paragraph

MISHNAH: On Sunday one reads, In the Beginning, there shall be a spread. On Monday, there shall be a spread, the waters shall come together. On Tuesday, the waters shall come together, there shall be lights. On Wednesday, there shall be lights, the water shall swarm. On Thursday, the water shall swarm, the earth shall produce. On Friday, the earth shall produce, the heavens and earth and all their hosts were finished. A large paragraph is read by two persons, and a small one by an individual in the morning and for musaf; for afternoon prayers they were assembling and read by heart as one reads the shema`. Friday afternoon they were not assembling because of the honor of Sabbath. On any day of hallel there is no bystanding for morning prayers, on a musaf sacrifice there is no ne`ilah; on an offering of wood there is none for the afternoon prayers, the words of Rebbi Aqiba. Ben Azzai said to him, so was Rebbi Joshua stating: on a musaf sacrifice there is none for the afternoon prayers; on an offering of wood no ne`ilah. Rebbi Aqiba changed to state following Ben Azzai’s words.

HALAKHAH: Rav Ḥuna said, three people reading in the Torah shall not do less than ten verses. Ḥizqiah said, corresponding to the Ten Commandments. But did we not state, “on Sunday, In the Beginning and there shall be a spread”? And these are only eight! Rebbi Idi said, Cahana and Assi disagreed. One said, he repeats. But the other said, he splits. He who says that he repeats, he repeats two verses. He who says he splits, he splits it was evening, it was morning, as a separate verse. But did we not state, “on Monday, there shall be a spread and the waters shall come together”? One said, he repeats. But the other said, he splits. He who says that he repeats, he repeats two verses. He who says he splits, he could not split. Rebbi Philippos ben Perita objected before Rebbi Ze`ira, is there not the paragraph about Amalek? He said to him, there is a difference since this is the topic of the day. Rebbi Eleazar from Merom asked before Rebbi Jonah; was it not stated, the one who reads the conclusion from Prophets should not do less than 21 verses?

Rebbi Levi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. The Holy One, praiuse to Him, saw that the evil Haman in the future would weigh his money against Israel. He said, it is better that my children’s money should precede this evil one’s money. Therefore one precedes and reads the paragraph about Šeqalim.

It was stated: Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, even Torah scrolls they only permitted to be written in Greek. They investigated and found that the Torah may be correctly translated only into Greek. A villager invented for them Aramaic from the Greek. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: Akylas the proselyte translated the Torah before Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Joshua; they praised him [and said to him], you are a superhuman beauty. Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazy said, Rebbi Joshua ben Levi asked, why do we not say there is a rule valid for Torah scrolls which does not apply to Tefillin and Mezuzot, in that Torah scrolls may be written on two sheets, but Tefillin and Mezuzot may only be written on single sheets. Rebbi Isaac the son of Rebbi Ḥiyya the scribe asked, a stronger question, in that Torah scrolls may be written on two hides, but Tefillin and Mezuzot may only be written on single hides. The colleagues said before Rebbi Mana, or should we say, one column of two different hides? Is that not stronger? He said to them, because even scrolls are not written in this way. One suspends in scrolls; one suspends neither in Tefillin nor in Mezuzot. One does not suspend in scrolls which were written as Tefillin and Mezuzot; one suspends in Tefillin and Mezuzot written as scrolls. Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Rebbi Immi: If he was writing אלא עם, if the paragraph was made in this way it is qualified, otherwise disqualified. Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Rebbi Immi bar Ḥinena: The script of scrolls is used as script of Tefillin and Mezuzot.

Rav Shesha the son of Rav Ḥananel said, one has to write ה below the knee joint of the ל, so you want to repay to the Eternal? In this way you want to repay to the Eternal? The Mezuzah. There are Tannaim who state, open; there are Tannaim who state, closed. Samuel bar Shilat in the name of Rav: Practice follows him who said open, since that is not its place. Open at the start is closed. Open at the bottom is open. Open on both sides is closed. If in error he omitted one verse, if it is two or three lines one repairs and reads from it; four one does not read from it. Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Rav Ḥananel, the same holds for a tear. It was stated, a scroll in which there are [two or three errors on every page one fixes and reads from it. Four one does not read from it. But was it not stated, a scroll in which there are] 85 errors, as the paragraph it was when the Ark travelled, one repairs and reads from it? Rebbi Shammai said, here in a large scroll, there in a small scroll. Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Rav Ḥananel, if he found in it one page which is whole, it saves everything. How? Whole in that there are (no) [not three] errors? Or whole that there are no four? Ḥagra the brother of Rebbi Abba bar Bina gave a Torah scroll to Rav Ḥananel who checked it. He said to him, this your Torah scroll needs prayer. At the end he found in it a page which was whole, which saved everything. How? Whole in that there are no errors? Or whole that there are no four?

HALAKHAH: It was stated: The Anointed Priest brings a bull, the one clothed in multiple garb does not bring a bull. This disagrees with Rebbi Meïr, for Rebbi Meïr said, the one clothed in multiple garb brings a bull. What is Rebbi Meïr’s reason? The Anointed. Why does the verse say priest? To add the one clothed in multiple garb. What is the rabbis’ reason? The anointed. I could think that this is the king. The verse says, priest. If priest, I could think the one clothed in multiple garb. The verse says, anointed. Then I could think that I am adding also the one anointed for war. The verse says, Anointed; one who has no anointed person over him. The argument of the rabbis seems inverted. Here is written anointed and there is written anointed. Here they say, to include the one clothed in multiple garb. But here they say, to exclude the one clothed in multiple garb. Rebbi Hila said, each inference refers to its meaning. There the entire paragraph is said for Aaron. Why is said priest? To include the one clothed in multiple garb. But here the paragraph does not mention Aaron. If it had said the Anointed but not priest, I would have said, [he brings a bull for forgetting a topic, but for acting in error he brings a goat. Therefore it is necessary that it would mention priest. But if it had mentioned priest but not the Anointed, I would have said,] this refers to the king. If you would say already this precedes the paragraph about the king, I would have said that for forgetting a topic he brings a bull but for acting in error he brings a goat. Therefore it is necessary that it mention the Anointed and that it mention priest.

HALAKHAH: It was stated: The Anointed Priest brings a bull, the one clothed in multiple garb does not bring a bull. This disagrees with Rebbi Meïr, for Rebbi Meïr said, the one clothed in multiple garb brings a bull. What is Rebbi Meïr’s reason? The Anointed. Why does the verse say priest? To add the one clothed in multiple garb. What is the rabbis’ reason? The anointed. I could think that this is the king. The verse says, priest. If priest, I could think the one clothed in multiple garb. The verse says, anointed. Then I could think that I am adding also the one anointed for war. The verse says, Anointed; one who has no anointed person over him. The argument of the rabbis seems inverted. Here is written anointed and there is written anointed. Here they say, to include the one clothed in multiple garb. But here they say, to exclude the one clothed in multiple garb. Rebbi Hila said, each inference refers to its meaning. There the entire paragraph is said for Aaron. Why is said priest? To include the one clothed in multiple garb. But here the paragraph does not mention Aaron. If it had said the Anointed but not priest, I would have said, [he brings a bull for forgetting a topic, but for acting in error he brings a goat. Therefore it is necessary that it would mention priest. But if it had mentioned priest but not the Anointed, I would have said,] this refers to the king. If you would say already this precedes the paragraph about the king, I would have said that for forgetting a topic he brings a bull but for acting in error he brings a goat. Therefore it is necessary that it mention the Anointed and that it mention priest.

HALAKHAH: It was stated: The Anointed Priest brings a bull, the one clothed in multiple garb does not bring a bull. This disagrees with Rebbi Meïr, for Rebbi Meïr said, the one clothed in multiple garb brings a bull. What is Rebbi Meïr’s reason? The Anointed. Why does the verse say priest? To add the one clothed in multiple garb. What is the rabbis’ reason? The anointed. I could think that this is the king. The verse says, priest. If priest, I could think the one clothed in multiple garb. The verse says, anointed. Then I could think that I am adding also the one anointed for war. The verse says, Anointed; one who has no anointed person over him. The argument of the rabbis seems inverted. Here is written anointed and there is written anointed. Here they say, to include the one clothed in multiple garb. But here they say, to exclude the one clothed in multiple garb. Rebbi Hila said, each inference refers to its meaning. There the entire paragraph is said for Aaron. Why is said priest? To include the one clothed in multiple garb. But here the paragraph does not mention Aaron. If it had said the Anointed but not priest, I would have said, [he brings a bull for forgetting a topic, but for acting in error he brings a goat. Therefore it is necessary that it would mention priest. But if it had mentioned priest but not the Anointed, I would have said,] this refers to the king. If you would say already this precedes the paragraph about the king, I would have said that for forgetting a topic he brings a bull but for acting in error he brings a goat. Therefore it is necessary that it mention the Anointed and that it mention priest.

It was stated in the name of Rebbi Simeon: “The community only brings what Scripture fixed for it.” Rebbi Simeon is of the opinion that since when Second Tithe was introduced it was not interrupted. What is between them? Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, the bull of hidden things is between them. Rebbi Yose says, voluntary offerings of the community are between them. It was stated, both men and women. Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is no woman here, “man” is written in the paragraph. It was stated, also a nazir’s sacrifices. Rebbi Joḥanan said, there are no nazir’s sacrifices here; nazir’s sacrifices are an obligation. It was stated, also libations. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, he who states “libations” does not hold with Rebbi, as it was stated, Rebbi says, I am saying that also after Israel entered the Land, libations only are brought inside. What is the reason? In the Sanctuary pour alcoholic libations to the Eternal. A prohibition is written only for inside; from where for the outside? Let us hear from the following. From where that one who slaughters as Pesah for an individual on a private altar or the public altar in a time where altars are forbidden, that he transgresses a prohibition? The verse says, you may not slaughter the Pesaḥ at one. He is punished with extirpation and you are saying so? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, this is about one who slaughters in the afternoon not for its name in a time when altars are permitted. Then why does he say, in a time when altars are forbidden? In a time when his altar is forbidden. Why not for its name? That you should not say, it is well-being offering and qualified. In addition, from the following: I could think that if he slaughtered it in the afternoon it should be qualified. Why do you have (in the afternoon it should be qualified) [in the morning it should be disqualified]? No. It is not for its name. Rebbi Yose said, this implies that well-being sacrifices brought because of Pesaḥ are qualified on an altar. Would an elevation offering be brought because of a reparation sacrifice be qualified on an altar according to Rebbi Eleazar? Let us hear from the following: “This is the principle: Anything which can be vowed or donated is sacrificed on a private altar; but nothing which cannot be vowed or donated is sacrificed on a private altar.”

MISHNAH: If the New Moon of Adar falls on a Sabbath, one reads the paragraph of Šeqalim. If it falls on a weekday one precedes it and interrupts the next Sabbath.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Levi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. The Holy One, praiuse to Him, saw that the evil Haman in the future would weigh his money against Israel. He said, it is better that my children’s money should precede this evil one’s money. Therefore one precedes and reads the paragraph about Šeqalim.

HALAKHAH: Rav Ḥuna said, three people reading in the Torah shall not do less than ten verses. Ḥizqiah said, corresponding to the Ten Commandments [But did we not state, “on Sunday, In the Beginning and there shall be a spread”? And these are only eight! Rebbi Idi said, Cahana and Assi disagreed. One said, he repeats. But the other said, he splits. He who says that he repeats, he repeats two verses. He who says he splits, he splits it was evening, it was morning, as a separate verse. But did we not state, “on Monday, there shall be a spread and the waters shall come together”? He who says that he repeats, he repeats two verses. He who says he splits, he could not split. Rebbi Philippos ben Protos objected before Rebbi Jonah, is there not the paragraph about Amalek? He said to him, there is a difference since this is the topic of the day.] Rebbi Eleazar from Merom asked, was it not stated, the one who reads the conclusion from Prophets should not do less than 21 verses. Should there not be 23? Three for ten, three for ten, and one three.

“In matters of real estate nine and a Cohen.” Corresponding to the ten times “Cohen” is mentioned in the paragraph. Then should they not all be Cohanim? An inclusion after an inclusion is an exclusion. Then could they all be Israel? The paragraph has no result without a Cohen. That is, if one dedicated the body of a field. But if he said, I am vowing the value of my field for the Temple, let us hear from the following: “Appraisal of movables by three {appraisers}.” Do there exist appraisals not of movables? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: If somebody says, I am vowing my appraisal, and comes to settle his debt by real estate, one appraises it by ten {persons}, by movables by three. Is one who says, I am vowing my appraisal not like one who says, I am vowing my field’s value? But if he said, I am vowing a hundred mina for the Temple, one appraises him by three. Should he become rich, he will be judged by what he can afford.

“In matters of real estate nine and a Cohen.” Corresponding to the ten times “Cohen” is mentioned in the paragraph. Then should they not all be Cohanim? An inclusion after an inclusion is an exclusion. Then could they all be Israel? The paragraph has no result without a Cohen. That is, if one dedicated the body of a field. But if he said, I am vowing the value of my field for the Temple, let us hear from the following: “Appraisal of movables by three {appraisers}.” Do there exist appraisals not of movables? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: If somebody says, I am vowing my appraisal, and comes to settle his debt by real estate, one appraises it by ten {persons}, by movables by three. Is one who says, I am vowing my appraisal not like one who says, I am vowing my field’s value? But if he said, I am vowing a hundred mina for the Temple, one appraises him by three. Should he become rich, he will be judged by what he can afford.

If the paragraph was of five verses, he reads all of them. If he did not do so, the following one has to read the two last verses and three from the next paragraph. If he did not do this, does it obstruct? Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose went to visit the brother of Jehudah bar Tammuza the relative of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina in the synagogue of the neck-cloth makers. Rebbi Jeremiah was there and he stopped them. Rebbi Jonah said to Rebbi Yose, does one force? He answered him, here your teacher is stopping them. Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Simeon Shara, Rebbi Ḥinena bar Andreas in the name of Rebbi Zakkai from Kabul: If he erred between one word and another one lets him repeat. Rebbi Jeremiah said to Rebbi Ze`ira, does one act like this? He told him, is that still a problem for you? Even if he erred between if and and if one makes him repeat. The people of his town told Rebbi Simeon, the teacher of Terbenth, cut the sentences which our sons are reading. He went and asked Rebbi Ḥanina, who told him, do not listen to them even if they cut off your head. He did not listen to them and they freed him from his teaching position. After some time he came down here. Rebbi Simeon ben Yosina associated with him. He asked him, what goes on in your town? He told him the affair. He asked him, why did you not listen to them? He answered, does one do this? He answered, do we not cut them in the study? He answered, but we repeat and take them together. Rebbi Ze`ira said, if this teacher had been in my time, I would have appointed him Rabbi.

If the paragraph was of five verses, he reads all of them. If he did not do so, the following one has to read the two last verses and three from the next paragraph. If he did not do this, does it obstruct? Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose went to visit the brother of Jehudah bar Tammuza the relative of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina in the synagogue of the neck-cloth makers. Rebbi Jeremiah was there and he stopped them. Rebbi Jonah said to Rebbi Yose, does one force? He answered him, here your teacher is stopping them. Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Simeon Shara, Rebbi Ḥinena bar Andreas in the name of Rebbi Zakkai from Kabul: If he erred between one word and another one lets him repeat. Rebbi Jeremiah said to Rebbi Ze`ira, does one act like this? He told him, is that still a problem for you? Even if he erred between if and and if one makes him repeat. The people of his town told Rebbi Simeon, the teacher of Terbenth, cut the sentences which our sons are reading. He went and asked Rebbi Ḥanina, who told him, do not listen to them even if they cut off your head. He did not listen to them and they freed him from his teaching position. After some time he came down here. Rebbi Simeon ben Yosina associated with him. He asked him, what goes on in your town? He told him the affair. He asked him, why did you not listen to them? He answered, does one do this? He answered, do we not cut them in the study? He answered, but we repeat and take them together. Rebbi Ze`ira said, if this teacher had been in my time, I would have appointed him Rabbi.

“One does not skip in the Torah.” Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Because one does not scroll the book of the Torah in public. Rebbi Yose asked, think of it, if it was a small paragraph? But so that Israel should hear the Torah in due order. But did we not state: “he reads after the death and but on the tenth day”? There is a difference since this is the order of the day. You should know this, as Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, one never recites from memory but here he recites. Rebbi Yose ordered Bar Ulla, the beadle of the synagogue of the Babylonians: If there is one Torah, scroll it behind a curtain. If there are two, take away one and bring the other.

How far? Rebbi Aḥa said, as the paragraph of Joyada the High Priest.

There, we have stated: “Four kinds of vows did the Sages dissolve.” Do not the Sages permit all kinds of vows? It is written: Moses spoke to the heads of the tribes of the Children of Israel. He referred the paragraph to the heads of the tribes that they should dissolve their vows. Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: He shall not profane his word. He cannot profane his word; this implies that others can profane his words. Who is that? That is the Sage who dissolves the vow.

“Together”, this excludes the wife of his brother who did not live in his world. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, Rebbi Abba bar Mamal asked: The she-ram and the wife of his brother who did not live in his world were in the paragraph. Why do you see fit to say that the co-wife of the she-ram is permitted but the co-wife of the wife of his brother who did not live in his world is forbidden? He said to him, the she-ram was removed because of another reason: “she will bear”, this excludes the one who cannot have children. Is it not enough that she cannot be eligible for the levirate but you also want to forbid her co-wife? But the wife of his brother who did not live in his world is under an incest prohibition and any incest prohibition frees the co-wife. Assi said, the co-wife of a she-ram is forbidden. The Mishnah disagrees with Assi: “All of these, if they died, or refused, or were divorced, or turned out to be she-rams, their co-wives are permitted.” Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: Assi follows Rebbi Meїr since Rebbi Meїr said, in any case where you cannot take me in levirate you cannot take my co-wife.

“Her levir shall come upon her”, that is cohabitation. “And take her as wife for himself”, that is “bespeaking”. I might think that just as cohabitation is final so “bespeaking” is final; the verse says “and act as levir towards her.” This directs the entire paragraph towards levirate. Cohabitation is final, “bespeaking” is not final. Then what is “bespeaking” good for? To forbid her to the brothers.

HALAKHAH: “Her levir shall come upon her”, that is cohabitation. “And take her as a wife for himself”, that is “bespeaking”. I might think that just as cohabitation is final so “bespeaking” is final; the verse says “her levir shall come upon her.” This directs the entire paragraph towards levirate. Cohabitation is final, “bespeaking” is not final. Then what is “bespeaking” good for? To forbid her to the brothers.

“He acquired her and there is no difference between intercourse and intercourse.” What did he acquire? Samuel said, he acquired only the things spelled out in the paragraph: To inherit the deceased’s property, (to be betrothed by a brother), and to permit her co-wife to the outside. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he acquired everything. Rebbi Isaac ben Eleazar said, when do they disagree? If he touched her. But if he completed the intercourse, everybody agrees that he acquired everything. Rebbi Mattaniah said, when do they disagree? If he had intercourse with her still in her father’s house. But if he had intercourse with her still in her husband’s house, everybody agrees that he acquired everything. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah said: If he married her, she is his wife in every respect.

HALAKHAH: “The uncircumcised and any impure persons,” etc. “Every man”, to include the uncircumcised. Or “every man” to include the mourner? Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, it is written, “no outsider shall eat sanctified [food]”. I forbade to you because of outside status, I did not forbid because of prepuce. The reddish Rebbi Tiufa asked before Rebbi Yose: may we not say, I did not forbid because of prepuce and because of mourning? He said to him, since one verse includes and the other excludes, I am including the uncircumcised who is missing some procedure performed on his body and excluding the mourner who is not missing some procedure performed on his body. So far following Rebbi Aqiba. Following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Ismael stated: It said “sojourner and hireling” with regard to Passover and “sojourner and hireling” with regard to heave. Since “sojourner and hireling” with regard to Passover implies disabling the uncircumcised, so “sojourner and hireling” with regard to heave must imply disabling the uncircumcised. Rebbi Ḥaggai questioned: If “sojourner and hireling” with regard to Passover is in a group of laws disabling the mourner, also “sojourner and hireling” with regard to heave should imply disabling the mourner. Rebbi Hila answered: They inferred from “under, under” only items mentioned in the paragraph. The sexless and the hermaphrodite came under another category. The mourner comes from second tithe.

HALAKHAH: “A Cohen’s daughter married to an Israel,” etc. Rebbi Leontes asked before Rebbi Yose: One understands that a Cohen’s daughter who was married to an Israel returns to eat. But why does the daughter of an Israel married to a Cohen not eat when she should be enabled to eat? He said to him, so said Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rav Anan in the name of Rav: What means “a Cohen’s daughter”, one who is trained by a Cohen. As you say, “Babylon’s ransacked daughter,” was she the daughter of Babylon? But she behaved in Babylon’s way. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav: Two daughters are mentioned in the paragraph. One returns and eats, the other returns but does not eat. A Cohen’s daughter who was married to an Israel returns to eat. A daughter of an Israel married to a Cohen returns but does not eat. Say also, if she was married to a qualified person, she returns and eats, to a disqualified person she returns but does not eat. Rav said, practice is that she returns to eat heave but not to eat breast and foreleg. Rebbi Joḥanan said, she eats breast and foreleg. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated a support for Rav: “of food,” not all the food. Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai stated a support for Rebbi Joḥanan: “of her father’s food she shall eat,” to include the loaves of the thanksgiving sacrifice and the cakes of the nazir.

Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose asked before Rebbi: What is the difference between underage males and females? He said to him, “a man” is written in the paragraph. But about her, “his sister-in-law shall come before him,” in any case.

MISHNAH: The commandment of ḥalîṣah: He and his sister-in-law come to the court of law and they give him appropriate counsel, as it is said: “The Elders of his city shall call him and speak to him”. She says: “My levir refuses to erect a name in Israel for his brother, my levir does not want;” and he says: “I do not desire to take her.” They have to speak in the holy language. “His sister-in-law comes to him before the Elders’ eyes, strips his shoe from his foot, and spits out before him,” spittle that is visible to the judges. She has to declare and say: “So should be done to a man who would not build his brother’s house.” Up to this sentence they were reading to them but when it was read for Rebbi Hyrkanos under the oak tree in Kefar Abus he finished the paragraph; they established to finish the entire paragraph, “his house shall be called in Israel the house of the one stripped of shoe.” The obligation is on the judges, not on the students. Rebbi Jehudah said, everyone present has the obligation to say,” the one stripped of shoe, the one stripped of shoe”.

MISHNAH: The commandment of ḥalîṣah: He and his sister-in-law come to the court of law and they give him appropriate counsel, as it is said: “The Elders of his city shall call him and speak to him”. She says: “My levir refuses to erect a name in Israel for his brother, my levir does not want;” and he says: “I do not desire to take her.” They have to speak in the holy language. “His sister-in-law comes to him before the Elders’ eyes, strips his shoe from his foot, and spits out before him,” spittle that is visible to the judges. She has to declare and say: “So should be done to a man who would not build his brother’s house.” Up to this sentence they were reading to them but when it was read for Rebbi Hyrkanos under the oak tree in Kefar Abus he finished the paragraph; they established to finish the entire paragraph, “his house shall be called in Israel the house of the one stripped of shoe.” The obligation is on the judges, not on the students. Rebbi Jehudah said, everyone present has the obligation to say,” the one stripped of shoe, the one stripped of shoe”.

It was stated: Rebbi said, three times is “impurity” said in the paragraph, one for the husband, one for the paramour, and one for heave. For heave? Do we find that a woman is forbidden to her house and permitted to eat heave? Why not? If the daughter of a Cohen was married to an Israel and raped, is she not permitted to her house but forbidden heave? We never find that a woman is forbidden to her house and permitted to eat heave! Rebbi Abin said, it was said: One for the husband, one for the paramour, and one for the levir. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, the Mishnah says so: “If he dies she needs ḥalîṣah but cannot be married in levirate.”

There, we have stated: “Also she made a golden plate with the paragraph of the suspected wife written on it.” When the sun rose, sparks were reflected on it and one knew that the sun had risen. What was written on it? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: Alef-Bet was written on it. But did we not state: In the script there it was written here, not heavy, not thin, but average. Explain “the Alef there” by “from the Alef there”; “the Bet there” by “from the Bet there”. Rebbi Hoshaia stated: The entire paragraph of the suspected wife was written there, and from it he was reading and explaining all details of the paragraph: Why water, dust, and writing? Water, from the place she came; dust, the place she goes to; writing, before Whom she will have to be accountable in the future.

There, we have stated: “Also she made a golden plate with the paragraph of the suspected wife written on it.” When the sun rose, sparks were reflected on it and one knew that the sun had risen. What was written on it? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: Alef-Bet was written on it. But did we not state: In the script there it was written here, not heavy, not thin, but average. Explain “the Alef there” by “from the Alef there”; “the Bet there” by “from the Bet there”. Rebbi Hoshaia stated: The entire paragraph of the suspected wife was written there, and from it he was reading and explaining all details of the paragraph: Why water, dust, and writing? Water, from the place she came; dust, the place she goes to; writing, before Whom she will have to be accountable in the future.

There, we have stated: “Also she made a golden plate with the paragraph of the suspected wife written on it.” When the sun rose, sparks were reflected on it and one knew that the sun had risen. What was written on it? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: Alef-Bet was written on it. But did we not state: In the script there it was written here, not heavy, not thin, but average. Explain “the Alef there” by “from the Alef there”; “the Bet there” by “from the Bet there”. Rebbi Hoshaia stated: The entire paragraph of the suspected wife was written there, and from it he was reading and explaining all details of the paragraph: Why water, dust, and writing? Water, from the place she came; dust, the place she goes to; writing, before Whom she will have to be accountable in the future.

There, we have stated: “One does not make the proselyte drink, etc. But the Sages say, one makes her drink.” Where do we hold? If about an Israel who married a proselyte, it already is written: “The sons of Israel” (not proselytes). If about a proselyte who married a Jewish girl, it already is written: “The man has to bring his wife to the Cohen.” But we must hold about a proselyte who married a proselyte. What is the reason of Rebbi Aqiba? “The children of Israel”, not proselytes. What is the reason of the Sages? “You shall say to them”, to add everything written in that paragraph. What is written in that paragraph? “A man slept with her”. His lying with her makes her forbidden, then her husband declares his jealousy and makes her drink.

There, we have stated: “One does not make the proselyte drink, etc. But the Sages say, one makes her drink.” Where do we hold? If about an Israel who married a proselyte, it already is written: “The sons of Israel” (not proselytes). If about a proselyte who married a Jewish girl, it already is written: “The man has to bring his wife to the Cohen.” But we must hold about a proselyte who married a proselyte. What is the reason of Rebbi Aqiba? “The children of Israel”, not proselytes. What is the reason of the Sages? “You shall say to them”, to add everything written in that paragraph. What is written in that paragraph? “A man slept with her”. His lying with her makes her forbidden, then her husband declares his jealousy and makes her drink.

“A Cohen’s daughter may defile herself for the dead.” Rebbi Dosa from Malḥiyya, Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: A Cohen’s daughter is permitted to leave the Land. What is the reason? “Say to the Cohanim.” Not to the daughters of Cohanim. If it were not so, what would he say? Because she is included in the decree, she cannot leave. Why should she not be included in the decree and be forbidden to leave? If you say so, you push aside the paragraph on impurities.

HALAKHAH: “On the same day, Rebbi Aqiba explained,” etc. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rav and Samuel. One said, Rebbi Aqiba referred to both heave and profane food, but the other referred to heave but not to profane food. But one does not know who said what. Since Rebbi Yose said in the name of Rebbi Jonah, they said, Rav in the name of the elder Rebbi Ḥiyya: The tertiary comes because of the reptile. This implies that he said that Rebbi Aqiba referred to both heave and profane food. A Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “If tithe food was prepared [for impurity] by a fluid and a ṭevul yom or unclean hands touched it, one may take from it the heave of the tithe in purity because it is tertiary, and the tertiary is pure for profane food.” He explains that it is a leniency about hands [whose impurity] is rabbinical. But did we not state: “A ṭevul yom”? Explain it by a ṭevul yom from [the impurity] of a broken field. Rebbi Zeïra said, you may even say a biblical tevul yom. There is a difference since it is written “pure, impure”. Pure for profane food during daytime and for heave when it gets dark. Rebbi Ḥaggai objected before Rebbi Yose: May we not say: Pure for touch and impure for eating? He answered him, vessels are mentioned in the paragraph! Can you say about vessels that they are pure for touch and impure for eating?

MISHNAH: And he reads from the beginning of “These are the words” to Šema‘,Šema‘, “And it shall be if you listen,” “tithing you shall tithe,” “when you will have finished tithing,” blessings and curses [and the paragraph of the king], until he finishes the entire paragraph. The benedictions which the High Priest recites, the king recites, except that he substitutes “for the holidays of pilgrimage” instead of “forgiving of sins”.

MISHNAH: And he reads from the beginning of “These are the words” to Šema‘,Šema‘, “And it shall be if you listen,” “tithing you shall tithe,” “when you will have finished tithing,” blessings and curses [and the paragraph of the king], until he finishes the entire paragraph. The benedictions which the High Priest recites, the king recites, except that he substitutes “for the holidays of pilgrimage” instead of “forgiving of sins”.

HALAKHAH: “The calf whose neck was broken,” etc. It is reasonable only from “they begin and say”. He starts from the beginning of the paragraph. “If there be found,” not in a time when they are frequent. “If there be found,” not that you have to search. “If there be found,” finding anywhere is only by witnesses. “It is not known who killed him”, therefore if it was known, even by a male or female slave, one did not break the neck. There, you say, if it was known, even by a male or female slave, one did not break the neck, and here, you say so? One for the killer, one for the victim. And that which you say that if it was known, even by a male or female slave, one did not break the neck, [is it only] if they say that if we see him we will be able to identify him. Even those who say, if we see him we will not be able to identify him, one did not break the neck since it is written: “Our eyes did not see.” But somebody did see!

There, we have stated: “He who comes to a preliminarily married adolescent is guilty only if she was an adolescent, virgin, preliminarily married, in her father’s house. If two came upon her, the first is stoned and the second strangled.” Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: That is Rebbi Meïr’s. But following the rabbis even if she is a minor. What is Rebbi Meïr’s reason? “A lad” is written in the paragraph. How do the rabbis explain “a lad”? Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Once in the paragraph it is written “a young woman”; this teaches that in the entire paragraph she is an adult. Rebbi Meïr objected to the rabbis: In the matter of the calumniator, “a lad” is written and she is an adult since a minor is not stoned! What do the rabbis with this? Rebbi Abin said, explain it if he came to her as to a male.

There, we have stated: “He who comes to a preliminarily married adolescent is guilty only if she was an adolescent, virgin, preliminarily married, in her father’s house. If two came upon her, the first is stoned and the second strangled.” Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: That is Rebbi Meïr’s. But following the rabbis even if she is a minor. What is Rebbi Meïr’s reason? “A lad” is written in the paragraph. How do the rabbis explain “a lad”? Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Once in the paragraph it is written “a young woman”; this teaches that in the entire paragraph she is an adult. Rebbi Meïr objected to the rabbis: In the matter of the calumniator, “a lad” is written and she is an adult since a minor is not stoned! What do the rabbis with this? Rebbi Abin said, explain it if he came to her as to a male.

There, we have stated: “He who comes to a preliminarily married adolescent is guilty only if she was an adolescent, virgin, preliminarily married, in her father’s house. If two came upon her, the first is stoned and the second strangled.” Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: That is Rebbi Meïr’s. But following the rabbis even if she is a minor. What is Rebbi Meïr’s reason? “A lad” is written in the paragraph. How do the rabbis explain “a lad”? Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Once in the paragraph it is written “a young woman”; this teaches that in the entire paragraph she is an adult. Rebbi Meïr objected to the rabbis: In the matter of the calumniator, “a lad” is written and she is an adult since a minor is not stoned! What do the rabbis with this? Rebbi Abin said, explain it if he came to her as to a male.

“I came to her and did not find her a virgin.” Should we not worry that he found and made disappear? The husband brought witnesses that she committed adultery while in her father’s house. “This is proof of my daughters virginity.” Should we not worry that this is bird’s blood? The father brought witnesses to prove perjury by the husband’s witnesses. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, in this paragraph there are witnesses, witnesses of perjury, and witnesses of perjury of the witnesses of perjury: The husband says, these are witnesses that she whored in her father’s house. The father brought witnesses to prove perjury of the husband’s witnesses. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said: The father brought witnesses to prove perjury of the husband’s witnesses. And the husband brought witnesses to prove perjury of the father’s witnesses. Some Tannaïm state: “If this was true,” that the father found witnesses to prove perjury of the husband’s witnesses.

Now estimates, bans, exchanges, and dedications were in the same paragraph, but we did not state ‘substitute names of estimates, substitute names of exchanges and dedications.’ But if these were stated, what would we state? ‘Araphin, ‘araṣin, ‘araqin? Temupha, temuna, temuqa? Hegder, hegzer, hegres. It is understandable following him who says, unspecified bans are for the support of the Temple. But according to him who says, unspecified bans are for the priests? Why did we not state ‘substitute names for heave’? But if it were stated, what would we state? Terupha, teruṣa, teruqa?

HALAKHAH: “Four kinds of vows did the Sages dissolve,” etc. Do not the Sages permit all kinds of vows? It is written: “Moses spoke to the heads of the tribes.” He referred the paragraph to the heads of the tribes that they should dissolve the people’s vows. Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: “He shall not profane his word.” He cannot profane his word; this implies that others can profane his words. Who is that? That is the Sage who dissolves the vow. Ḥananiah the nephew of Rebbi Joshua said, “I swore and I shall keep it.” Sometimes I keep it. Rebbi Joshua said, “What I swore in my rage:” In my rage I swore; I change my mind.

So we have established that Gentiles have no preliminary marriage. Do they have divorce? Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi and Rebbi Ḥanin in the name of the great Rebbi Ḥuna of Sepphoris: Either they have no divorce, or either of them may divorce the other. Rebbi Joḥanan from Sepphoris, Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥinena, in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman: “For the divorcer is hateful, says the Eternal, Israel’s God.” In Israel I gave divorce, I did not give divorce among the nations of the world. Rebbi Ḥananiah in the name of Rebbi Phineas: In the entire paragraph it is written “the Eternal, Sabaot”; only here it is written “Israel’s God.” To teach you that the Holy One, praise to Him, did lend his name only to Jewish divorce.

“Her levir shall come upon her”, that is cohabitation. “And take her as a wife for himself”, that is “bespeaking”. I might think that just as cohabitation is final so “bespeaking” is final; the verse says “and take her in levirate.” This directs the entire paragraph towards levirate. Cohabitation is final, “bespeaking” is not final. Then what is “bespeaking” good for? To forbid her to his brothers.

“Except ‘do not destroy’, ‘do not shear,’ and ‘do not become impure for the dead’.” Issy says, also because of “do not make a bald spot.” What is the reason? “They shall not make a bald spot.” One subject to the rules of the beard is subject to the rules of the bald spot; women who have no beard are free from the rules of the bald spot. And also from the following: “sons,” not daughters. Rebbi Eleazar said, women are obligated by the rules of the bald spot. What is the reason? “For you are a holy people for the Eternal, your God.” Both men and women. How does Rebbi Eleazar explain “sons”? When they do the will of the Holy One, praise to Him, they are called sons, but when they do not do the will of the Holy One, praise to Him, they are not called sons. Rav was ordering his students, there came Rav Hamnuna ordering the colleagues: Order you wives not to tear out their hair when standing by a deceased, that they should not make a bald spot. What is a bald spot? There are Tannaïm who stated: Any size. There are Tannaïm who state: The size of a peeled grain. The one who says, any size, because the meaning of “bald spot” is of any size. The one who says, a peeled grain, for it is said here “to make a bald spot”, and it says there, a bald spot. Since “bald spot” mentioned there means in the size of a peeled grain, here also it means the size of a peeled grain. Rebbi Yose bar Mamal: A Cohenet is permitted to leave the Land. What is the reason? “Say to the Cohanim,” not to the Cohanot. If it were otherwise, what would we say? Since she is included in the decision, she may not leave. If you say so, you push aside the paragraph of impurities.

New paragraph. “And a bachelor shall not be a school teacher; a woman shall not be a school teacher, etc.” It was stated: Rebbi Eliezer says, also a man with a wife and children shall not be a school teacher if they are not with him at that place. Rebbi Yudan ben Rebbi Ismael acted accordingly in the case of a Mishnah teacher.

New paragraph. “Rebbi Jehudah says, a bachelor shall not be a shepherd and two bachelors shall not sleep under one cover, but the Sages permit.” Does not Rebbi Jehudah say it correctly? What is the rabbi’s reason? Perish the thought! Jews are not suspected either with males or with animals. But did we not state: “A bachelor shall not be a school teacher”? Because his mother or his sister will come with him.

New paragraph. “A man should not teach his son a craft for women,” etc. It was stated: A man should not teach his son to be a donkey driver, a camel driver, a sailor, a potter, a teamster, a shepherd, or a grocer, since their occupations are those of robbers.

New paragraph. Abba Orion from Sidon says in the name of Abba Shaul: Most donkey drivers are wicked, most camel drivers are in order, most sailors are pious, most bastards are intelligent, most slaves are beautiful, most children of reputed parents are bashful, most sons look like their mother’s brothers. The qualified physicians go to hell, the qualified among the butchers is an associate of Amaleq. Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai stated: Kill the best of Gentiles, smash the head of the best of snakes; the best qualified among women is a sorceress. Blessed is he who does the will of the Omnipresent.

New paragraph. “Rebbi Meïr says that a man should try to teach his son a clean trade,” etc. What should a man do? A person should try and teach his son an unassuming trade and pray for mercy to Him to Whom riches belong since there is no trade in which poor and rich people are not found, for everything depends on a person’s merit. Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Meïr: Did you ever see a lion porter, a (lion) [deer] maker of fig cakes, a fox grocer, a wolf selling pots? And they sustain themselves without pain. Why were they created? Only to serve me, and I was created to serve my Maker. Is it not an argument de minore ad maius? Since they were created to serve me and sustain themselves so without pain, should it not be logical that I, who was created to serve my Maker, should be able to sustain myself without pain? What caused me to have to sustain myself with pain? One has to say, my sins. Because I worsened my deeds and destroyed my sustenance.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

New Paragraph. “If damage was caused the person responsible is obligated to pay for the damages,” etc. Rebbi Ḥanina said, “he who injures an animal has to pay for it,” he has to pay the diminution in value. Bar Pedaiah said, “if it was torn, he shall bring it up to the place of the carcass, for which he does not have to pay.” Rebbi Nasa said, the quote of Rebbi Ḥanina is needed and the quote of Bar Pedaiah is needed. If only the quote of Rebbi Ḥanina was given but not that of Bar Pedaiah, I would have said that if he made the damage possible he should not have to pay anything but for bodily damage he has to pay the diminution in value. Therefore, Bar Pedaiah’s quote is necessary. But if only the quote of Bar Pedaiah was given but not that of Rebbi Ḥanina, I would have said that if he made the damage possible he has to pay the diminution in value, but for bodily damage he has to pay the whole. Therefore, the quote of Rebbi Ḥanina is needed and the quote of Bar Pedaiah is needed.

New paragraph. “Properties not subject to the laws of misappropriation of sancta.” As it was stated: “These properties are acquired together with properties subject to the laws of misappropriation of sancta.” Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: This follows Rebbi Yose the Galilean, as it was stated: “ ‘He commits larceny before the Eternal,’ Rebbi Yose the Galilean says, this includes simple sancta. Ben Azzai says, this includes well-being sacrifices. Abba Yose ben Dosai says, Ben Azzai said this only for the firstling.” What is between them? He who says well-being sacrifices certainly include tithes. But he who says tithes excludes the firstling. “Rebbi Simeon says, both most holy and simple sancta; about any sancta for which he is responsible if alienated, I am reading ‘against his neighbor and he lied’; but about any sancta for which he is not responsible if alienated, I am reading ‘against the Eternal and he lied’ ”. Rav Huna said, both qualified and disqualified sancta, if he is responsible if alienated, even if they are for the Eternal, I am reading “against his fellow and he denied”, but if he is not responsible if alienated, I am reading “against the Eternal and he lied” but not “against his fellow and he lied”.

New paragraph. “Properties of people of the Covenant,” excluding cattle of a Jew which gored cattle of a Gentile. “Private property,” excluding ownerless property. “Except for property belonging solely to the person responsible for the damage” who cannot be sued. “But [the rules] apply to property common to the person suffering the damage and the person responsible for the damage.” Rebbi Jeremiah said, if it were stated “except for property belonging solely to the person responsible for the damage” and had stopped, I would have said that [responsibility applies] both to a common courtyard and to a courtyard belonging to neither party. Why did it state: “[the rules] apply to property common to the person suffering the damage and the person responsible for the damage”? [To indicate] that it applies to the unpaid trustee, the borrower, the paid trustee, and the renter. Rebbi Yose said, since it stated “except for property belonging solely to the person responsible for the damage”, would we not know that “[the rules] apply to property common to the person suffering the damage and the person responsible for the damage”? Why was it stated that “[the rules] apply to property common to the person suffering the damage and the person responsible for the damage”? To exclude a courtyard belonging to neither of them. Some Tannaїm state: A condominium courtyard is obligated, a courtyard belonging to neither of them is free. Some Tannaїm state: Even a courtyard belonging to neither of them is obligated. He who says, a condominium courtyard is obligated, a courtyard belonging to neither of them is free, for it is written: “the best of his fields.” But he who says, even a courtyard belonging to neither of them is obligated, for it is written: “It ravages another person’s field.”

New Paragraph. “If it stepped on a vessel and broke it.” Rebbi Jeremiah asked: If it stepped on a skin full of oil, he pays full damages for the skin and half damages for the oil. If there was a table lying there and glass on top of it. If it stepped on the table and by that the glass broke. He pays full damages fort the table and half damages for the glass. If there were two tables on top of one another. If it stepped on the upper one and the lower one was broken. He pays full damages fort the upper table and half damages for the lower. If the table was lying in the public domain, [the animal] stepped on it and it ricocheted, went and broke into a private domain. What do you follow, the stepping or its breaking? If you say, after stepping, he is free [from paying] for its stepping on it; if you say, after its breaking, then he is guilty for the breaking.

New Paragraph. “He fences his fence with thorns.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, explain it according to everybody if it grew outwardly. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Ze‘ira: Why do we not explain it following Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah who said, three [handbreadths] close to a domain are counted with the domain? He answered, why are you not satisfied with what Rebbi Joḥanan said; explain it according to everybody if it grew outwardly.

HALAKHAH: “Medical costs. If he hit a person, he has to pay that person’s medical costs,” etc. Rebbi Jeremiah asked: If there was a growth around the wound and complications ensued because of the wound, what is the rule? Since it is written: “And healing he shall heal,” if [the patient] did not follow the doctor’s instructions, he is [not liable]. It was stated in another baraita: If [the wound] was covered with scab, he must pay for medical treatment. It was stated: “Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah says, if there was a growth around the wound, even if complications ensued because of the wound, he must pay for medical treatment but he is not liable to pay for his loss of earnings. Rebbi Simeon says, in this paragraph Scripture introduced a novelty stating that he has to pay for loss of earnings together with medical treatment: ‘Only his loss of earnings he shall compensate and healing he shall heal.’ ”

HALAKHAH: “One who found book-scrolls,” etc. It was stated: “One who found book-scrolls reads in them once every thirty days; if he is illiterate he rolls them up. He should not read a paragraph and repeat it, nor should he read a paragraph and translate it, nor should he open more than three pages, nor should three persons read from the same tome. When has this been said? For new ones. But for old ones twelve months. Silver vessels he may use cold but not hot because it blackens them. Brass vessels he may use hot but not on the fire because it diminishes them. Rakes and axes he may use on soft material but not on hard. With a rake he may receive mortar, wash it, and put it back in its place. With an ax he may split wood, but not stone-palm or olive wood. What has been said about a find is valid equally for deposits. If one deposits a garment with another person, he has to shake it out once every thirty days. If it is much work, he can collect his expenses from it.

HALAKHAH: “One who found book-scrolls,” etc. It was stated: “One who found book-scrolls reads in them once every thirty days; if he is illiterate he rolls them up. He should not read a paragraph and repeat it, nor should he read a paragraph and translate it, nor should he open more than three pages, nor should three persons read from the same tome. When has this been said? For new ones. But for old ones twelve months. Silver vessels he may use cold but not hot because it blackens them. Brass vessels he may use hot but not on the fire because it diminishes them. Rakes and axes he may use on soft material but not on hard. With a rake he may receive mortar, wash it, and put it back in its place. With an ax he may split wood, but not stone-palm or olive wood. What has been said about a find is valid equally for deposits. If one deposits a garment with another person, he has to shake it out once every thirty days. If it is much work, he can collect his expenses from it.

“One who has sexual relations with a preliminarily married maiden.” Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: This is Rebbi Meïr’s. But for the rabbis even if she is a minor. What is Rebbi Meïr’s reason? “Lad” is written defectively in the paragraph. How do the rabbis explain “a lad”? Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Once in the paragraph it is written a young woman; this teaches that in the entire paragraph she is an adult. Rebbi Meïr objected to the rabbis: In the matter of the calumniator, a lad is written and she is an adult since a minor is not stoned? What do the rabbis do with this? Rebbi Abin said, explain it that he came to her as a male. Rebbi Jacob bar Abba asked before Rav: What is the law of him who comes to a minor? He said to him, by stoning. What is the law of him who comes to an adult? He said to him, I am reading an adolescent, not an adult. Read an adolescent, not a minor! Do you not agree with me that she has the right to a fine? He answered, because he mistreated her, that includes a minor for a fine. Read because he mistreated her, that includes an adult for a fine! Rav said, even though Rebbi Jacob bar Abba won the logical argument, practice is that he who comes to a minor is [punished] by stoning but she is free. Rebbi Abun in the name of (Rebbi) Samuel. Why? He understood it from the following: The man who had lain with her alone shall die. Do we not know that the girl has not committed a capital crime? Why does the verse say, do not do anything to the girl; the girl has not committed a capital crime? That includes him who has sexual relations with a [preliminarily married] underage girl; he is stoned and she is free.

“One who has sexual relations with a preliminarily married maiden.” Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: This is Rebbi Meïr’s. But for the rabbis even if she is a minor. What is Rebbi Meïr’s reason? “Lad” is written defectively in the paragraph. How do the rabbis explain “a lad”? Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Once in the paragraph it is written a young woman; this teaches that in the entire paragraph she is an adult. Rebbi Meïr objected to the rabbis: In the matter of the calumniator, a lad is written and she is an adult since a minor is not stoned? What do the rabbis do with this? Rebbi Abin said, explain it that he came to her as a male. Rebbi Jacob bar Abba asked before Rav: What is the law of him who comes to a minor? He said to him, by stoning. What is the law of him who comes to an adult? He said to him, I am reading an adolescent, not an adult. Read an adolescent, not a minor! Do you not agree with me that she has the right to a fine? He answered, because he mistreated her, that includes a minor for a fine. Read because he mistreated her, that includes an adult for a fine! Rav said, even though Rebbi Jacob bar Abba won the logical argument, practice is that he who comes to a minor is [punished] by stoning but she is free. Rebbi Abun in the name of (Rebbi) Samuel. Why? He understood it from the following: The man who had lain with her alone shall die. Do we not know that the girl has not committed a capital crime? Why does the verse say, do not do anything to the girl; the girl has not committed a capital crime? That includes him who has sexual relations with a [preliminarily married] underage girl; he is stoned and she is free.

“One who has sexual relations with a preliminarily married maiden.” Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: This is Rebbi Meïr’s. But for the rabbis even if she is a minor. What is Rebbi Meïr’s reason? “Lad” is written defectively in the paragraph. How do the rabbis explain “a lad”? Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Once in the paragraph it is written a young woman; this teaches that in the entire paragraph she is an adult. Rebbi Meïr objected to the rabbis: In the matter of the calumniator, a lad is written and she is an adult since a minor is not stoned? What do the rabbis do with this? Rebbi Abin said, explain it that he came to her as a male. Rebbi Jacob bar Abba asked before Rav: What is the law of him who comes to a minor? He said to him, by stoning. What is the law of him who comes to an adult? He said to him, I am reading an adolescent, not an adult. Read an adolescent, not a minor! Do you not agree with me that she has the right to a fine? He answered, because he mistreated her, that includes a minor for a fine. Read because he mistreated her, that includes an adult for a fine! Rav said, even though Rebbi Jacob bar Abba won the logical argument, practice is that he who comes to a minor is [punished] by stoning but she is free. Rebbi Abun in the name of (Rebbi) Samuel. Why? He understood it from the following: The man who had lain with her alone shall die. Do we not know that the girl has not committed a capital crime? Why does the verse say, do not do anything to the girl; the girl has not committed a capital crime? That includes him who has sexual relations with a [preliminarily married] underage girl; he is stoned and she is free.

New paragraph. “There are two kinds of appearances of skin disease which are four kinds.” “Rebbi Yose said, Joshua the son of Rebbi Aqiba asked Rebbi Aqiba. He said to him, why did they say, ‘There are two kinds of looks of skin disease which are four kinds’? He answered him, if not so, what should they have said? He said to him, they could have said ‘starting with eggshell and stronger it is impure.’ He said to him, to tell you that anybody not expert for them and their names may not see skin lesions.”

HALAKHAH: “If the Court ruled to uproot an entire subject,” etc. Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, “of a subject,” not the entire subject. Rebbi Hila said, “of the commandments”, not entire commandments. Is that written? As Rebbi Immi said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: For interpretation, one removes from the beginning of the paragraph to its end. Rebbi Ḥananiah in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah: Even a middle word. You have to pour oil on it, it is a flour offering, to include all flour offerings for pouring.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Eliezer said this only because of his extirpation. Rebbi Hoshaia asked: If so, then even for a fixed [sacrifice]? Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Hoshaia is of the opinion that he is uprooted from the entire paragraph; but Rebbi Eliezer treats him like a rich commoner. Rebbi Mana said, if Rebbi Eliezer treats him like a rich commoner, then also for hearing a sound, or expression of the lips, as it was stated: Rebbi (Eleazar) [Eliezer] and the Sages did not differ about hearing a sound, or expression of the lips, that he does not bring a male goat but a she-goat. About what did they differ? About impurity of the Sanctuary and its sancta, where Rebbi Eliezer says since he is subject to extirpation why should he not bring a male goat instead of a she-goat? They objected: Is there not the Anointed in the case of idolatry where he does not bring a male goat but a she-goat.

It was stated: The Anointed Priest brings a bull, the one clothed in multiple garb does not bring a bull. This disagrees with Rebbi Meïr. What is Rebbi Meïr’s reason? The Anointed. Why does the verse say priest? To exclude the one clothed in multiple garb. What is the rabbis’ reason? The anointed. I could think that this is the king. Why does the verse say, priest? To include the one clothed in multiple garb. Here you say, to exclude the one clothed in multiple garb. But there you say, to include the one clothed in multiple garb. Rebbi Hila said, each inference refers to its meaning. If it had said the Anointed but not priest, I would have said, he brings a bull for forgetting a topic, but for acting in error he brings a goat. Therefore it is necessary that it mention priest. But if it had mentioned priest but not the Anointed, I would have said, this refers to the king. If you would say by a bull, preceding the paragraph about the king, assuming that for forgetting a topic he brings a bull but for acting in error he brings a goat. Therefore it is necessary that it mention the Anointed and that it mention priest.

The remainder of the text (to line three of the next paragraph) is missing in B without indication of a lacuna. It happened that Simeon ben Qimḥit went out for a walk with the king on the Day of Atonement at sundown and a drop of spittle squirted on his garment and defiled him. His brother Jehudah entered and officiated in his stead. On that day their mother saw two of her sons as High Priests. Qimḥit had seven sons; all of them served as High Priests. They sent and asked Qimḥit, what good deeds are in your hand? She told them, there should come over me if the beams of the roof of my house ever saw the hair on my head or the seam of my undershirt. They said, all flours are flour but Qimḥit’s flour is fine flour. They recited about her the verse: All the honor of the king’s daughter is inside; gold settings her garments.

There are some who connect [the statement of Rabbah b. Bar Hannah] with the following. There is a teaching : Who recites the Shema' must direct his heart thereto. R. Aha says in the name of R. Judah : If one directed his heart in the first paragraph, it is no longer necessary [in the succeeding paragraphs]. Rabbah b. Bar Hannah said in the name of R. Johanan : The Halakah is in accord with the view of R. Aha which he reported in the name of R. Judah.

And what is the distinction that up to [the end of the first paragraph] the law of Kawwanah and reciting applies ? Because it is written "upon thine heart" and "and shalt talk of them." But in the next paragraph it is likewise written "Upon your heart" and "talking of them" !

And what is the distinction that up to [the end of the first paragraph] the law of Kawwanah and reciting applies ? Because it is written "upon thine heart" and "and shalt talk of them." But in the next paragraph it is likewise written "Upon your heart" and "talking of them" !

And what is the distinction that up to [the end of the first paragraph] the law of reciting and Kawwanah applies ? Because it is written "upon thine heart" and "thou shalt talk of them." But in the next paragraph it is likewise written "upon your heart" and "talking of them"!

And what is the distinction that up to [the end of the first paragraph] the law of reciting and Kawwanah applies ? Because it is written "upon thine heart" and "thou shalt talk of them." But in the next paragraph it is likewise written "upon your heart" and "talking of them"!

Rab Nathan b. Mar 'Ukba said in the name of Rab Judah : "Upon thine heart" [should be recited] standing. Dost thou imagine that applies only to the words "Upon thine heart"? No ; but say, [From the commencement of the Shema'] up to "upon thine heart" is to be recited standing, but not from there onward. R. Johanan said : The whole paragraph should be recited standing ;

He replied : One may interrupt, and there is nothing in that [point you raise]. Rabbah said : On those days when the individual completes the Hallel, he may interrupt between the paragraphs, but in the middle of a paragraph he may not interrupt ; and on the days when the individual does not complete the Hallel, he may interrupt even in the middle of a paragraph.

He replied : One may interrupt, and there is nothing in that [point you raise]. Rabbah said : On those days when the individual completes the Hallel, he may interrupt between the paragraphs, but in the middle of a paragraph he may not interrupt ; and on the days when the individual does not complete the Hallel, he may interrupt even in the middle of a paragraph.

Abbai said to him : What is there excellent in this? Behold, Rab Kahana has said in the name of Rab : One need not commence [the third paragraph at all] ; but if he has commenced it, he must finish it ! Shouldest thou argue that [to say the words] "And thou shalt say unto them" is not commencing, behold Rab Samuel b. Isaac has declared in the name of Rab : "Speak unto the children of Israel" is not considered a commencement, but "And thou shalt say unto them" is to be so regarded !

But derive the reason [for the order of the paragraphs] from the statement of R. Joshua b. Karhah! [He gave] one reason and now another is added; viz. : [the first is] in order that a man shall first receive upon himself the yoke of the kingdom of heaven and afterwards receive upon himself the yoke of the commandments ; and the second reason is because the first paragraph contains these other references.

Should one have read the Shema' and erred without knowing for certain where he made the mistake, if this occurred in the middle of the first paragraph he must return to the commencement ; if between two paragraphs, he must return to the first of them ; if between "and thou shalt write them" and "ye shall write them," he must return to the first.

There is no contradiction ; the former refers to the first paragraph [of the Shema'], the latter to the second.

Having buried the dead and returned, etc. If they are able to begin and finish the whole, yes ; but if only one paragraph or one verse, are they not [to commence it]? Against this conclusion I quote : Having buried the dead and returned, if they are able to begin and complete even one paragraph or one verse [they should commence it] !

Having buried the dead and returned, etc. If they are able to begin and finish the whole, yes ; but if only one paragraph or one verse, are they not [to commence it]? Against this conclusion I quote : Having buried the dead and returned, if they are able to begin and complete even one paragraph or one verse [they should commence it] !

Here likewise it means that ... if they are able to begin and finish one paragraph or even one verse, before reaching the row, they should begin ; but if not, they should not commence it.

Rab Pappa asked Abbai : How were our predecessors different from us that miracles occurred for them but not for us? Is it a question of learning ? In the time of Rab Judah, their whole study was limited to the Order "Damages," whereas we study the six Orders; and when Rab Judah reached the paragraph in Mishnah 'Uksin : "If a woman presses vegetables in a pot" (some declare it was the paragraph : "Olives which are pressed with their leaves are clean"), he said, "We see here the conflicts of Rab and Samuel," whereas we study 'Uksin in thirteen lessons ! Yet, with respect to Rab Judah, when he took off one of his shoes, the rain descended ; but we afflict our souls and cry aloud and there is none that takes notice of us !

Rab Pappa asked Abbai : How were our predecessors different from us that miracles occurred for them but not for us? Is it a question of learning ? In the time of Rab Judah, their whole study was limited to the Order "Damages," whereas we study the six Orders; and when Rab Judah reached the paragraph in Mishnah 'Uksin : "If a woman presses vegetables in a pot" (some declare it was the paragraph : "Olives which are pressed with their leaves are clean"), he said, "We see here the conflicts of Rab and Samuel," whereas we study 'Uksin in thirteen lessons ! Yet, with respect to Rab Judah, when he took off one of his shoes, the rain descended ; but we afflict our souls and cry aloud and there is none that takes notice of us !

Our Rabbis have taught : If one erred and omitted the afternoon Tefillah on the Sabbath-eve, he says the Tefillah twice on the night of the Sabbath. If one erred and omitted the afternoon Tefillah on the Sabbath, he says the week-day Tefillah twice at the conclusion of the Sabbath. In the first he adds the paragraph of "Division," but not in the second. If he added this paragraph in the second and not in the first, then the reading of the first Tefillah counts for him but not the second.

Our Rabbis have taught : If one erred and omitted the afternoon Tefillah on the Sabbath-eve, he says the Tefillah twice on the night of the Sabbath. If one erred and omitted the afternoon Tefillah on the Sabbath, he says the week-day Tefillah twice at the conclusion of the Sabbath. In the first he adds the paragraph of "Division," but not in the second. If he added this paragraph in the second and not in the first, then the reading of the first Tefillah counts for him but not the second.

One might deduce from this teaching that since he did not add the paragraph of "Division" in the first Tefillah, he is as though he had not prayed at all and we make him repeat it.

But against this I quote : If one erred and did not mention the reference to rain in the benediction "Thou sustainest the living" or the request for rain in the benediction of "the Years," we make him repeat it ; but if he omitted the paragraph of "Division" in the benediction "Thou favourest man with knowledge," we do not make him repeat it, because he is able to say it over the cup [of wine]! The contradiction [remains unsolved].

And we who keep two days [of the Festival], how do we proceed? Abaye ruled: The [paragraph for the] second day is to be omitted. Raba ruled,

If two persons read three verses each, then two verses will be left [to the end of the paragraph], and we do not leave over less than three verses to the end of the paragraph. Let them read four verses each? Then seven verses will be left altogether, “And on the Shabbat day” is two, and “And on your new moons” is five. How are we to deal with this? Let him read two from one paragraph and one from the next?

If two persons read three verses each, then two verses will be left [to the end of the paragraph], and we do not leave over less than three verses to the end of the paragraph. Let them read four verses each? Then seven verses will be left altogether, “And on the Shabbat day” is two, and “And on your new moons” is five. How are we to deal with this? Let him read two from one paragraph and one from the next?