pairs

For wheresoever any name is repeated twice over, a distinction is made (between them), as when it is said, Gen. xxii. 11, “Abraham, Abraham;” also, Gen. xlvi. 2, “Jacob, Jacob;” also, 1 Sam. iii. 10, “Samuel, Samuel;” where, by the Psig accent, these pairs of names are distinguished; excepting that place, Exod. iii. 4, “Moses, Moses,” where no accent interveneth.

It happened that Rabbi Shimon of Mitzpah planted his field [with two different kinds] and came before Rabban Gamaliel. They both went up to the Chamber of Hewn Stone and asked [about the law]. Nahum the scribe said: I have a tradition from Rabbi Meyasha, who received it from Abba, who received it from the pairs [of sages], who received it from the prophets, a halakhah of Moses from Sinai, that one who plants his field with two species of wheat, if he makes up of it one threshing-floor, he gives only one peah, but if two threshing-floors, he gives two peahs.

One who finds tefillin should bring them in one pair at a time. Rabban Gamaliel says: two pairs at a time. To what does this apply? To old ones but in the case of new ones he is exempt. If he found them arranged in a set or in bundles he shall wait by them until it is dark and then bring them in. In a time of danger, he should cover them and walk away.

It happened that more than forty pairs of witnesses were on their way [to Jerusalem] and Rabbi Akiva detained them in Lod. Rabban Gamaliel sent to him saying: if you prevent the multitude [from coming to provide testimony] it will turn out that you cause them to stumble in the future.

How do they test the witnesses? The pair which arrives first, they test them first. They bring in the older of them and they say to him, “Tell us, how did you see the moon in front of the sun or behind the sun? To the north of it or to the south? How high was it, and in which direction was it inclined? And how broad was it?” If he says [he saw it] in front of the sun, his evidence is rejected. After that they would bring in the second and test him. If their accounts were the same, their evidence was accepted. And the other pairs were only questioned briefly, not because they were required at all, but so that they should not go out disappointed, so that they would be regular in coming [to testify].

If a man stole [an ox or a sheep] according to the evidence of two witnesses, and killed or sold it according to their evidence, and they are found to be false witnesses, they must pay the whole penalty. If he stole it according to the evidence of two witnesses, and killed it or sold it according to the evidence of two others, and both pairs are found to be false witnesses, the first pay twofold restitution and the last pay threefold restitution. If the second [only] were found to be false witnesses, the thief must make twofold restitution and they threefold restitution. If one of the second set of witnesses was found to be a false witness, the evidence of the other is void. If one of the first set of witnesses was found to be a false witness, the entire evidence is void, since if there is no evidence for stealing there is no evidence for slaughtering or selling.

If they find him not guilty, he is discharged, if not, it [the trial] is adjourned till the following day. During this time they [the judges] go about in pairs, practice moderation in food, drink no wine the whole day, and discuss the case throughout the night. Early next morning they reassemble in court. He who is in favor of acquittal states, ‘I declare him innocent and I stand by my opinion.’ While he who is in favor of condemnation says: ‘I declare him guilty and stand by my opinion.’ One who [previously] argued for conviction may now argue for acquittal, but one who [previously] argued for acquittal may not now argue for conviction. If they have made any mistake, the two judges’ scribes are to remind them. If they find him not guilty, they discharge him. If not, they take a vote. If twelve acquit and eleven condemn, he is acquitted. If twelve condemn and eleven acquit, or if eleven condemn and eleven acquit and one says, ‘I do not know,’ or even if twenty-two acquit or condemn and a single one says, ‘I do not know,’ they add to the judges. Up to what number is the court increased? By twos up to the limit of seventy-one. If thirty-six acquit and thirty-five condemn, he is acquitted. But if thirty-six condemn and thirty-five acquit, the two sides debate the case together until one of those who condemn agrees with the view of those who are for acquittal.

If two [lambs] came out at the same time, he counts them in pairs. If he counted [the two] as one, the ninth and the tenth are spoiled. If the ninth and the tenth came out at the same time, the ninth and the tenth are spoiled. If he called the ninth the tenth, the tenth the ninth and the eleventh the tenth, all three are holy: the ninth can be eaten when it becomes blemished, the tenth is the tithe and the eleventh is sacrificed as a shelamim, and it can make a substitute, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah said: can one substitute make another substitute? They said in the name of Rabbi Meir: if it were a substitute, it would not have been sacrificed. If he called the ninth the tenth, the tenth the tenth and the eleventh the tenth, the eleventh is not holy. The following is the rule: wherever the name of the tenth [animal] has not been taken away from it, the eleventh is not consecrated.

When is this so? When obligatory offerings [get mixed up] with voluntary offerings. When, however, obligatory offerings get mixed up one with another, with one [pair] belonging to one [woman] and the other pair to another [woman], or two [pairs] belonging to one and two [pairs] to another, or three [pairs] to one and three [pairs] to another, then half of these are valid and the other half disqualified. If one [pair] belongs to one [woman] and two pairs to another, or three pairs to another, or ten pairs to another or one hundred to another, only the lesser number remains valid. Whether they are of the same denomination or of two denominations, or whether they belong to one woman or to two.

When is this so? When obligatory offerings [get mixed up] with voluntary offerings. When, however, obligatory offerings get mixed up one with another, with one [pair] belonging to one [woman] and the other pair to another [woman], or two [pairs] belonging to one and two [pairs] to another, or three [pairs] to one and three [pairs] to another, then half of these are valid and the other half disqualified. If one [pair] belongs to one [woman] and two pairs to another, or three pairs to another, or ten pairs to another or one hundred to another, only the lesser number remains valid. Whether they are of the same denomination or of two denominations, or whether they belong to one woman or to two.

When is this so? When obligatory offerings [get mixed up] with voluntary offerings. When, however, obligatory offerings get mixed up one with another, with one [pair] belonging to one [woman] and the other pair to another [woman], or two [pairs] belonging to one and two [pairs] to another, or three [pairs] to one and three [pairs] to another, then half of these are valid and the other half disqualified. If one [pair] belongs to one [woman] and two pairs to another, or three pairs to another, or ten pairs to another or one hundred to another, only the lesser number remains valid. Whether they are of the same denomination or of two denominations, or whether they belong to one woman or to two.

When is this so? When obligatory offerings [get mixed up] with voluntary offerings. When, however, obligatory offerings get mixed up one with another, with one [pair] belonging to one [woman] and the other pair to another [woman], or two [pairs] belonging to one and two [pairs] to another, or three [pairs] to one and three [pairs] to another, then half of these are valid and the other half disqualified. If one [pair] belongs to one [woman] and two pairs to another, or three pairs to another, or ten pairs to another or one hundred to another, only the lesser number remains valid. Whether they are of the same denomination or of two denominations, or whether they belong to one woman or to two.

When is this so? When obligatory offerings [get mixed up] with voluntary offerings. When, however, obligatory offerings get mixed up one with another, with one [pair] belonging to one [woman] and the other pair to another [woman], or two [pairs] belonging to one and two [pairs] to another, or three [pairs] to one and three [pairs] to another, then half of these are valid and the other half disqualified. If one [pair] belongs to one [woman] and two pairs to another, or three pairs to another, or ten pairs to another or one hundred to another, only the lesser number remains valid. Whether they are of the same denomination or of two denominations, or whether they belong to one woman or to two.

When is this so? When obligatory offerings [get mixed up] with voluntary offerings. When, however, obligatory offerings get mixed up one with another, with one [pair] belonging to one [woman] and the other pair to another [woman], or two [pairs] belonging to one and two [pairs] to another, or three [pairs] to one and three [pairs] to another, then half of these are valid and the other half disqualified. If one [pair] belongs to one [woman] and two pairs to another, or three pairs to another, or ten pairs to another or one hundred to another, only the lesser number remains valid. Whether they are of the same denomination or of two denominations, or whether they belong to one woman or to two.

When is this so? When obligatory offerings [get mixed up] with voluntary offerings. When, however, obligatory offerings get mixed up one with another, with one [pair] belonging to one [woman] and the other pair to another [woman], or two [pairs] belonging to one and two [pairs] to another, or three [pairs] to one and three [pairs] to another, then half of these are valid and the other half disqualified. If one [pair] belongs to one [woman] and two pairs to another, or three pairs to another, or ten pairs to another or one hundred to another, only the lesser number remains valid. Whether they are of the same denomination or of two denominations, or whether they belong to one woman or to two.

How is this so? Two women, this one has two pairs and this one has two pairs, and one bird flies from the [pair of] one to the other [woman's pair], then it disqualifies by its escape one [of the birds from which it flew]. If it returned, it disqualifies yet another by its return. If it flew away again and then returned, and again flew away and returned, no further loss is incurred, since even if they had all become mixed together, not less than two [pairs would still be valid].

How is this so? Two women, this one has two pairs and this one has two pairs, and one bird flies from the [pair of] one to the other [woman's pair], then it disqualifies by its escape one [of the birds from which it flew]. If it returned, it disqualifies yet another by its return. If it flew away again and then returned, and again flew away and returned, no further loss is incurred, since even if they had all become mixed together, not less than two [pairs would still be valid].

How is this so? Two women, this one has two pairs and this one has two pairs, and one bird flies from the [pair of] one to the other [woman's pair], then it disqualifies by its escape one [of the birds from which it flew]. If it returned, it disqualifies yet another by its return. If it flew away again and then returned, and again flew away and returned, no further loss is incurred, since even if they had all become mixed together, not less than two [pairs would still be valid].

If one [woman] had one pair, another two, another three, another four, another five, another six and another seven pairs, and one bird flew from the first to the second pair, [and then a bird flew from there] to the third, [and then a bird flew from there] to the fourth, [and from there a bird flew] to the fifth [and from there a bird flew] to the sixth, [and from there a bird flew] to the seventh, and then a bird returns [in the same order as they flew away] it disqualifies at each flight and at each return. The first and second [women] have none left, the third has one pair, the fourth two, the fifth three, the sixth four, and the seventh six pairs. If again [one from each group] flew away and returned [in the same order as above], it disqualifies at each flight and return. The third and fourth woman have none left, the fifth has one pair, the sixth two pairs, and the seventh woman five pairs. If again one [from each group] flew away and returned [in the same order as above], it disqualifies at each flight and return. The fifth and sixth women have none left, and the seventh has four pairs. But some say that the seventh woman has lost nothing. If [a bird] from those that are left to die escaped to any of all the groups, then all must be left to die.

If one [woman] had one pair, another two, another three, another four, another five, another six and another seven pairs, and one bird flew from the first to the second pair, [and then a bird flew from there] to the third, [and then a bird flew from there] to the fourth, [and from there a bird flew] to the fifth [and from there a bird flew] to the sixth, [and from there a bird flew] to the seventh, and then a bird returns [in the same order as they flew away] it disqualifies at each flight and at each return. The first and second [women] have none left, the third has one pair, the fourth two, the fifth three, the sixth four, and the seventh six pairs. If again [one from each group] flew away and returned [in the same order as above], it disqualifies at each flight and return. The third and fourth woman have none left, the fifth has one pair, the sixth two pairs, and the seventh woman five pairs. If again one [from each group] flew away and returned [in the same order as above], it disqualifies at each flight and return. The fifth and sixth women have none left, and the seventh has four pairs. But some say that the seventh woman has lost nothing. If [a bird] from those that are left to die escaped to any of all the groups, then all must be left to die.

If one [woman] had one pair, another two, another three, another four, another five, another six and another seven pairs, and one bird flew from the first to the second pair, [and then a bird flew from there] to the third, [and then a bird flew from there] to the fourth, [and from there a bird flew] to the fifth [and from there a bird flew] to the sixth, [and from there a bird flew] to the seventh, and then a bird returns [in the same order as they flew away] it disqualifies at each flight and at each return. The first and second [women] have none left, the third has one pair, the fourth two, the fifth three, the sixth four, and the seventh six pairs. If again [one from each group] flew away and returned [in the same order as above], it disqualifies at each flight and return. The third and fourth woman have none left, the fifth has one pair, the sixth two pairs, and the seventh woman five pairs. If again one [from each group] flew away and returned [in the same order as above], it disqualifies at each flight and return. The fifth and sixth women have none left, and the seventh has four pairs. But some say that the seventh woman has lost nothing. If [a bird] from those that are left to die escaped to any of all the groups, then all must be left to die.

If one [woman] had one pair, another two, another three, another four, another five, another six and another seven pairs, and one bird flew from the first to the second pair, [and then a bird flew from there] to the third, [and then a bird flew from there] to the fourth, [and from there a bird flew] to the fifth [and from there a bird flew] to the sixth, [and from there a bird flew] to the seventh, and then a bird returns [in the same order as they flew away] it disqualifies at each flight and at each return. The first and second [women] have none left, the third has one pair, the fourth two, the fifth three, the sixth four, and the seventh six pairs. If again [one from each group] flew away and returned [in the same order as above], it disqualifies at each flight and return. The third and fourth woman have none left, the fifth has one pair, the sixth two pairs, and the seventh woman five pairs. If again one [from each group] flew away and returned [in the same order as above], it disqualifies at each flight and return. The fifth and sixth women have none left, and the seventh has four pairs. But some say that the seventh woman has lost nothing. If [a bird] from those that are left to die escaped to any of all the groups, then all must be left to die.

If one [woman] had one pair, another two, another three, another four, another five, another six and another seven pairs, and one bird flew from the first to the second pair, [and then a bird flew from there] to the third, [and then a bird flew from there] to the fourth, [and from there a bird flew] to the fifth [and from there a bird flew] to the sixth, [and from there a bird flew] to the seventh, and then a bird returns [in the same order as they flew away] it disqualifies at each flight and at each return. The first and second [women] have none left, the third has one pair, the fourth two, the fifth three, the sixth four, and the seventh six pairs. If again [one from each group] flew away and returned [in the same order as above], it disqualifies at each flight and return. The third and fourth woman have none left, the fifth has one pair, the sixth two pairs, and the seventh woman five pairs. If again one [from each group] flew away and returned [in the same order as above], it disqualifies at each flight and return. The fifth and sixth women have none left, and the seventh has four pairs. But some say that the seventh woman has lost nothing. If [a bird] from those that are left to die escaped to any of all the groups, then all must be left to die.

When are these words said? When the priest asks advice. But in the case of a priest who does not seek advice, and one [pair] belongs to one [woman] and one to another, or two [pairs] to one and two to another, or three [pairs] to one and three to another, and he offered all of them above [the red line], then half are valid and half are invalid. [Similarly], if [he offered] all of them below, half are valid and half are invalid. If [he offered] half of them above and half of them below, then of those [offered] above, half are valid and half are invalid, and also of those [offered] below, half are valid and half are invalid.

When are these words said? When the priest asks advice. But in the case of a priest who does not seek advice, and one [pair] belongs to one [woman] and one to another, or two [pairs] to one and two to another, or three [pairs] to one and three to another, and he offered all of them above [the red line], then half are valid and half are invalid. [Similarly], if [he offered] all of them below, half are valid and half are invalid. If [he offered] half of them above and half of them below, then of those [offered] above, half are valid and half are invalid, and also of those [offered] below, half are valid and half are invalid.

If one [pair] belonged to one woman and two [pairs] to another, or [even] three [pairs] to another, or [ten] pairs to another or a hundred to another, and he offered all of them above, then half are valid and half are invalid. [Similarly], if he offered all of them below, half are valid and half are invalid. [If he offered] half of them above and half below, then the [number of birds as there is in the] larger part are valid. This is the general principle: whenever you can divide the pairs [of birds] so that those belonging to one woman need not have part of them [offered] above and part [offered] below, then half of them are valid and half are invalid; But whenever you cannot divide the pairs [of birds] without some of those belonging to one woman being [offered] above and some below, then [the number as there is in] the larger part are valid.

If one [pair] belonged to one woman and two [pairs] to another, or [even] three [pairs] to another, or [ten] pairs to another or a hundred to another, and he offered all of them above, then half are valid and half are invalid. [Similarly], if he offered all of them below, half are valid and half are invalid. [If he offered] half of them above and half below, then the [number of birds as there is in the] larger part are valid. This is the general principle: whenever you can divide the pairs [of birds] so that those belonging to one woman need not have part of them [offered] above and part [offered] below, then half of them are valid and half are invalid; But whenever you cannot divide the pairs [of birds] without some of those belonging to one woman being [offered] above and some below, then [the number as there is in] the larger part are valid.

If one [pair] belonged to one woman and two [pairs] to another, or [even] three [pairs] to another, or [ten] pairs to another or a hundred to another, and he offered all of them above, then half are valid and half are invalid. [Similarly], if he offered all of them below, half are valid and half are invalid. [If he offered] half of them above and half below, then the [number of birds as there is in the] larger part are valid. This is the general principle: whenever you can divide the pairs [of birds] so that those belonging to one woman need not have part of them [offered] above and part [offered] below, then half of them are valid and half are invalid; But whenever you cannot divide the pairs [of birds] without some of those belonging to one woman being [offered] above and some below, then [the number as there is in] the larger part are valid.

If one [pair] belonged to one woman and two [pairs] to another, or [even] three [pairs] to another, or [ten] pairs to another or a hundred to another, and he offered all of them above, then half are valid and half are invalid. [Similarly], if he offered all of them below, half are valid and half are invalid. [If he offered] half of them above and half below, then the [number of birds as there is in the] larger part are valid. This is the general principle: whenever you can divide the pairs [of birds] so that those belonging to one woman need not have part of them [offered] above and part [offered] below, then half of them are valid and half are invalid; But whenever you cannot divide the pairs [of birds] without some of those belonging to one woman being [offered] above and some below, then [the number as there is in] the larger part are valid.

If one [pair] belonged to one woman and two [pairs] to another, or [even] three [pairs] to another, or [ten] pairs to another or a hundred to another, and he offered all of them above, then half are valid and half are invalid. [Similarly], if he offered all of them below, half are valid and half are invalid. [If he offered] half of them above and half below, then the [number of birds as there is in the] larger part are valid. This is the general principle: whenever you can divide the pairs [of birds] so that those belonging to one woman need not have part of them [offered] above and part [offered] below, then half of them are valid and half are invalid; But whenever you cannot divide the pairs [of birds] without some of those belonging to one woman being [offered] above and some below, then [the number as there is in] the larger part are valid.

If a woman says: "I vow a pair of birds if I give birth to a male child," and she does give birth to a male child, then she must offer up two pairs one for her vow and one for her obligation. If [before she assigned them] she gave them to the priest, and the priest who ought to offer three birds above and one below does not do so, but offers two above and two below, and does not seek guidance, she must she bring another bird and offer that above. This is so if the birds were of the same kind. If they were of two kinds, then must she bring two others. If she had expressly defined her vow, then must she bring three other birds. This is so if the birds were of the same kind. If they were of two kinds, then must she bring four others. If she made a definite fixture at the time of her vow, then must she bring another five birds. This is so if the birds were of the same kind. If they were of two kinds, then must she bring six others. If she gave them to the priest and it is not known what she gave, and the priest performed the sacrifice, but it is not known how he performed it, then she must bring four other birds for her vow, and two for her obligation and one for her hatat. Ben Azzai says: [she must bring] two hatats. Rabbi Joshua said: This is what it meant when they said: "When [the beast] is alive it possesses one sound, but when it is dead its sound is sevenfold." In what way is its sound sevenfold? Its two horns [are made into] two trumpets, its two leg-bones into two flutes, its hide into a drum, its entrails for lyres and its large intestines for harp strings; and there are some who add that its wool is used for the blue [pomegranates.] Rabbi Shimon ben Akashiah says: ignorant old people, the older they become, the more their intellect gets befuddled, as it is said: "He removes the speech of men of trust and takes away the sense of the elders." But when it comes to aged scholars, it is not so. On the contrary, the older they get, the more their mind becomes composed, as it is said: "With aged men comes wisdom, and understanding in length of days."

MISHNAH: He who sows one species on his field gives one peah even though he works at two different threshing floors. If he sows two species, he gives two peot even though he threshes them together. He who sows two different kinds of wheat on his field gives one peah if he processes them together, two peot if he threshes them separately. It happened that Rebbi Simeon from Miẓpah sowed before Rabban Gamliel; they ascended to the stone hall and asked. Naḥum the scribe said: I have the tradition from Rebbi Miasha, who received it from my father, who received it from the pairs, who received if from the prophets, a practice going back to Moses on Sinai, that he who sows two different kinds of wheat on his field gives one peah if he stores them together, two peot if he stores them separately.

Rebbi Yosa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: All of these form pairs. Has that been said for the entire Chapter, or only for this Halakhah? From what Rav said, that the five vegetables with which one may satisfy one’s obligation at Passover time can all be sown in one vegetable bed, and one says that the statement of Rav disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan, it follows that it has been said for the entire Chapter. Rav Abba in the name of Rav: All have been stated in pairs. The reasoning of Rav is inverted; there he says that they all constitute one kind, and here, he says so? No, Rav did not say that they all constitute one kind, but rather that they all are kinds of vegetables that may be sown in one vegetable bed.

Rebbi Yosa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: All of these form pairs. Has that been said for the entire Chapter, or only for this Halakhah? From what Rav said, that the five vegetables with which one may satisfy one’s obligation at Passover time can all be sown in one vegetable bed, and one says that the statement of Rav disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan, it follows that it has been said for the entire Chapter. Rav Abba in the name of Rav: All have been stated in pairs. The reasoning of Rav is inverted; there he says that they all constitute one kind, and here, he says so? No, Rav did not say that they all constitute one kind, but rather that they all are kinds of vegetables that may be sown in one vegetable bed.

HALAKHAH: “Rue, wild amaranth,” etc. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, the colleagues did not know what סירוגין, חלגלוגות means and “who is superior, in wisdom or in years.” They said, let us go and ask somebody from the house of Rebbi. They went to ask; a servant girl from the house of Rebbi came out and told them: enter in pairs. Each one said, that one should enter before me. As a result, they entered is separate groups. She said to them, why do you enter intermittently? One rabbi was carrying purslain in his overcoat; it fell from him. She said to him: Rabbi, rabbi, your purslain is dispersed.

HALAKHAH: Why did they decree about a nailed shoe? Some say, because they saw the tips and had miscarriages. But some say, they heard its sound and had miscarriages. And some say, they were stampeding and killing one another. What is the difference between them? הדוסטא. Accordig to him who said, because they saw the tips and had miscarriages, it is permitted. But according to him who said, they heard its sound and had miscarriages or they were stampeding and killing one another, it is forbidden. But did they not decree this in an emergency? When the emergency passed it should have been permitted. There never rose a court which undid it. Then even on a weekday! People do not usually have two pairs of shoes, one for weekdays and one for the Sabbath. It was stated: If one put a patch under it it is permitted. Rebbi Yudan bar Ismael’s feet were scratched and they did this for him.

Rebbi Yose said, so is the Mishnah: Only by pairs. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: Even by pairs. They wanted to say, in the rabbi’s opinion it is not clear; in Rabban Aḥa’s opinion it is clear. Could he not bring them in his hand? It is better to bring them as garment not as load. It is better to push the Sabbath away once not twice.

Rebbi Yose said, so is the Mishnah: Only by pairs. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: Even by pairs. They wanted to say, in the rabbi’s opinion it is not clear; in Rabban Aḥa’s opinion it is clear. Could he not bring them in his hand? It is better to bring them as garment not as load. It is better to push the Sabbath away once not twice.

“When has this been said? For used ones, but for new ones he is free.” Why? Old ones are checked, new ones are not checked. It was stated: One has to check tefillin once every twelve months, the words of Rebbi. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, they do not need checking. Hillel the Elder said, these are from my maternal grandfather. If he found two or three heaps, he checks the first pair of the first bundle; the same with the second or the third. Isaac ben Eleazar asked: Does one create a presumption for all of them or is each one of them for itself? If you are saying that one creates a presumption for all of them, he checks the first pair of the first heap. If you are saying that each one creates a presumption for itself, he checks three pairs from each heap.

If he drew lots for three pairs, to give from one between the beams, from one on the gobelins, from one on the golden altar. Which of them is sent away? Rebbi Zeˋira said, to atone on him, one with whom one atones, the companion is sent away; one with whom one does not atone, the companion is not sent away.. Rebbi Hila said, to atone on him, one with whom one completes atonement, the companion is sent away, one with whom one does not complete atonement, the companion is not sent away. In Rebbi Zeˋira’s opinion, all three are sent away. In Rebbi Hila’s opinion, only the last one is sent away.

If he drew lots for three pairs, to give from one between the beams, from one on the gobelins, from one on the golden altar. Which of them is sent away? Rebbi Zeˋira said, to atone on him, one with whom one atones, the companion is sent away; one with whom one does not atone, the companion is not sent away. Rebbi Hila said, to atone on him, one with whom one completes atonement, the companion is sent away, one with whom one does not complete atonement, the companion is not sent away. In Rebbi Zeˋira’s opinion, all three are sent away. In Rebbi Hila’s opinion, only the last one is sent away.

There grew two cedars on the Mount of Olives. Under one of them there were four shops selling in purity; from the other they were bringing 40 seah of pigeon chicks every single month and from there were providing all of Israel with nests. Mount Simon was producing 200 barrels of fig pieces every Friday. Why was it destroyed? Some say, because of whoring; but some say it was because they were playing ball. 10’000 towns were on King’s Mountain; Rebbi Eleazar ben Ḥarsom owned 1’000 of them, and correspondingly 1’000 ships on the Sea. And all of them were destroyed. Of three villages was the qtmos brought to Jerusalem in carts, Kabul, Shiḥin, and Magdala of the dyers All three were destroyed. Kabul because of quarrel, Sḥihin because of sorcery, and Magdala of the dyers because of whoring. Three villages of which each one was populated by twice the number of those leaving Egypt, the evil village, the cress village, and the boys’ village. Why was it called evil village? Because they did not receive travellers. Why was it called cress village? Because they were growing children like cress. Why was it called boys’ village? Because all their women gave birth to boys. If one of them never left from there she would not give birth to a girl. Rebbi Joḥanan said, 80 pairs of priestly brothers married 80 pairs of priestly sisters at Gufna in one night, not counting brothers but not sisters, sisters but not brothers, not counting Levites, not counting Israel. Rebbi Joḥanan said, in Magdala of the dyers there were 80 establishments of fustian. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, 80 stores selling in purity were in Kefar Imra. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, 80 metal shidda were in Shiḥin. Rebbi Yannai said, in our time was no shidda. Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Rav Ḥuna: Immer was the smallest of the watches, and it was producing 85’000 young priests.

There grew two cedars on the Mount of Olives. Under one of them there were four shops selling in purity; from the other they were bringing 40 seah of pigeon chicks every single month and from there were providing all of Israel with nests. Mount Simon was producing 200 barrels of fig pieces every Friday. Why was it destroyed? Some say, because of whoring; but some say it was because they were playing ball. 10’000 towns were on King’s Mountain; Rebbi Eleazar ben Ḥarsom owned 1’000 of them, and correspondingly 1’000 ships on the Sea. And all of them were destroyed. Of three villages was the qtmos brought to Jerusalem in carts, Kabul, Shiḥin, and Magdala of the dyers All three were destroyed. Kabul because of quarrel, Sḥihin because of sorcery, and Magdala of the dyers because of whoring. Three villages of which each one was populated by twice the number of those leaving Egypt, the evil village, the cress village, and the boys’ village. Why was it called evil village? Because they did not receive travellers. Why was it called cress village? Because they were growing children like cress. Why was it called boys’ village? Because all their women gave birth to boys. If one of them never left from there she would not give birth to a girl. Rebbi Joḥanan said, 80 pairs of priestly brothers married 80 pairs of priestly sisters at Gufna in one night, not counting brothers but not sisters, sisters but not brothers, not counting Levites, not counting Israel. Rebbi Joḥanan said, in Magdala of the dyers there were 80 establishments of fustian. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, 80 stores selling in purity were in Kefar Imra. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, 80 metal shidda were in Shiḥin. Rebbi Yannai said, in our time was no shidda. Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Rav Ḥuna: Immer was the smallest of the watches, and it was producing 85’000 young priests.

Rebbi Ḥaggai said, the colleagues did know neither what חֲלוֹגְלוּגוֹת ,סֵירוּגִין, means nor “who is superior, in wisdom or in years?” They said, let us go and ask in the house of Rebbi. They went to ask; a slave girl from the house of Rebbi came out and told them, enter in pairs. Each one said, that one should enter before me. They started to enter one by one. She said to them, why do you enter in סֵירוּגִין? One rabbi was carrying purslain; it fell from him. She said to him, Rabbi, your חֲלוֹגְלוּגוֹת are dispersed. She said to her, bring a broom; she brought a willow-broom.

“Hillel and Menaḥem did not disagree. Menaḥem left and Shammai entered.” Where did he leave to? Some are saying, from behavior he left to behavior. But some are saying, he left against his face, he and eighty pairs of students of the Sages, wearing golden tirqe, whose faces became black like the rim of a pot when they were told, write on a bull’s horn that you have no part in the God of Israel.

Mustachios and cutting fingernails. There are Tannaim who state, permitted on a holiday and forbidden in mourning. There are Tannaim who state, forbidden on a holiday and permitted in mourning. He who said permitted on a holiday, if there happens to be a holiday; and forbidden in mourning, if there is no holiday. He who said forbidden on a holiday, if it involves trickery; and permitted in mourning, without trickery. Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Rav: practice follows him who is lenient at both occasions. Rebbi Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: practice follows him who is lenient in the rules of mourning. Rav said, the lips follow cutting fingernails in all respects. Rebbi Jeremiah said, only if they interfere. Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: A pair came before Rebbi about lips and cutting fingernails and Rebbi permitted it to them. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: There were two pairs, one from Amatheh and one from Yedid-Aleh, one about lips and one about cutting fingernails, and Rebbi permitted to them. As the following. The sister of Rebbi Samuel bar Abba died and he was sitting cutting his fingernails. Rebbi Eleazar visited him and he did not cover them. Rebbi Nathan bar Abba visited him and he was covering them. He said to him, you did not cover them in front of Rebbi Eleazar; but in front of me you are covering them? He answered him, do you think that you are as dear to me as Rebbi Eleazar?

Hillel the Elder had eighty pairs of students. The greatest among them was Jonathan ben Uzziel, the least important Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai. Once he fell sick and all came to visit him. Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai waited in the courtyard. He said to them, where is the least important among you who is a head in wisdom and a head for generations? Unnecessary to speak of the greatest among you! They said, he is in the courtyard. He said to them, let him enter. When he entered, he said to them “to let my lovers inherit substance; their treasuries I shall fill.”

Why? Because he does not know them, or because he does not intend to ask them? What is the difference between them? If he obligated them in pairs of two. If you would say because he does not know them, he knows them. Therefore the reason only can be that he does not intend to ask them.

When Rabin came he said : Jannaeus the king had a tree on the king's mountain from which they took down forty Saot of young pigeons monthly from three broods. When R. Isaac came he said : There was a city in the land of Israel named Gofnit in which were eighty pairs of brothers of a priestly family married to eighty pairs of sisters of a priestly family ; and the Rabbis searched from Sura to Nehardea and could not find [a similar case] with the exception of the daughters of Rab Hisda who were married to Rammi b. Hamma and Mar 'Ukba b. Hamma ; but although the women belonged to a priestly family, the men did not.

When Rabin came he said : Jannaeus the king had a tree on the king's mountain from which they took down forty Saot of young pigeons monthly from three broods. When R. Isaac came he said : There was a city in the land of Israel named Gofnit in which were eighty pairs of brothers of a priestly family married to eighty pairs of sisters of a priestly family ; and the Rabbis searched from Sura to Nehardea and could not find [a similar case] with the exception of the daughters of Rab Hisda who were married to Rammi b. Hamma and Mar 'Ukba b. Hamma ; but although the women belonged to a priestly family, the men did not.

(throughout all Seder Mo'ed when these pairs are mentioned together [some] substitute the name of R. Yonatan for that of R. Yohanan),

The first of these several pairs were prince-presidents, and those second to them were vice-presidents.

Our Rabbis have taught, In the three former pairs, which say that a man is not to lay, and in the two latter pairs which say that a man is to lay, the first were prince-presidents and the second vice-presidents. These are the words of R. Meir. But wise men say, Jehudah ben Tabbai was vice-president, and Simeon ben Shetach was prince-president. Who is the author of that teaching? For the converse would appear to be the case, because our Rabbis have taught thus, viz., that R. Jehudah ben Tabbai said, May I see the consolation of Israel, if I have not slain a false witness so as to oppose the Sadducees, when they say, False witnesses are not put to death, until the condemned person shall have been put to death. Simeon ben Shetach said to him, May I see the consolation of Israel, if thou hast not shed innocent blood; for behold, wise men have said, False witnesses are not to be put to death, until they are both proved to be false, and they are not beaten, until they are both proved to be false, and they do not have to refund money, until they are both proved to be false. Forthwith Jehudah ben Tabbai undertook that he would not teach doctrine (Halachah) except in the presence of Simeon ben Shetach. All the days of Jehudah ben Tabbai he used to stretch himself upon the grave of the slain man, and his voice was heard, so that the people wondered, saying that it was the voice of the slain man. He said to them, It is my voice; know ye that tomorrow he will be dead, and his voice will not be heard. R. Acha bar Rabba said to R. Ashi, But perhaps he prayed him earnestly to forgive him, or perhaps he called him before the judgment seat. Who is the authority for this view? If thou sayest, It is all right according to R. Meir, who said, Simeon ben Shetach was vice-president, and R. Jehudah ben Tabbai was prince-president, this accords with his teaching doctrine in the presence of Simeon ben Shetach, but if thou sayest, Our Rabbis are right, who say, Jehudah ben Tabbai was vice-president, Simeon ben Shetach was prince-president, how should the vice-president teach doctrine in the presence of the prince-president? No, what is the meaning of "he undertook?" He spoke in reference not to teaching but to combination, Even if men combine, yet will I not combine.

Our Rabbis have taught, In the three former pairs, which say that a man is not to lay, and in the two latter pairs which say that a man is to lay, the first were prince-presidents and the second vice-presidents. These are the words of R. Meir. But wise men say, Jehudah ben Tabbai was vice-president, and Simeon ben Shetach was prince-president. Who is the author of that teaching? For the converse would appear to be the case, because our Rabbis have taught thus, viz., that R. Jehudah ben Tabbai said, May I see the consolation of Israel, if I have not slain a false witness so as to oppose the Sadducees, when they say, False witnesses are not put to death, until the condemned person shall have been put to death. Simeon ben Shetach said to him, May I see the consolation of Israel, if thou hast not shed innocent blood; for behold, wise men have said, False witnesses are not to be put to death, until they are both proved to be false, and they are not beaten, until they are both proved to be false, and they do not have to refund money, until they are both proved to be false. Forthwith Jehudah ben Tabbai undertook that he would not teach doctrine (Halachah) except in the presence of Simeon ben Shetach. All the days of Jehudah ben Tabbai he used to stretch himself upon the grave of the slain man, and his voice was heard, so that the people wondered, saying that it was the voice of the slain man. He said to them, It is my voice; know ye that tomorrow he will be dead, and his voice will not be heard. R. Acha bar Rabba said to R. Ashi, But perhaps he prayed him earnestly to forgive him, or perhaps he called him before the judgment seat. Who is the authority for this view? If thou sayest, It is all right according to R. Meir, who said, Simeon ben Shetach was vice-president, and R. Jehudah ben Tabbai was prince-president, this accords with his teaching doctrine in the presence of Simeon ben Shetach, but if thou sayest, Our Rabbis are right, who say, Jehudah ben Tabbai was vice-president, Simeon ben Shetach was prince-president, how should the vice-president teach doctrine in the presence of the prince-president? No, what is the meaning of "he undertook?" He spoke in reference not to teaching but to combination, Even if men combine, yet will I not combine.

Menahem went out, Shammai entered in, etc. Whither did he go out? Abai said, He went out to destruction. Rabba said, He went out for the service of the king. There is also a Baraitha to this effect, that Menahem went out for the service of the king, and there went out with him eighty pairs of disciples clothed in Syrian robes. R. Shemen bar Abba said that R. Jochanan said, Let the sabbath rest be by no means a light thing in thine eyes; for lo, the laying on of the hands is only prohibited on account of the Sabbath rest, and the great men of the nation were divided upon the matter. That is self-evident. But as this is a case of a Sabbath rest which clashes with a positive command, there was need of it. But this also is self-evident. It was to meet the objection of the person who says, In the matter of the laying on of the hands itself men are divided. We learn from this that it is in the matter of Sabbath rest that they are divided. Ramai bar Chama said, Learn hence that we require the laying on to be done with all one's strength, for if thou dost imagine that we do not require it to be done with all one's strength, how is the idea of work involved in the laying on of the hands? Some people adduce the passage, "Speak unto the sons of Israel ... and he shall lay his hand" (Lev. i. 2, 4). The sons of Israel lay on their hands, but the daughters of Israel do not lay on their hands. R. Jose and R. Ishmael say, Daughters of Israel lay on their hands by permission. R. Jose said, Abba El'azar related to me the following story: Once we had a calf belonging to the sacrifices of peace-offerings, and we brought it to the court of the women, and the women laid their hands upon it, not because the laying on of the hands belongs to women, but so as to gratify the women. And if thou dost imagine we require the laying on of the hands to be done with all one's strength, dost thou mean to say that in order to gratify women we introduced work into holy things? But do we not learn hence that we do not require it to be done with all one's strength? Nay, by all means I will grant you that we require it to be done with all one's strength. He said to them, Rest your hand upon it. If so, it was not because the laying on of the hands belongs to women that it was done. Thou mayest conclude that it has nothing at all to do with the nature of the laying on of the hand. R. Ami says, He is establishing two things; one that it has nothing at all to do with the nature of the laying on of the hands, and the other that it was done in order to gratify the women. Rab Papa said, Learn hence, Sides, and not the head only, are forbidden; for if thou dost imagine that sides are allowed, might they not lay hands on the sides? But no; learn hence that sides are forbidden.