided on a persecution in Judea because they had a tradition from their forefathers that Jehudah had killed Esaw, as it is written: “Your hand is on your enemies’ neck.” They went and enslaved them, took their fields and sold them to third parties. The original owners could come and repossess; therefore the land was left absolutely in the hand of the siqariqon since they refrained from buying. “They decreed that the law of siqariqon should not apply in Jehudah. When was this said? About war killings before the war. But about anybody killed in and after the war, the notion of siqariqon does not apply.” But are those killed before the war not like those killed after the war? Explain it that a siqariqon came and robbed and suppressed; there was no time left to write the sales contract before murder engulfed the entire world, that practice should not be partial.

“The law of siqariqon always applies in Galilee.” The law of siqariqon does not apply to movables. It was stated: “The law of siqariqon does not apply to foreclosures for a debt and for tenant fees. [A foreclosure for nonpayment of] tenant fees waits twelve months for the owners.” Rebbi Judah ben Pazi said, after twelve months one announces on four consecutive Sabbaths. He explained it in two ways. If he took it from a tenant and gave it to a tenant and the first wants to foreclose, he says to him, are you not a tenant? Leave it for me and what you cut, you cut. If he took it from the owner and gave it to a tenant, the [owner] wants to foreclose, he tells him, what use do you have if you take it from me and he will take it from you, but what I can afford I shall give to you.

Rav Jehudah sent to Rebbi Eleazar: If a keeper give to another keeper. He answered, the first is responsible. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the second is responsible. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, the second is responsible. There, we have stated: “If somebody leases a cow from another person and lends it to a third party; if it died naturally, the lessee has to swear that it died naturally and the borrower has to pay to the lessee. Rebbi Yose said, how can this person make a deal with another’s cow? But the cow’s [price] has to be restituted to the owner.” Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Yannai: Only if he gave permission to lend to others. Also Rebbi Ḥiyya stated thus: “The borrower cannot lend, nor the lessee lease, nor the borrower lease, nor the lessee lend, nor the trustee give to another unless they received permission from the owners. And all who changed the titles without the owners’ knowledge are liable. But the borrower is liable even if he did not change.” But it is because we stated: “An unpaid watchman can stipulate to be exempt from an oath and the borrower may stipulate that he not have to pay.” This means that even if he stipulated to be exempt he is obligated. What if he wanted to let the borrower swear? Let us hear from the following: “If he wrote to her: ‘I have no vow or oath against you,’ he cannot make her swear, but he can ask an oath from the heirs or her business associates.” This implies that if he wanted to make the borrower swear, he can force him to swear. The second case teaches about the first, that if he wants to force the wife to swear, he can make her swear. Rebbi Ḥanina said, it is not necessary to derive the first case from the second, and what does one learn for the second case from the first? Following what Rebbi Hila said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: Only if he gave permission to lend to others. And here, only if he gave permission to let her sons be stewards. Rebbi Yose said, he has to pay the lease the entire time it is leased to him. Rebbi Ze‘ira asked Rebbi Abinna: If the owners borrowed it and it died? He said to him, we hold that they ate it. Rebbi Yose bar Abun said, if they ate it, they ate their own property. Rebbi Ze‘ira asked before Rebbi Yasa: How does one act? He said to him, there are two against four; one does not act following the argument. He said to him, they are two against two! Rebbi Eleazar is the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya’s student; Rebbi Joḥanan is Rebbi Yannai’s student.

Rav Jehudah sent to Rebbi Eleazar: If a keeper give to another keeper. He answered, the first is responsible. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the second is responsible. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, the second is responsible. There, we have stated: “If somebody leases a cow from another person and lends it to a third party; if it died naturally, the lessee has to swear that it died naturally and the borrower has to pay to the lessee. Rebbi Yose said, how can this person make a deal with another’s cow? But the cow’s [price] has to be restituted to the owner.” Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Yannai: Only if he gave permission to lend to others. Also Rebbi Ḥiyya stated thus: “The borrower cannot lend, nor the lessee lease, nor the borrower lease, nor the lessee lend, nor the trustee give to another unless they received permission from the owners. And all who changed the titles without the owners’ knowledge are liable. But the borrower is liable even if he did not change.” But it is because we stated: “An unpaid watchman can stipulate to be exempt from an oath and the borrower may stipulate that he not have to pay.” This means that even if he stipulated to be exempt he is obligated. What if he wanted to let the borrower swear? Let us hear from the following: “If he wrote to her: ‘I have no vow or oath against you,’ he cannot make her swear, but he can ask an oath from the heirs or her business associates.” This implies that if he wanted to make the borrower swear, he can force him to swear. The second case teaches about the first, that if he wants to force the wife to swear, he can make her swear. Rebbi Ḥanina said, it is not necessary to derive the first case from the second, and what does one learn for the second case from the first? Following what Rebbi Hila said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: Only if he gave permission to lend to others. And here, only if he gave permission to let her sons be stewards. Rebbi Yose said, he has to pay the lease the entire time it is leased to him. Rebbi Ze‘ira asked Rebbi Abinna: If the owners borrowed it and it died? He said to him, we hold that they ate it. Rebbi Yose bar Abun said, if they ate it, they ate their own property. Rebbi Ze‘ira asked before Rebbi Yasa: How does one act? He said to him, there are two against four; one does not act following the argument. He said to him, they are two against two! Rebbi Eleazar is the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya’s student; Rebbi Joḥanan is Rebbi Yannai’s student.

Rav Jehudah sent to Rebbi Eleazar: If a keeper give to another keeper. He answered, the first is responsible. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the second is responsible. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, the second is responsible. There, we have stated: “If somebody leases a cow from another person and lends it to a third party; if it died naturally, the lessee has to swear that it died naturally and the borrower has to pay to the lessee. Rebbi Yose said, how can this person make a deal with another’s cow? But the cow’s [price] has to be restituted to the owner.” Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Yannai: Only if he gave permission to lend to others. Also Rebbi Ḥiyya stated thus: “The borrower cannot lend, nor the lessee lease, nor the borrower lease, nor the lessee lend, nor the trustee give to another unless they received permission from the owners. And all who changed the titles without the owners’ knowledge are liable. But the borrower is liable even if he did not change.” But it is because we stated: “An unpaid watchman can stipulate to be exempt from an oath and the borrower may stipulate that he not have to pay.” This means that even if he stipulated to be exempt he is obligated. What if he wanted to let the borrower swear? Let us hear from the following: “If he wrote to her: ‘I have no vow or oath against you,’ he cannot make her swear, but he can ask an oath from the heirs or her business associates.” This implies that if he wanted to make the borrower swear, he can force him to swear. The second case teaches about the first, that if he wants to force the wife to swear, he can make her swear. Rebbi Ḥanina said, it is not necessary to derive the first case from the second, and what does one learn for the second case from the first? Following what Rebbi Hila said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: Only if he gave permission to lend to others. And here, only if he gave permission to let her sons be stewards. Rebbi Yose said, he has to pay the lease the entire time it is leased to him. Rebbi Ze‘ira asked Rebbi Abinna: If the owners borrowed it and it died? He said to him, we hold that they ate it. Rebbi Yose bar Abun said, if they ate it, they ate their own property. Rebbi Ze‘ira asked before Rebbi Yasa: How does one act? He said to him, there are two against four; one does not act following the argument. He said to him, they are two against two! Rebbi Eleazar is the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya’s student; Rebbi Joḥanan is Rebbi Yannai’s student.

Rav Jehudah sent and asked Rebbi Eleazar: The extortionist, and the robber, and the thief? He answered, it is assumed that the owners do not deal with the dead animal. From where that the owners do not deal with the dead animal? Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, “alive, he shall pay double,” but not dead animals. That refers to theft; for robbery? Rebbi Abun said, “he shall return the robbed object which he robbed,” as it was.

Rav Jehudah sent and asked Rebbi Eleazar: The extortionist, and the robber, and the thief? He answered, it is assumed that the owners do not deal with the dead animal. From where that the owners do not deal with the dead animal? Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, “alive, he shall pay double,” but not dead animals. That refers to theft; for robbery? Rebbi Abun said, “he shall return the robbed object which he robbed,” as it was.

“Here you have money that your slave shall become acquired by me after thirty days.” Some Tannaïm stated: The first [owner] is subject to “a day or two”. But some Tannaïm stated: The second [owner] is subject to “a day or two”. Some Tannaïm stated: Neither the first nor the second [owners] are subject to “a day or two”. But some Tannaïm stated: Both first and second [owners] are subject to “a day or two”. He who says, the first [owner] is subject to “a day or two”, “if he dies in his possession.” He who says, the second [owner] is subject to “a day or two”, “for he is his money.” He who says, both first and second [owners] are subject to “a day or two”, the first because of “if he dies in his possession,” the second because of “for he is his money.” He who says, neither the first nor the second [owners] are subject to “a day or two”, for he is not the first’s money and does not die in the possession of the second.

“Here you have money that your slave shall become acquired by me after thirty days.” Some Tannaïm stated: The first [owner] is subject to “a day or two”. But some Tannaïm stated: The second [owner] is subject to “a day or two”. Some Tannaïm stated: Neither the first nor the second [owners] are subject to “a day or two”. But some Tannaïm stated: Both first and second [owners] are subject to “a day or two”. He who says, the first [owner] is subject to “a day or two”, “if he dies in his possession.” He who says, the second [owner] is subject to “a day or two”, “for he is his money.” He who says, both first and second [owners] are subject to “a day or two”, the first because of “if he dies in his possession,” the second because of “for he is his money.” He who says, neither the first nor the second [owners] are subject to “a day or two”, for he is not the first’s money and does not die in the possession of the second.

“Here you have money that your slave shall become acquired by me after thirty days.” Some Tannaïm stated: The first [owner] is subject to “a day or two”. But some Tannaïm stated: The second [owner] is subject to “a day or two”. Some Tannaïm stated: Neither the first nor the second [owners] are subject to “a day or two”. But some Tannaïm stated: Both first and second [owners] are subject to “a day or two”. He who says, the first [owner] is subject to “a day or two”, “if he dies in his possession.” He who says, the second [owner] is subject to “a day or two”, “for he is his money.” He who says, both first and second [owners] are subject to “a day or two”, the first because of “if he dies in his possession,” the second because of “for he is his money.” He who says, neither the first nor the second [owners] are subject to “a day or two”, for he is not the first’s money and does not die in the possession of the second.

“Here you have money that your slave shall become acquired by me after thirty days.” Some Tannaïm stated: The first [owner] is subject to “a day or two”. But some Tannaïm stated: The second [owner] is subject to “a day or two”. Some Tannaïm stated: Neither the first nor the second [owners] are subject to “a day or two”. But some Tannaïm stated: Both first and second [owners] are subject to “a day or two”. He who says, the first [owner] is subject to “a day or two”, “if he dies in his possession.” He who says, the second [owner] is subject to “a day or two”, “for he is his money.” He who says, both first and second [owners] are subject to “a day or two”, the first because of “if he dies in his possession,” the second because of “for he is his money.” He who says, neither the first nor the second [owners] are subject to “a day or two”, for he is not the first’s money and does not die in the possession of the second.

Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: If “the bull” had not been written, I would have inferred the bull from the pit. Since for the pit, which is not usually moving, one has to pay full damages, not so much more for the bull which usually is moving? Either since for the pit one pays full damages, also the bull pays full damages, or since the bull pays half damages, also for the pit one should have to pay half damages. If “the bull” had not been written, I would have inferred the bull from the pit; if “the pit” had not been written, I would have inferred the bull from the pit. Why was it stated here? Because there are many things. Similarly, the seat is not like the bed and the bed is not like the seat. One understands that the seat is not like the bed. The seat a square ṭephaḥ large can become impure; the bed four ṭephaḥim large can become impure. Because He declared a bed four ṭephaḥim large as impure, would a seat a square ṭephaḥ large become impure? If the seat had not been written, I would have inferred seat from bed. Why was it stated here? Because there are many things to be stated. Similarly, the paragraph on lighting the candles is not like the paragraph about exiling the impure and the paragraph on exiling the impure is not like the paragraph about lighting the candles. If the paragraph about exiling the impure had not been written, I would have inferred the rules of the paragraph on exiling the impure from the paragraph on lighting the candles. Why was it stated here? Because there are many things to be stated. So what is equal about them is that they are “command” here and in future generations, so everything by “command” is for here and for future generations. Rebbi La said, it is necessary that all be written; and the bull teaches that the owners have to deal with the cadaver. But it is written, “and the cadaver shall be his”, and it is written for the pit, “and the cadaver shall be his”! Rebbi Ismael said, this excludes real estate which cannot be moved; it excludes a human because there can be no usufruct from him in death. But the fire teaches for all of them that one is responsible for accidents.

Did we not state: “If a bull of a deaf-mute, insane, or underaged person gored, one appoints a guardian for them and receives testimony about them in the presence of the guardian”? So far if testimony was taken in the presence of the owner and he delivered to the guardian. If testimony was taken in the presence of the guardian and he delivered to the owner? Let us hear from the following: “If somebody borrowed it with the understanding that it was tame but it turned out to be notorious, the owner pays half of the damages and the borrower pays half of the damages.” Rebbi Eleazar said, this is Rebbi Yose’s, since Rebbi Yose said, it remains in its prior state. But if this is Rebbi Yose’s, he should pay in full. If he borrowed it with the understanding that it was tame. But if he borrowed it with the understanding that it was tame, he should not have to pay anything. If he knew that it was apt to gore. It was stated: “If it killed while at the borrower’s, who handed it back to the owners, before judgment was rendered he is not liable, after judgment was rendered he is liable. Rebbi Jacob said, even after judgment was rendered but before it was stoned, he is not liable.”

MISHNAH: A bull belonging to a woman, a bull belonging to orphans, a bull under a guardian, a wild bull, a bull of Temple property, a bull belonging to a proselyte who died without heirs, these are subject to the death penalty. Rebbi Jehudah says that a wild bull, a bull of Temple property, a bull belonging to a proselyte who died without heirs, are not subject to the death penalty since they have no owners.

HALAKHAH: “A bull belonging to a woman, a bull belonging to orphans,” etc. What is Rebbi Jehudah’s reason? “It was testified to before its owners and they did not watch it;” those have no owners who could be responsible for damages. Rebbi Hoshaia stated: In matters of damages, Rebbi Meïr declares liable but Rebbi Jehudah declares not liable. What about weregilt? Rebbi Pedat in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Everybody agrees that he is liable for weregilt. But some say, Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: Just as they disagree for damages so they disagree for weregilt. Rebbi Jeremiah asked before Rebbi Ze‘ira: How does one actually act? He said to him, following Rebbi Hoshaia that in matters of damages, Rebbi Meïr declares liable but Rebbi Jehudah declares not liable; therefore, in matters of weregilt everybody agrees that he is liable.

HALAKHAH: “A bull belonging to a woman, a bull belonging to orphans,” etc. What is Rebbi Jehudah’s reason? “It was testified to before its owners and they did not watch it;” those have no owners who could be responsible for damages. Rebbi Hoshaia stated: In matters of damages, Rebbi Meïr declares liable but Rebbi Jehudah declares not liable. What about weregilt? Rebbi Pedat in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Everybody agrees that he is liable for weregilt. But some say, Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: Just as they disagree for damages so they disagree for weregilt. Rebbi Jeremiah asked before Rebbi Ze‘ira: How does one actually act? He said to him, following Rebbi Hoshaia that in matters of damages, Rebbi Meïr declares liable but Rebbi Jehudah declares not liable; therefore, in matters of weregilt everybody agrees that he is liable.

It was stated: “It was stolen from the man’s house”, but not from the woman’s house? Is not “his neighbor” only written in respect of the borrower? But one has to say that “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. If something was stolen which then was stolen from him; [when in the end the stolen object was found, to whom does he pay? To the first owner, to the second, to both of them? If something was stolen which then was stolen from him]; the owners apprehended the second thief who swore to them. If you say that one takes it away from the second, he has to bring a sacrifice for the oath. If you say that one does not take it away from the second, he does not have to bring a sacrifice for his oath. If something was stolen which then was stolen from him and the second thief decides to return it, if you say that he has to return it to the owners, they might not inform the first thief. If you say that he has to return it to the first thief, that one might not inform the owners. What does he have to do? He returns it to the owners in the presence of the thief.

It was stated: “It was stolen from the man’s house”, but not from the woman’s house? Is not “his neighbor” only written in respect of the borrower? But one has to say that “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. If something was stolen which then was stolen from him; [when in the end the stolen object was found, to whom does he pay? To the first owner, to the second, to both of them? If something was stolen which then was stolen from him]; the owners apprehended the second thief who swore to them. If you say that one takes it away from the second, he has to bring a sacrifice for the oath. If you say that one does not take it away from the second, he does not have to bring a sacrifice for his oath. If something was stolen which then was stolen from him and the second thief decides to return it, if you say that he has to return it to the owners, they might not inform the first thief. If you say that he has to return it to the first thief, that one might not inform the owners. What does he have to do? He returns it to the owners in the presence of the thief.

It was stated: “It was stolen from the man’s house”, but not from the woman’s house? Is not “his neighbor” only written in respect of the borrower? But one has to say that “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. If something was stolen which then was stolen from him; [when in the end the stolen object was found, to whom does he pay? To the first owner, to the second, to both of them? If something was stolen which then was stolen from him]; the owners apprehended the second thief who swore to them. If you say that one takes it away from the second, he has to bring a sacrifice for the oath. If you say that one does not take it away from the second, he does not have to bring a sacrifice for his oath. If something was stolen which then was stolen from him and the second thief decides to return it, if you say that he has to return it to the owners, they might not inform the first thief. If you say that he has to return it to the first thief, that one might not inform the owners. What does he have to do? He returns it to the owners in the presence of the thief.

It was stated: “It was stolen from the man’s house”, but not from the woman’s house? Is not “his neighbor” only written in respect of the borrower? But one has to say that “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. If something was stolen which then was stolen from him; [when in the end the stolen object was found, to whom does he pay? To the first owner, to the second, to both of them? If something was stolen which then was stolen from him]; the owners apprehended the second thief who swore to them. If you say that one takes it away from the second, he has to bring a sacrifice for the oath. If you say that one does not take it away from the second, he does not have to bring a sacrifice for his oath. If something was stolen which then was stolen from him and the second thief decides to return it, if you say that he has to return it to the owners, they might not inform the first thief. If you say that he has to return it to the first thief, that one might not inform the owners. What does he have to do? He returns it to the owners in the presence of the thief.

MISHNAH: If the publicans took his donkey and gave him another donkey, or armed robbers took his garment and gave him another garment, they are his since the owners had given up hope of recovery. Things saved from a flood or from armed robbers are his if the owners had given up hope of recovery. Similarly, a swarm of bees is his if the owners had given up hope of recovery. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa said, a woman or a child are trusted if they say: “This swarm of bees came from here.” [The beekeeper] may enter another’s field to take his swarm; if he caused damage he has to pay what he damaged, but he cannot cut off a branch intending to pay for it. Rebbi Ismael, Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa’s son, said: he may even cut a branch and pay for it.

MISHNAH: If the publicans took his donkey and gave him another donkey, or armed robbers took his garment and gave him another garment, they are his since the owners had given up hope of recovery. Things saved from a flood or from armed robbers are his if the owners had given up hope of recovery. Similarly, a swarm of bees is his if the owners had given up hope of recovery. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa said, a woman or a child are trusted if they say: “This swarm of bees came from here.” [The beekeeper] may enter another’s field to take his swarm; if he caused damage he has to pay what he damaged, but he cannot cut off a branch intending to pay for it. Rebbi Ismael, Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa’s son, said: he may even cut a branch and pay for it.

MISHNAH: If the publicans took his donkey and gave him another donkey, or armed robbers took his garment and gave him another garment, they are his since the owners had given up hope of recovery. Things saved from a flood or from armed robbers are his if the owners had given up hope of recovery. Similarly, a swarm of bees is his if the owners had given up hope of recovery. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa said, a woman or a child are trusted if they say: “This swarm of bees came from here.” [The beekeeper] may enter another’s field to take his swarm; if he caused damage he has to pay what he damaged, but he cannot cut off a branch intending to pay for it. Rebbi Ismael, Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa’s son, said: he may even cut a branch and pay for it.

“Similarly, a swarm of bees is his if the owners had given up hope of recovery.” Rebbi Ḥinena bar Pappos in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The Mishnah is about a swarm taken in flight and from a schoolboy, and only immediately. But if one left and returned, I am saying that he said it because of fear, or being seduced. It was stated: Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa says, it is a stipulation by the court that this one may cut a branch and pay for it since on this condition did Joshua distribute the Land to Israel.

MISHNAH: If one stole a lamb from the flock and returned it, if it died or was stolen he is liable. If the owners were unaware both of the theft and the return, he is no longer liable after they counted the flock and found it complete.

HALAKHAH: “If one stole a lamb from the flock,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if the owners knew of the theft, they have to be notified of the return. If they did not know of the theft, they do not have to be notified of the return. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, even if they did not know of the theft, they have to be notified of the return. Rebbi Eleazar said, if it was similar to the case of a ram, they do not have to be notified of the return. What means “similar to the case of a ram”? Some say, the shepherd’s staff. Some say, a pandura. Some say, the bell-wether.

MISHNAH: The tailor who had enough thread left to sew with it, and cloth three by three finger breadths, has to return if to its owners. What the woodworker takes off with a small plane is his, with a large one belongs to the consignor; if he works at the latter’s place even the chips are the consignor’s.

HALAKHAH: “If two persons were riding on an animal,” etc. Rebbi Ḥuna said: It was stated there: “A woman comes riding on an animal and two men lead her. She says: these are my slaves; the donkey and the load are mine. Each of them says: this is my wife, the other is my slave, and the donkey and the load are mine. She needs a bill of divorce from both of them and has to manumit both of them. They have to manumit one another. In the donkey and the load they are equal co-owners.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody lease a cow from another person,” etc. But does he have permission to lend it? Did not Rebbi Ḥiyya state: “The borrower cannot lend, nor the lessee lease, nor the borrower lease, nor the lessee lend, unless he received permission from the owners.” Rebbi La said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: Only if he gave permission to lease. And here, only if he gave permission to let him be a steward. Rebbi Abbahu asked: If the owners borrowed it and it died of natural causes, should the lessee swear that it died a natural death and the borrower pay the renter? Rebbi Abinna said, if they ate it, they ate their own property. “Rebbi Yose said, how can this one treat another person’s cow as his merchandise? But [the value of] the cow shall be returned to its owner.”

HALAKHAH: “If somebody lease a cow from another person,” etc. But does he have permission to lend it? Did not Rebbi Ḥiyya state: “The borrower cannot lend, nor the lessee lease, nor the borrower lease, nor the lessee lend, unless he received permission from the owners.” Rebbi La said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: Only if he gave permission to lease. And here, only if he gave permission to let him be a steward. Rebbi Abbahu asked: If the owners borrowed it and it died of natural causes, should the lessee swear that it died a natural death and the borrower pay the renter? Rebbi Abinna said, if they ate it, they ate their own property. “Rebbi Yose said, how can this one treat another person’s cow as his merchandise? But [the value of] the cow shall be returned to its owner.”

HALAKHAH: “Somebody borrowed a cow,” etc. What is the status of the night in between? Some say, usually cows rest at their owners’, and this one, because it is leased to him, stays overnight and is as if loaned to him; he is liable. But some say, usually cows do not rest at their owners’, and this one is as if being leased to him; he is not liable.

HALAKHAH: “Somebody borrowed a cow,” etc. What is the status of the night in between? Some say, usually cows rest at their owners’, and this one, because it is leased to him, stays overnight and is as if loaned to him; he is liable. But some say, usually cows do not rest at their owners’, and this one is as if being leased to him; he is not liable.

Lend me your cow and I shall respond to your request; lend me your cow and come work with me; lend me your axe and come weed with me; lend me your plate and come eat with me. If he borrowed it from the superintendent of cisterns, the steward, or the administrator and it died, it is as if the owners were with it.

MISHNAH: Condominium owners who want to make a separation in the courtyard build the wall in the middle. At a place where commonly one builds with unhewn stones, or hewn stones, or half-bricks, or bricks, everything follows local custom. For unhewn stones, each partner gives three handbreadths. For hewn stones, each gives two and one half handbreadths. For half-bricks, each gives two handbreadths. For bricks, each gives one and a half handbreadths. Therefore, if the wall collapsed the place and the stones belong to both of them.

HALAKHAH: “Condominium owners who want to make a separation,” etc. As we have stated there: “One does not subdivide a courtyard unless each party has four cubits.” They said, there if the two parties do not agree. But here if both parties agree. And you may even say, here if the two parties do not agree. If this one wishes, one forces the other; if the other one wishes, one forces this one. Rebbi Joḥanan said, one forces for courtyards; one does not force for roofs. Rebbi Nasa wanted to say, in case of a courtyard which is higher than the roof. But in case of a roof which is higher than the courtyard, one forces. Rebbi Joḥanan wanted to say, in case of a courtyard which is higher than the roof one forces. But in case of a roof which is higher than the courtyard, one does not force.

Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Banaiah. Everything the co-owners can prevent one another from doing in the courtyard except laundering because of the honor of the daughters of Israel. Rebbi Mattaniah said, this is at a place where women do the laundering, but not at a place where men do the laundering. And what was said, except laundering because of the honor of the daughters of Israel, only that in his own four cubits he may prevent it. And what was said, everything the co-owners can prevent one another from doing in the courtyard, in the entire courtyard except in the other person’s own four cubits where he cannot prevent him. But if the place was at an incline, even in the other person’s own four cubits he can prevent him, since he may tell him: you are pouring out in your domain but it flows down into mine.

Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Banaiah. Everything the co-owners can prevent one another from doing in the courtyard except laundering because of the honor of the daughters of Israel. Rebbi Mattaniah said, this is at a place where women do the laundering, but not at a place where men do the laundering. And what was said, except laundering because of the honor of the daughters of Israel, only that in his own four cubits he may prevent it. And what was said, everything the co-owners can prevent one another from doing in the courtyard, in the entire courtyard except in the other person’s own four cubits where he cannot prevent him. But if the place was at an incline, even in the other person’s own four cubits he can prevent him, since he may tell him: you are pouring out in your domain but it flows down into mine.

MISHNAH: A pigeon chick which is found within 50 cubits belongs to the owner of the dovecote; farther away than 50 cubits it belongs to its finder. If it was found between two dovecotes, if it is closer to one of them, it belongs to it; in the middle, both [owners] shall split evenly.

HALAKHAH: “The following count for a claim of undisturbed possession,” etc. Rebbi Eleazar said, co-owners usually permit chickens to one another. Rebbi Yose said, a Mishnah says otherwise: “Both of them are forbidden to put up there a grindstone or an oven, or to raise chickens there.” Rebbi Eleazar said, if somebody raised chickens in a courtyard which is not his, it is taking in possession. Rebbi Yose said, this is correct. As you take it, if he has permission to raise chickens there, he raises them. If he does not have permission to raise, it would be legally taking in possession.

Rebbi explained it by a parable; to what can this be compared? To two brothers, co-owners who left Egypt. One had nine sons, the other a single son. They inherited ten bet kor. Each of them takes a letekh. They return it to their fathers and then split. It turns out that the single son takes half and the sons of the other take half.

Rebbi Dositheos ben Jehudah explained it by a parable; to what can this be compared? To two brothers, Cohanim and co-owners who stood by a threshing floor; one had nine sons and the other had one. They took (the area of) ten qab. They returned it to their father and split. It turns out that the son of one takes half and the sons of the other take half.

Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said: One divides for the underaged because of the adults. But if the underaged found something additional and protested? Rebbi Abbahu said, they have to swear for them. Rebbi Mana said, everywhere the burden of proof is on the claimant except in this case. The Great Rebbi Ḥiyya says, without contract brothers are co-owners up to three generations. Rebbi [Yose] bar Abun said, also Rav Hamnuna did instruct in this sense.

What is a thief and what is a robber? Rebbi Hila said, if he stole in the presence of witnesses, he is a thief, in the presence of the owners he is a robber. Rebbi Ze`ura asked: but if he intended to rob in front of its owners, he is not a robber. What is a robber according to Rebbi Ze`ura? Rebbi Samuel ben Sosarta in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: only if he rob in the presence of ten people. The prototype for all these: He robbed the spear from the hand of the Egyptian and killed him with his own spear.

What is a thief and what is a robber? Rebbi Hila said, if he stole in the presence of witnesses, he is a thief, in the presence of the owners he is a robber. Rebbi Ze`ura asked: but if he intended to rob in front of its owners, he is not a robber. What is a robber according to Rebbi Ze`ura? Rebbi Samuel ben Sosarta in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: only if he rob in the presence of ten people. The prototype for all these: He robbed the spear from the hand of the Egyptian and killed him with his own spear.

The words of the Sages are like goads; Rebbi Huna said, like a pearl. There, they call a pearl dirah. Another explanation, like goads, like a girl’s ball. Just as this ball is caught from hand to hand but in the end will come to rest in one hand, so “Moses received the Torah from Sinai and transmitted it to Joshua, Joshua to the Elders, the Elders to the Prophets, and the Prophets transmitted it to the Men of the Great Assembly.” Another explanation, like goads. It has three names, mardea`, da̅rva̅n, malmad. Mardea`, because it teaches knowledge to the cow. Da̅reva̅n, because it plants understanding in the cow. Malmad, because it teaches the cow to plough, to keep its owners alive. Rebbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina said, if a person makes a goad for his cow, certainly [he has to make one] for his bad inclinations which will remove him from this world and the World to Come.

What is a thief and what is a robber? Rebbi Hila said, if he stole in the presence of witnesses, he is a thief, in the presence of the owners he is a robber. Rebbi Zeˋira asked: but if he intended to rob (for copulation), he is not a robber. What is a robber according to Rebbi Zeˋira? Rebbi Samuel ben Sosarta in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: only if he rob in the presence of ten people. The prototype for all these: He robbed the spear from the hand of the Egyptian, etc.

It was said, if its owners were with him, he does not have to pay. Does he have to swear? Rebbi Ze`ira said, he swears. Rebbi Ḥanina and Rebbi La both are saying, he does not swear. A baraita supports Rebbi Ḥanina and Rebbi La: “Breakage, abduction, and death for which he is not liable in the cases of the paid keeper and the renter, and the borrower with the owner is not liable, without the owner is liable; loss and theft where the paid keeper and the renter are liable, is it not that a fortiori the borrower be not liable with the owner but liable without the owner?” For him who says it is obvious that he swears, should he not have to pay? Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of Rebbi Yudan: A baraita supports Rebbi Ze`ira. “The borrower, for whom the Torah was restrictive, with the owner is not liable, without the owner is liable; the paid keeper, for whom the Torah was lenient, a fortiori with the owner should not be liable, without the owner should be liable.” If you are saying, his problem was swearing, he should have stated “the paid keeper and the renter.” That means he only needs it for payment. It is difficult for Rebbi Ze`ira: the borrower swears if the owner was with him; if the owner was not with him he must pay. The unpaid keeper swears, whether the owner was with him or was not with him. You are saying that where the borrower pays the paid keeper swears. Where the paid keeper swears, the unpaid keeper should not be liable. Where the paid keeper pays, the unpaid keeper swears. What do you state about an unpaid keeper when the owner be with him? But some are asking, what do you state about an unpaid and a paid keeper, whether or not the owner be with him? Rebbi Abin said, any word of criminality. Rebbi Mana said, do we not find that the Torah treated loss and theft equally for the borrower? Therefore, we shall treat breakage, abduction, and death equally both for the unpaid and the paid keepers.

Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Eleazar. One says because he diminishes its volume, the other says because he reduces the number of drinkers. We do not know who said what. Since Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Jehudah inverted his reasoning but Rebbi Eleazar said, it was not inverted, there for the Cohen, here for the owners, it follows that Rebbi Joḥanan said because he reduces the number of drinkers.

"Vine" — it requires a fourth [of a Log] of wine for a Nazirite. "Fig-tree" — to carry as much as a dried fig [from a private to a public court or vice versa] constitutes a breach of the Sabbath. "Pomegranate" — as we have the Mishnaic teaching : The vessels of house-owners

It makes sense, to say before the owner's despair: "A person, when he brings from his," said the Merciful one, and it (the stolen animal) is not his. But after the owner's despair- hasn't he taken ownership when the owner despaired? Rather, it is for the reason that it is for him a commandment that is fulfilled through a transgression.

It makes sense, to say before the owner's despair: "A person, when he brings from his," said the Merciful one, and it (the stolen animal) is not his. But after the owner's despair- hasn't he taken ownership when the owner despaired? Rather, it is for the reason that it is for him a commandment that is fulfilled through a transgression.

(Rava said), Really, [the Mishnah applies] on the first day of the holiday, and we do not need to state [the other case of a borrowed Lulav]. We do not need to state [the law about a] borrowed Lulav [being invalid], for it is not his. However, [with a] stolen [Lulav], I say that outright robbery includes the despair of the [original] owners, and so it resembles being his. We can learn from this [the halakha].

And land cannot be stolen. Therefore, make them cut [the Hadasim], so that there will be the despair of owners in their hands, and the change of ownership in your hands.