partially

[Most (things)] of [the] world can stand up and live as long as their [insides are hidden. If they're revealed], they die, as [illustrated] by the visible human. [As long as] the human's guts are hidden, the human is alive. If their guts are exposed and come out of them, the human will die. It's the same way with the tree. While its root is hidden, it blossoms and grows. If its root is exposed, the tree dries up. That's what it's like with everything that's born in the world, not only the revealed, but also the hidden; because as long as the root of evil is hidden, it's strong. But if it's recognized, it dissolves, and if it's revealed, it dies. So the Word says, "Already the axe is laid at the root of the trees." It won't (just) cut, (because) that which will be cut blossoms again. Rather, the axe digs down into the ground until it brings up the root. Jesus plucked out the root completely, but others did so partially. As for us, let every one of us dig down to the root of the evil within and pluck it out from its root in us. It'll be uprooted if we recognize it. But if we don't recognize it, it takes root within us and bears its fruit in us. It masters us, and we're forced to serve it. It captures us so that we do what we do [not] want to; and we do [not] do what we want to. [It's] powerful because we haven't recognized it. It's active as long as [it exists]. [Ignorance] is the mother of [all evil]. Ignorance will cause [death, because] what exists from [ignorance] neither did exist nor [does exist], nor will they come into being […] they'll be perfected when the whole truth is revealed, because the truth is like ignorance. When it's hidden, it rests within itself, but if it's revealed and recognized, it's glorified inasmuch as it's stronger than ignorance and error. It gives freedom. The Word says, "If you'll know the truth, the truth will make you free." Ignorance is slavery; knowledge is freedom. If we know the truth, we'll find the fruits of truth within us. If we unite with it, it'll receive our fullness.

Seven are the paths (if the Tetragrammaton be written in this way partially complete), IVD, HH, V, H, (where the father and mother are written in full, Microprosopus and his bride are written uncovered. If here the last and first letters be combined, and the penultimate and second, and therefore the paths at either extremity, so that they may form the letters) HI and VV (mother and son), then are produced (the three middle letters) HH, D (which are the symbols of the queen, heavy with judgments. But if mother and daughter be combined) HVI and HH, (then) is produced forth VV (or Microprosopus) as well as DV (or the androgyn, who also is a condition of judgments), for occultly Adam is denoted, or the male and female, who are that DV concerning whom it is written (in the place cited above) “corrupt children.”

They release vows by reference to the sabbaths and festivals. The earlier ruling was that for these days the vow is cancelled, but for others it is binding, until Rabbi Akiva came and taught: a vow which is partially released is entirely released.

Any matter of doubt regarding [leprous affliction] at the outset is clean before a decision is made [to declare it] unclean. Once a decision has been made [to declare it] unclean, any matter of doubt is regarded as unclean. A person suffering from gonorrhea (a is examined regarding seven things, before it has been decided that it is gonorrhea: With regard to food, drink, carrying things, jumping, sickness, something seen, or an impure thought. Once gonorrhea is established, he is no longer examined. [Any flux resulting] from an accident to him, doubtful [flux] and his semen are unclean, for there are grounds for this assumption. If a one strikes his fellow, and they expected him to die and he partially recovered and then grew worse and died [the other] is liable [for murder]. Rabbi Nehemiah exempts him, for there are grounds for this assumption.

Anything that I am responsible to guard, I have rendered it possible to do injury [for which I will become obligated]. If I have partially rendered it possible to do injury, I must make restitution for that injury as if I totally rendered it possible to do injury. When one damages [property that fits all of the following categories]: property that does not have “sacrilege” [i.e. sacrificial animals or property that belongs to the Temple in Jerusalem], property that belongs to other members of the covenant [Jews], property that is owned, and the injury is done in any place other than the private domain of the injurer and the common domain of the injured and injurer, in these cases the injurer must make restitution for the injury with the best of his land.

So too they have said that she who impairs her kethubah [by admitting that it had already been partially paid] cannot receive [the remainder of the] payment except on oath; And that if one witness testifies against her that it [the kethubah] has been paid [in full], she cannot receive payment except on oath; And that from assigned property or orphans’ property she cannot exact payment [for her kethubah] except on oath; And that if she claims [her kethubah] not in his presence, she cannot receive payment except on oath. So, too, orphans cannot receive payment except on oath [namely]: “We swear that our father did not enjoin in his will, neither did our father say unto us, nor did we find [written] among the documents of our father that this document is paid.” Rabbi Yochanan ben Beroka says: “Even if the son was born after his father’s death he may take an oath, and collect his claim.” Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel said: “If there are witnesses that the father said at the time of his death that this document was not paid, he receives [his claim] without an oath.”

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

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

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

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

It is written (1Kings 17:1) “Elijah the Tisbite, from the inhabitants of Gilead, said to Aḥab: By the Living Eternal One, the God of Israel, before Whom I stood, there will not be dew nor rain these years except by my word.” Rebbi Berekhia said, Rebbi Yasa and the rabbis. One of them said, he was heard both for dew and for rain; the other one said, he was heard for rain but was not heard for dew, from (1Kings 18:1): “Go, appear before Aḥab and I shall give rain, etc.” And he who said, he was heard both for dew and for rain, where was the vow of dew dissolved? Rebbi Tanḥuma from Edreï said, they are of the opinion that a vow that was dissolved partially is dissolved totally. Some want to say, on the occasion of the son of the woman from Sarepta, (1Kings 17:20) “He called on the Eternal and said, o Eternal, my God, etc.” Rebbi Judah ben Pazi said, about one who stole a doctor’s bag. When he left, his son was injured.He returned to him and said: Please, sir doctor, heal my son. He said to him: Go and return my bag because it is full of medicines, and I shall heal your son. So the Holy One, praise to Him, said to Elijah: Go and lift the vow of dew because the dead are resurrected only by dew, then I shall resurrect the son of the Sareptan. And from where that the dead will live only by dew? (Is. 26:19) “Your dead will live, the corpses will arise. Wake up and jubilate, those who dwell in dust! For a dew of light is Your dew, וְאֶרֶץ רְפָאִים תַּפִּיל.” Rebbi Tanḥum from Edreï said, “the earth will give up those that are deposited in it.”

It was stated: “If unripe figs that one hid in ṭevel or a flat pita that one hid in glowing charcoal were partially uncovered they may be taken on the Sabbath, otherwise they may not be taken on the Sabbath. Rebbi Eleazar ben Taddeus said, in either case he pushes in a spear or a knife and lifts them out.” The statement of Rebbi Eleazar ben Taddeus turns out following Rebbi Simeon, as we have stated: “One should not drag a chair, or a bed, or an easy chair because one makes a groove, but Rebbi Simeon permits it.” Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Huna, Rebbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Illaï: The Sages admit to Rebbi Simeon that a chair whose legs are stuck in mud one is permitted to move. And just as you say that one is permitted to move it, so one is permitted to bring it back. Rebbi Yose said, we also have stated: “They may be taken on the Sabbath.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, that is from Rebbi Simeon. But we have stated: “The Sabbatical year!” Can you say that “the Sabbatical year” follows Rebbi Simeon? Explain “the Sabbatical year!” For Rebbi Simeon permits the aftergrowth of the Sabbatical year, and here he says so? Even though Rebbi Simeon permits aftergrowth of the Sabbatical year, he still holds it subject to the holiness of the Sabbatical year. Here also, he worries neither about the Sabbatical year nor about the holiness of the Sabbatical year!

Rebbi Joḥanan said, the Mishnah was taught about a straight trellis. In that case, would it not be forbidden as a vineyard without a fence? Let us say, it was stated because of the House of Hillel. Rebbi Ḥananiah said, it is reasonable to assume that Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish agrees with Rebbi Joḥanan that it was taught about a straight trellis because of the House of Hillel, and Rebbi Joḥanan agrees with Rebbi Simeon [ben Laqish] that it was taught about a curved trellis because of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri, since Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said that anybody who affirms this is in error. If you say it was taught about a straight trellis, what can be in error? What is the difference between him who says one measures from the roots of the vines and him who says one measures from the bottom of the fence? Rebbi Yose said, explain it if the stems were partially inside four cubits and partially outside of four cubits. For him who says one measures from the roots of the vine, all is in order. For him who says one measures from the bottom of the fence, where the string drawn from the fence ends it is forbidden, the rest is permitted. If there were two cubits, only two cubits are forbidden for him who says one measures from the roots of the vines, but for him who says one measures from the bottom of the fence, another two cubits are forbidden.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, the Mishnah was taught about a straight trellis. In that case, would it not be forbidden as a vineyard without a fence? Let us say, it was stated because of the House of Hillel. Rebbi Ḥananiah said, it is reasonable to assume that Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish agrees with Rebbi Joḥanan that it was taught about a straight trellis because of the House of Hillel, and Rebbi Joḥanan agrees with Rebbi Simeon [ben Laqish] that it was taught about a curved trellis because of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri, since Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said that anybody who affirms this is in error. If you say it was taught about a straight trellis, what can be in error? What is the difference between him who says one measures from the roots of the vines and him who says one measures from the bottom of the fence? Rebbi Yose said, explain it if the stems were partially inside four cubits and partially outside of four cubits. For him who says one measures from the roots of the vine, all is in order. For him who says one measures from the bottom of the fence, where the string drawn from the fence ends it is forbidden, the rest is permitted. If there were two cubits, only two cubits are forbidden for him who says one measures from the roots of the vines, but for him who says one measures from the bottom of the fence, another two cubits are forbidden.

MISHNAH: One does not give heave from pure produce for impure, but if heave was given it is heave. In truth, they said if a cake of dried figs became partially impure one may give heave from its pure part for its impure part, and similarly for a bunch of vegetable or a heap [of grain]. If there were two cakes, two bundles, two heaps, one pure and one impure, one should not give heave from one for the other. Rebbi Eliezer says, one may give heave from pure produce for impure. One may not give heave from impure produce for pure, but if he gave in error, his heave is heave, if intentionally, he did not do anything. Similarly, a Levite who has ṭevel tithe which he continually uses to give, if he is in error, what he did is done, if intentionally, he did nothing. Rebbi Jehudah says, if he had known of it earlier, even if he did it in error, he did not do anything. He who immerses vessels on the Sabbath, if unintentionally he may use them, if intentionally he may not use them. He who tithes or cooks on the Sabbath, if in error it may be eaten, if intentionally it may not be eaten. He who plants on the Sabbath, if unintentionally he may keep it, if intentionally it must be uprooted. In the Sabbatical year it must be uprooted, whether in error or intentionally.

“If a cake of dried figs became partially impure one may give heave from its pure part for its impure part;” but if part of it becomes impure is not all of it impure? The Mishnah deals with the case that they are connected only by fruit juice. But will it not be cut into two parts in the end? Explain it if he gave it a name when it still was connected.

If there were two fig cakes, one partially impure and one partially pure, may one give heave from one for the other? If he had two heaps, and from both of them he had given part of heaves and tithes, may he give heave from one for the other? The students of the elder Rebbi Ḥiyya asked the elder Rebbi Ḥiyya and he said to them (Eccl. 4:5): “The fool folds his hands and eats his own flesh.” Rebbi Eleazar in the name of the elder Rebbi Ḥiyya: He may not give heave from one for the other.

If there were two fig cakes, one partially impure and one partially pure, may one give heave from one for the other? If he had two heaps, and from both of them he had given part of heaves and tithes, may he give heave from one for the other? The students of the elder Rebbi Ḥiyya asked the elder Rebbi Ḥiyya and he said to them (Eccl. 4:5): “The fool folds his hands and eats his own flesh.” Rebbi Eleazar in the name of the elder Rebbi Ḥiyya: He may not give heave from one for the other.

It was stated: “Rebbi Illaï says in the name of Rebbi Eliezer: For food in fluids, one gives heave from pure for impure. How is this? If somebody pickled olives in impurity and wants to give heave in purity, he brings a funnel whose opening is less than [the width of] an egg, fills it with eggs and puts it on top of the amphora; it turns out that he gives heave from what is earmarked.” Why does it have to be less than [the width of] an egg? Are these not single pieces? It is only that not many olives should become impure. “ They said to him, the only food fluid called fluid is wine and olive oil.” How is that? One beam for two pits or two beams for one pit. One understands one beam for two pits, but two beams for one pit? Is it not that if it is partially impure it is totally impure? Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Explain it, if he had intended to process it in one batch, and he changed his mind to make it in two batches. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, this applies if it became impure after he syphoned off [the froth] and [the seeds] formed lumps. But if it became impure before he syphoned off and lumps were formed, it does not apply. Rebbi Tabi, Rebbi Joshia the son of Rebbi Yannai: Practice follows Rebbi Eliezer. Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Practice follows Rebbi Eliezer. Rebbi Ḥuna, Rebbi Ḥanania: Practice does not follow Rebbi Eliezer. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Samuel: Practice does not follow Rebbi Eliezer. There came a case before Rebbi Immi and he did not decide; he said there are two against two. They said to him, but Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman decided! Nevertheless, he gave no opinion.

It was stated: “Rebbi Illaï says in the name of Rebbi Eliezer: For food in fluids, one gives heave from pure for impure. How is this? If somebody pickled olives in impurity and wants to give heave in purity, he brings a funnel whose opening is less than [the width of] an egg, fills it with olives and puts it on top of the amphora; it turns out that he gives heave from what is earmarked.” Why does it have to be less than [the width of] an egg? Are these not single pieces? It is only that not many olives should become impure. “They said to him, the only food fluids called fluid are wine and olive oil.” How is that? One beam for two pits or two beams for one pit. [One understands one beam for two pits, but two beams for one pit?] Is it not that if it is partially impure it is totally impure? Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Assi: Explain it, if he had intended to process it in one batch, and he changed his mind to make it in two batches. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, this applies if it became impure after he siphoned off [the froth] and [the seeds] formed lumps. But if it became impure before lumps were formed and he siphoned off, it does not apply. Rebbi Tabi, Rebbi Joshia in the name of Rebbi Yannai: Practice follows Rebbi Eliezer. Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia followed Rebbi Eliezer. Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: Practice does not follow Rebbi Eliezer. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun, Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: Practice does not follow Rebbi Eliezer. There came a case before [Rebbi Immi] and he did not decide; he said there are two against two. They said to him, but Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman agreed! Nevertheless, he gave no opinion.

It was stated: “If a tree is partially planted in the Land and partially outside the Land, since it is partially planted in the Land it is as if completely planted in the Land, the words of Rebbi. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, the part planted in the Land is obligated, the part planted outside the Land is free.” Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It is as if ṭevel and tithed are mixed together.

It was stated: “If a tree is partially planted in the Land and partially outside the Land, since it is partially planted in the Land it is as if completely planted in the Land, the words of Rebbi. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, the part planted in the Land is obligated, the part planted outside the Land is free.” Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It is as if ṭevel and tithed are mixed together.

It was stated: “If a tree is partially planted in the Land and partially outside the Land, since it is partially planted in the Land it is as if completely planted in the Land, the words of Rebbi. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, the part planted in the Land is obligated, the part planted outside the Land is free.” Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It is as if ṭevel and tithed are mixed together.

MISHNAH: If a tree was moved with its lump, if it can survive it is exempt, otherwise obligated. If the lump was partially moved, or the plough displaced it and turned it into dust, if the tree can survive it is exempt, otherwise obligated. If a tree was cut but there remained a root, it is exempt. How large shall the root be? Rabban Gamliel in the name of Rebbi Eleazar ben Jehudah from Birtota: Like a tenter’s needle. If a tree was uprooted but it had a sunken branch and now lives off that, the original trunk becomes like the sunken branch. If he sank year after year and it was interrupted, one counts from the moment it was interrupted. Attachment of vines, attachment after attachment, even if he sank them into the earth, are permitted. Rebbi Meïr says, where it is in its force it is permitted, where it is weak it is forbidden. A sunk branch which became separated but is full of fruits, if it increased by one twohundredth it is forbidden.

There, we have stated: “Rebbi Meïr says, if it was a Sabbath and he carried it out. They told him, it is not the category.” Because this one is liable because of walking and that one is liable because of putting down. Who is “they said to him”? Rebbi Yose! The argument of Rebbi Yose is inverted. There, he does not consider the person walking equal to one who was putting down but here he is considering the person walking equal to one who was putting down! Rebbi Yudan said, explain it that he was laying on the threshold partially inside, his mouth outside, when he stretched out his hand, took it, and ate it. Then he did not walk.

A threshold in front of the door; others say whenever the door is open it is entirely inside, when it is locked it is entirely outside. What are we dealing with? If it is roofed even when it is locked it is entirely inside, if it is not roofed even when it is open it is entirely outside. But we must deal with the case that it is partially roofed and partially not roofed. What does it mean, when it is locked it is entirely outside? It is permitted for use from it to the outside and from the outside to it. If there was a hole in the door it is forbidden for use from it to the hole and from the hole to it. Rebbi Nathan says, when it is locked it is entirely outside; when it is open it is partially inside and partially outside. And that is what we wanted to say; a threshold of four when the door is locked is entirely outside, also when the door is open it is partially inside and partially outside.

A threshold in front of the door; others say whenever the door is open it is entirely inside, when it is locked it is entirely outside. What are we dealing with? If it is roofed even when it is locked it is entirely inside, if it is not roofed even when it is open it is entirely outside. But we must deal with the case that it is partially roofed and partially not roofed. What does it mean, when it is locked it is entirely outside? It is permitted for use from it to the outside and from the outside to it. If there was a hole in the door it is forbidden for use from it to the hole and from the hole to it. Rebbi Nathan says, when it is locked it is entirely outside; when it is open it is partially inside and partially outside. And that is what we wanted to say; a threshold of four when the door is locked is entirely outside, also when the door is open it is partially inside and partially outside.

A threshold in front of the door; others say whenever the door is open it is entirely inside, when it is locked it is entirely outside. What are we dealing with? If it is roofed even when it is locked it is entirely inside, if it is not roofed even when it is open it is entirely outside. But we must deal with the case that it is partially roofed and partially not roofed. What does it mean, when it is locked it is entirely outside? It is permitted for use from it to the outside and from the outside to it. If there was a hole in the door it is forbidden for use from it to the hole and from the hole to it. Rebbi Nathan says, when it is locked it is entirely outside; when it is open it is partially inside and partially outside. And that is what we wanted to say; a threshold of four when the door is locked is entirely outside, also when the door is open it is partially inside and partially outside.

A threshold in front of the door; others say whenever the door is open it is entirely inside, when it is locked it is entirely outside. What are we dealing with? If it is roofed even when it is locked it is entirely inside, if it is not roofed even when it is open it is entirely outside. But we must deal with the case that it is partially roofed and partially not roofed. What does it mean, when it is locked it is entirely outside? It is permitted for use from it to the outside and from the outside to it. If there was a hole in the door it is forbidden for use from it to the hole and from the hole to it. Rebbi Nathan says, when it is locked it is entirely outside; when it is open it is partially inside and partially outside. And that is what we wanted to say; a threshold of four when the door is locked is entirely outside, also when the door is open it is partially inside and partially outside.

A threshold in front of the door; others say whenever the door is open it is entirely inside, when it is locked it is entirely outside. What are we dealing with? If it is roofed even when it is locked it is entirely inside, if it is not roofed even when it is open it is entirely outside. But we must deal with the case that it is partially roofed and partially not roofed. What does it mean, when it is locked it is entirely outside? It is permitted for use from it to the outside and from the outside to it. If there was a hole in the door it is forbidden for use from it to the hole and from the hole to it. Rebbi Nathan says, when it is locked it is entirely outside; when it is open it is partially inside and partially outside. And that is what we wanted to say; a threshold of four when the door is locked is entirely outside, also when the door is open it is partially inside and partially outside.

A threshold in front of the door; others say whenever the door is open it is entirely inside, when it is locked it is entirely outside. What are we dealing with? If it is roofed even when it is locked it is entirely inside, if it is not roofed even when it is open it is entirely outside. But we must deal with the case that it is partially roofed and partially not roofed. What does it mean, when it is locked it is entirely outside? It is permitted for use from it to the outside and from the outside to it. If there was a hole in the door it is forbidden for use from it to the hole and from the hole to it. Rebbi Nathan says, when it is locked it is entirely outside; when it is open it is partially inside and partially outside. And that is what we wanted to say; a threshold of four when the door is locked is entirely outside, also when the door is open it is partially inside and partially outside.

It was stated: Rebbi Joḥanan ben Rebbi Marius said, if he did not remove his hand from it. But if he removed it it is forbidden. An unripe fig which he hid in straw or a flat pita which he hid in coals may be taken on the Sabbath if they were partially uncovered, otherwise they may not be taken. Rebbi Eleazar ben Thaddeus said, in any case he can stick in a spit or a knife and take it. This [statement] of Rebbi Eleazar ben Thaddeus follows Rebbi Simeon, as we have stated: “A person may not drag a bed, or a chair, or a footstool, or a fauteuil, because he makes a groove, but Rebbi Simeon permits.”

What does Rebbi Jehudah say in this case? Let us hear from the following: Rebbi Joḥanan ben Dahavai said in the name of Rebbi Jehudah, neither does the blind one. Nobody says “neither” unless he agree with the preceding statement. The argument of Rebbi Jehudah seems to be inverted. There he says except, but here he says including. Rebbi Jehudah and the rabbis explain the same verse. Rebbi Jehudah emphasizes male, the rabbis emphazise uncircumcised. Why does the verse add male? Only if he be totally male. But Rebbi Jehudah emphasizes male, why does the verse add uncircumcised? Even if he is only partially uncircumcised. But here, all your maleness, except the hermaphrodite.

If there was a ditch ten [hand-breadths] deep and four wide, and it extends six in each direction, it is judged to be a double column. Not only a ditch but also a heap. Partially a ditch and partially a heap? If there were five sticks with less than three [hand-breadths] between them which together cover six [hand-breadths] in each direction, they are judged to be a double column. If there were three and he tied bast on top, would this save as symbolic fence? Does not a symbolic fence save only if it is proven from each side? Then what was tied around is as if blocked. Similar to what you are saying there, one sees that if it is split and there would be six [hand-breadths] in both directions it is considered a double column, could you say the same here? There would you not let it stand if it was like garlic skin; here what can you say? If you would say so you would abrogate the rules of symbolic fences.

If there was a ditch ten [hand-breadths] deep and four wide, and it extends six in each direction, it is judged to be a double column. Not only a ditch but also a heap. Partially a ditch and partially a heap? If there were five sticks with less than three [hand-breadths] between them which together cover six [hand-breadths] in each direction, they are judged to be a double column. If there were three and he tied bast on top, would this save as symbolic fence? Does not a symbolic fence save only if it is proven from each side? Then what was tied around is as if blocked. Similar to what you are saying there, one sees that if it is split and there would be six [hand-breadths] in both directions it is considered a double column, could you say the same here? There would you not let it stand if it was like garlic skin; here what can you say? If you would say so you would abrogate the rules of symbolic fences.

If they deposited him at the door of the sheep-pen. In the opinion of Rebbi Joshua and Rebbi Aqiba one gives him two cubits inside and two cubits outside. In the opinion of Rabban Gamliel and Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah one does not allow two cubits inside and two cubits outside, for if you would say that one allows him two cubits inside and two cubits outside then he could carry in the entire sheep-pen. If they deposited him in the middle of the sheep-pen and the sheep-pen was partially inside the Sabbath domain and partially outside the Sabbath domain. Rebbi Aḥa said it from study, Rebbi Jehudah said it from reflection: This is the disagreement of Rav Ḥuna and of Ḥiyya the son of Rav.

If they deposited him at the door of the sheep-pen. In the opinion of Rebbi Joshua and Rebbi Aqiba one gives him two cubits inside and two cubits outside. In the opinion of Rabban Gamliel and Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah one does not allow two cubits inside and two cubits outside, for if you would say that one allows him two cubits inside and two cubits outside then he could carry in the entire sheep-pen. If they deposited him in the middle of the sheep-pen and the sheep-pen was partially inside the Sabbath domain and partially outside the Sabbath domain. Rebbi Aḥa said it from study, Rebbi Jehudah said it from reflection: This is the disagreement of Rav Ḥuna and of Ḥiyya the son of Rav.

It was stated: “An unripe fig which he hid in straw or a flat pita which he hid in coals may be taken on the Sabbath if they were partially uncovered, otherwise they may not be taken.”

“A fire burn, I could think if it stays moist, the verse says, if the burn was healed. If the burn was healed, I could think until it becomes scar tissue, the verse says, a fire burn. How is that? It was partially healed; and so it says below, it is a burn scar; until it forms a membrane in the thickness of a garlic peel.” And here he says so? Rebbi Eleazar says, there fire roasted, only fire roasted, the verse repeated it to make it indispensable. But here, if the burn was healed, in any way. Rebbi Samuel bar Eudaimon said, there “law, teaching” makes it indispensable. But here what do you have?

MISHNAH: A limb which partially was taken out one cuts until he reaches the bone, and pares until he reaches the joint, where he cuts; but for sacrifices he cuts with a dagger since there breaking bones is not forbidden.. From the wing and inside it is like inside; from the wing and outside it is like outside. Windows and the thickness of the wall are like inside.

MISHNAH: If a house partially collapsed and he thatched over it, it is disqualified if from the walls to the thatching it is four cubits. The same holds for a courtyard which is surrounded by a walkway. A large sukkah is disqualified if it was surrounded by material which cannot be used for thatching covering four cubits.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: Disqualified space disqualifies in three hand-breadths; disqualified roofing disqualifies in four cubits. Rebbi Yose said, we have stated both. “Disqualified space disqualifies in three hand-breadths,” as we have stated: “If the roofing is three hand-breadths distant from the walls it is disqualified.” “Disqualified roofing disqualifies in four cubits,” as we have stated: “If a house partially collapsed and he thatched over it, it is disqualified if from the walls to the thatching it is four cubits.” Therefore less is qualified. May one sleep under that? Rebbi Isaac ben Elyashiv answered: pourable mud completes a miqweh but one may not immerse in it, here also it completes the sukkah but one may not sleep under it. Ḥizqiah said, because it looks like a bent wall. Rebbi Hoshaia stated, because it looks like a bent wall. Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, because it looks like a bent wall. Rebbi Ze`ira, Rebbi Yasa in the name of Cahana, because it looks like a bent wall. Rebbi Jonah said to Rebbi Yose, why do we not say, because disqualified roofing only disqualifies in four cubits?

It is written Elijah the Tisbite, from the inhabitants of Gilead, said to Aḥab: By the Living Eternal One, the God of Israel, before Whom I stood, there will not be dew nor rain these years except by my word. Rebbi Berekhia said, Rebbi Yose and the rabbis. One of them said, he was heard both for dew and for rain; the other one said, he was heard for rain but was not heard for dew, from: Go, appear before Aḥab and I shall give rain on the face of the earth. He who said, he was heard both for dew and for rain, where was the vow of dew dissolved? Rebbi Tanḥum from Edrei said, they are of the opinion that a vow that was dissolved partially is dissolved totally. Some want to say, on the occasion of the son of the woman from Sarepta: He called on the Eternal and said, o Eternal, my God, also the widow with whom I am dwelling You are doing evil to kill her son. Rebbi Judah ben Pazi said, about one who stole a doctor’s bag. When he left, his son was injured. He returned to him and said: Please, sir doctor, heal my son. He said to him: Go and return my bag because it is full of medicines, and I shall heal your son. So the Holy One, praise to Him, said to Elijah: Go and lift the vow of dew because the dead are resurrected only by dew, then I shall resurrect the son of the Sareptan. And from where that the dead will live only by dew? Your dead will live, the corpses will arise. Wake up and jubilate, those who dwell in dust! For a dew of light is Your dew, וָאָרֶ֭ץ רְפָאִ֥ים תַּפִּֽיל. What means וָאָרֶ֭ץ רְפָאִ֥ים תַּפִּֽיל? Rebbi Tanḥum from Edrei said, “the earth will give up what is deposited in it.”

HALAKHAH: The Mishnah is Rebbi Meïr’s, since Rebbi Meïr said, “not to eulogize” one is forbidden to fast, “not to fast” one is permitted to eulogize. “Not to” unspecified is as “not to fast.” Rebbi Jonah said, “these are the days not to eulogize <fast> on them, and partially not to fast <eulogize> on them.” Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, why does it say “on them” twice? To teach that the night is permitted but the day forbidden. As it was stated, “therefore a person who takes it on himself has to forbid himself in prayer.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, that he must mention it on the preceding evening. This comes following what Rebbi Ze`ira said in the name of Rav Huna: Similar to Friday night and Sabbath day.

The Mishnah is Rebbi Meïr’s, since Rebbi Meïr said, “not to eulogize” one is forbidden to fast, “not to fast” one is permitted to eulogize. “Not to” unspecified is as “not to fast.” Rebbi Jonah said, “these are the days not to fast on them, and partially not to eulogize on them.” Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, why does it say “on them” twice? To teach that the night is permitted but the day forbidden. As it was stated, “therefore a person who takes it on himself has to forbid himself in prayer.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, that he must mention it on the preceding evening. This comes following what Rebbi Ze`ira said in the name of Rav Ḥuna: Similar to Friday night and Sabbath day.

“The hermaphrodite.” All your males, to exclude the hermaphrodite. There, we have stated: “One does not desecrate the Sabbath for a case of doubt {or} for a hermaphrodite; Rebbi Jehudah permits for the hermaphrodite.” What does Rebbi Jehudah say in this case? Let us hear from the following: Joḥanan ben Dahavai said in the name of Rebbi Jehudah, neither does the blind one. Nobody says “neither” unless he agrees with the preceding statement. The argument of Rebbi Jehudah seems inverted. There he says except, but here he says including. Rebbi Jehudah and the rabbis explain the same verse. The rabbis explain uncircumcised. Why does the verse say, an uncircumcised male? Only if he be totally male. Rebbi Jehudah explains male. Why does the verse say, uncircumcised? Even if he is only partially uncircumcised. But here, all your males, to exclude the hermaphrodite.

Since the rabbis say, “bespeaking” acquires but not completely, so they say, a bill of divorce frees but not completely. Should not a bill of divorce completely free a sister-in-law by an argument de minore ad majus? Since ḥalîṣah does not free a wife but a bill of divorce does, is it not logical that a sister-in-law, who is freed by ḥalîṣah, should be freed by a bill of divorce? The verse says, “she shall pull off.” By pulling off she is freed; she is not freed by a bill of divorce. So it should free anything! It is written: “She shall not belong … to a strange man.” Where do we hold? If he came upon her, she is his wife. If he performed ḥalîṣah with her, she should go and marry an outsider. So we must hold that he gave her a bill of divorce. Also Ḥizqiah stated thus: From where that the sister-in-law is forbidden to himself and his brothers if he gave her a bill of divorce? For him, I read “whom he had sent away”. For the brothers, I read “whom he had sent away”. Then should not ḥalîṣah free a wife by an argument de minore ad majus? Since a bill of divorce does not free a sister-in-law but ḥalîṣah does, is it not logical that a wife, who is freed by a bill of divorce, should be freed by ḥalîṣah? The verse says, “ he shall write her a bill of divorce.” By a bill of divorce she is freed; she is not freed by ḥalîṣah. So [ḥalîṣah] should free partially! There, it is written, “she shall not belong … to a strange man.” Here, what do you have?

Since Rebbi Simeon says, “bespeaking” either acquires or does not acquire, does he say similarly that a bill of divorce frees or does not free? Let us hear from the following: Rebbi Simeon says, there is nothing after copulation if it is primary. Therefore, if it is secondary, there is something afterwards. That must deal with copulation after a bill of divorce. For if it were copulation after “bespeaking”, what could you say? If “bespeaking” acquired, there is nothing after that. If “bespeaking” did not acquire, intercourse will acquire and there is nothing after that. So we must speak about copulation after a bill of divorce. This implies that a bill of divorce frees partially.

Does Rabban Gamliel follow Rebbi Simeon to say that “bespeaking” either acquires or does not acquire? And here, against Rebbi Simeon that a bill of divorce frees or does not free? Let us hear from the following: “Rabban Gamliel agrees with the Sages that there may be a bill of divorce after ‘bespeaking’ and ‘bespeaking’ after a bill of divorce, a bill of divorce after intercourse and ‘bespeaking’, and ‘bespeaking’ after intercourse and a bill of divorce.” How can there be a bill of divorce after intercourse and “bespeaking”? There were three sisters-in-law. He “bespoke” one, had intercourse with another, and gave a bill of divorce to the third. This implies that “bespeaking” acquires partially. If you would say that “bespeaking” either acquires or does not acquire then, as you take it, if “bespeaking” acquired, there can be nothing after that. If “bespeaking” did not acquire, intercourse should acquire and there should be nothing after that. This implies that “bespeaking” acquires partially. How can there be “bespeaking” after intercourse and a bill of divorce? If there were three sisters-in-law. He gave a bill of divorce to one, had intercourse with another, and “bespoke” the third. This implies that a bill of divorce frees partially. If you would say that a bill of divorce either frees or does not free then, as you take it, if a bill of divorce frees, there can be nothing after that. If a bill of divorce does not free, intercourse should acquire and there should be nothing after that. This implies that a bill of divorce frees partially. Does Rabban Gamliel follow Rebbi Simeon? There is no “bespeaking” after “bespeaking” a sister-in-law following Rebbi Simeon. But the argument of one is different from the argument of the other. The argument of Rabban Gamliel: any part which a “bespeaking” of the the second could acquire in the future, the first already had acquired. Any part which a bill of divorce from the second [brother] could free in the future, the bill of divorce of the first already had freed. The reasoning of Rebbi Simeon: If the first [brother] acquired, so did the second. If the first [brother] did not acquire, neither did the second. If the first [bill of divorce] did not free, neither did the second.

Does Rabban Gamliel follow Rebbi Simeon to say that “bespeaking” either acquires or does not acquire? And here, against Rebbi Simeon that a bill of divorce frees or does not free? Let us hear from the following: “Rabban Gamliel agrees with the Sages that there may be a bill of divorce after ‘bespeaking’ and ‘bespeaking’ after a bill of divorce, a bill of divorce after intercourse and ‘bespeaking’, and ‘bespeaking’ after intercourse and a bill of divorce.” How can there be a bill of divorce after intercourse and “bespeaking”? There were three sisters-in-law. He “bespoke” one, had intercourse with another, and gave a bill of divorce to the third. This implies that “bespeaking” acquires partially. If you would say that “bespeaking” either acquires or does not acquire then, as you take it, if “bespeaking” acquired, there can be nothing after that. If “bespeaking” did not acquire, intercourse should acquire and there should be nothing after that. This implies that “bespeaking” acquires partially. How can there be “bespeaking” after intercourse and a bill of divorce? If there were three sisters-in-law. He gave a bill of divorce to one, had intercourse with another, and “bespoke” the third. This implies that a bill of divorce frees partially. If you would say that a bill of divorce either frees or does not free then, as you take it, if a bill of divorce frees, there can be nothing after that. If a bill of divorce does not free, intercourse should acquire and there should be nothing after that. This implies that a bill of divorce frees partially. Does Rabban Gamliel follow Rebbi Simeon? There is no “bespeaking” after “bespeaking” a sister-in-law following Rebbi Simeon. But the argument of one is different from the argument of the other. The argument of Rabban Gamliel: any part which a “bespeaking” of the the second could acquire in the future, the first already had acquired. Any part which a bill of divorce from the second [brother] could free in the future, the bill of divorce of the first already had freed. The reasoning of Rebbi Simeon: If the first [brother] acquired, so did the second. If the first [brother] did not acquire, neither did the second. If the first [bill of divorce] did not free, neither did the second.

Does Rabban Gamliel follow Rebbi Simeon to say that “bespeaking” either acquires or does not acquire? And here, against Rebbi Simeon that a bill of divorce frees or does not free? Let us hear from the following: “Rabban Gamliel agrees with the Sages that there may be a bill of divorce after ‘bespeaking’ and ‘bespeaking’ after a bill of divorce, a bill of divorce after intercourse and ‘bespeaking’, and ‘bespeaking’ after intercourse and a bill of divorce.” How can there be a bill of divorce after intercourse and “bespeaking”? There were three sisters-in-law. He “bespoke” one, had intercourse with another, and gave a bill of divorce to the third. This implies that “bespeaking” acquires partially. If you would say that “bespeaking” either acquires or does not acquire then, as you take it, if “bespeaking” acquired, there can be nothing after that. If “bespeaking” did not acquire, intercourse should acquire and there should be nothing after that. This implies that “bespeaking” acquires partially. How can there be “bespeaking” after intercourse and a bill of divorce? If there were three sisters-in-law. He gave a bill of divorce to one, had intercourse with another, and “bespoke” the third. This implies that a bill of divorce frees partially. If you would say that a bill of divorce either frees or does not free then, as you take it, if a bill of divorce frees, there can be nothing after that. If a bill of divorce does not free, intercourse should acquire and there should be nothing after that. This implies that a bill of divorce frees partially. Does Rabban Gamliel follow Rebbi Simeon? There is no “bespeaking” after “bespeaking” a sister-in-law following Rebbi Simeon. But the argument of one is different from the argument of the other. The argument of Rabban Gamliel: any part which a “bespeaking” of the the second could acquire in the future, the first already had acquired. Any part which a bill of divorce from the second [brother] could free in the future, the bill of divorce of the first already had freed. The reasoning of Rebbi Simeon: If the first [brother] acquired, so did the second. If the first [brother] did not acquire, neither did the second. If the first [bill of divorce] did not free, neither did the second.

Does Rabban Gamliel follow Rebbi Simeon to say that “bespeaking” either acquires or does not acquire? And here, against Rebbi Simeon that a bill of divorce frees or does not free? Let us hear from the following: “Rabban Gamliel agrees with the Sages that there may be a bill of divorce after ‘bespeaking’ and ‘bespeaking’ after a bill of divorce, a bill of divorce after intercourse and ‘bespeaking’, and ‘bespeaking’ after intercourse and a bill of divorce.” How can there be a bill of divorce after intercourse and “bespeaking”? There were three sisters-in-law. He “bespoke” one, had intercourse with another, and gave a bill of divorce to the third. This implies that “bespeaking” acquires partially. If you would say that “bespeaking” either acquires or does not acquire then, as you take it, if “bespeaking” acquired, there can be nothing after that. If “bespeaking” did not acquire, intercourse should acquire and there should be nothing after that. This implies that “bespeaking” acquires partially. How can there be “bespeaking” after intercourse and a bill of divorce? If there were three sisters-in-law. He gave a bill of divorce to one, had intercourse with another, and “bespoke” the third. This implies that a bill of divorce frees partially. If you would say that a bill of divorce either frees or does not free then, as you take it, if a bill of divorce frees, there can be nothing after that. If a bill of divorce does not free, intercourse should acquire and there should be nothing after that. This implies that a bill of divorce frees partially. Does Rabban Gamliel follow Rebbi Simeon? There is no “bespeaking” after “bespeaking” a sister-in-law following Rebbi Simeon. But the argument of one is different from the argument of the other. The argument of Rabban Gamliel: any part which a “bespeaking” of the the second could acquire in the future, the first already had acquired. Any part which a bill of divorce from the second [brother] could free in the future, the bill of divorce of the first already had freed. The reasoning of Rebbi Simeon: If the first [brother] acquired, so did the second. If the first [brother] did not acquire, neither did the second. If the first [bill of divorce] did not free, neither did the second.

HALAKHAH: “How? If he ‘bespoke’,” etc. In the opinion of Rebbi, what about his “bespeaking”, may a nine-year-old “bespeak”? The intercourse of an adult is final; his “bespeaking” partially acquires. The intercourse of a minor is final; does his “bespeaking” partially acquire? What is the difference between his intercourse and his “bespeaking”? But some want to formulate: What is the difference between “bespeaking” of an adult and “bespeaking” of a minor? Samuel said, the words of Rebbi Meïr: They made the intercourse of a child of nine years and one day like “bespeaking” of an adult. And as you said, they made the intercourse of a child of nine years and one day like “bespeaking” of an adult, they made the ḥalîṣah of a child of nine years and one day like “bespeaking” of an adult. But the rabbis said, the ḥalîṣah of a child of nine years and one day is nothing. And why did they make the intercourse of a child of nine years and one day like “bespeaking” of an adult? Because the intercourse of an adult acquires whether intentional or not intentional. The ḥalîṣah of a child of nine years and one day was made like a bill of divorce by an adult. But ḥalîṣah by an adult can free only if it is intentional.

HALAKHAH: “How? If he ‘bespoke’,” etc. In the opinion of Rebbi, what about his “bespeaking”, may a nine-year-old “bespeak”? The intercourse of an adult is final; his “bespeaking” partially acquires. The intercourse of a minor is final; does his “bespeaking” partially acquire? What is the difference between his intercourse and his “bespeaking”? But some want to formulate: What is the difference between “bespeaking” of an adult and “bespeaking” of a minor? Samuel said, the words of Rebbi Meïr: They made the intercourse of a child of nine years and one day like “bespeaking” of an adult. And as you said, they made the intercourse of a child of nine years and one day like “bespeaking” of an adult, they made the ḥalîṣah of a child of nine years and one day like “bespeaking” of an adult. But the rabbis said, the ḥalîṣah of a child of nine years and one day is nothing. And why did they make the intercourse of a child of nine years and one day like “bespeaking” of an adult? Because the intercourse of an adult acquires whether intentional or not intentional. The ḥalîṣah of a child of nine years and one day was made like a bill of divorce by an adult. But ḥalîṣah by an adult can free only if it is intentional.

There, we have stated: “Everybody is required to be seen except the deaf-and-dumb, the insane, the minor, the sexless, and the hermaphrodite.” What says Rebbi Jehudah in this respect? Let us hear from the following: Rebbi Joḥanan ben Dahavai said in the name of Rebbi Jehudah, “also the blind one.” Nobody says “also” unless he agrees with the preceding statement. The argument of Rebbi Jehudah seems to be inverted. There he says to exclude, but here he says to include. Rebbi Jehudah and the rabbis explain the same verse. The rabbis explain “uncircumcised”, why does the verse add “male”? Only if he is totally male. Rebbi Jehudah explains “male”, why does the verse add “uncircumcised”? Even if he is partially male. But here, “all your maleness”, that excludes the hermaphrodite.

HALAKHAH: “A preliminarily married woman or one who waits for her brother-in-law,” etc. Why can he not make her drink? It is a decision of the verse: “The man shall bring his wife to the Cohen.” Then he should not be able to declare his jealousy! The Torah said, “and he declared his jealousy to his wife,” “and he declared his jealousy to his wife,” even if she is only partially his wife.

Rebbi Jehudah asked: As you say, “and he declared his jealousy to his wife,” “and he declared his jealousy to his wife,” even if she is only partially his wife, similarly, “under your husband,” even if he is only partially your husband. How is that? If he declared his jealousy to her while she was preliminarily married, then he wed her, and she went to a secluded place, he makes her drink on the basis of his declaration of jealousy. If he declared his jealousy to her while she was waiting for her brother-in-law, then he wed her, and she went to a secluded place, he makes her drink on the basis of his declaration of jealousy. If he declared his jealousy to her while she was preliminarily married, then he took her in, she went to a secluded place, and after that he had sex with her, she has to leave with her ketubah; otherwise she has to leave without ketubah. [If he declared his jealousy to her while she was waiting for her brother-in-law, then he took her in, she went to a secluded place, and after that he had sex with her, she has to leave with her ketubah; otherwise without ketubah.] If her husband declared his jealousy and died, she became destined for her brother-in-law who married her, then she went to a secluded place, he makes her drink on the basis of [the first husband’s] declaration of jealousy. If her husband did not declare his jealousy and died, she became destined for her brother-in-law who declared his jealousy but did not manage to take her in before he died and she became destined for his brother, the latter cannot make her drink since she became destined for him only because of the first brother. But if her brother-in-law declared his jealousy, took her in, and died, then she became destined for a brother-in-law who took her in, when she went to a secluded place he makes her drink on the basis of his declaration of jealousy.

Rebbi Jehudah asked: As you say, “and he declared his jealousy to his wife,” “and he declared his jealousy to his wife,” even if she is only partially his wife, similarly, “under your husband,” even if he is only partially your husband. How is that? If he declared his jealousy to her while she was preliminarily married, then he wed her, and she went to a secluded place, he makes her drink on the basis of his declaration of jealousy. If he declared his jealousy to her while she was waiting for her brother-in-law, then he wed her, and she went to a secluded place, he makes her drink on the basis of his declaration of jealousy. If he declared his jealousy to her while she was preliminarily married, then he took her in, she went to a secluded place, and after that he had sex with her, she has to leave with her ketubah; otherwise she has to leave without ketubah. [If he declared his jealousy to her while she was waiting for her brother-in-law, then he took her in, she went to a secluded place, and after that he had sex with her, she has to leave with her ketubah; otherwise without ketubah.] If her husband declared his jealousy and died, she became destined for her brother-in-law who married her, then she went to a secluded place, he makes her drink on the basis of [the first husband’s] declaration of jealousy. If her husband did not declare his jealousy and died, she became destined for her brother-in-law who declared his jealousy but did not manage to take her in before he died and she became destined for his brother, the latter cannot make her drink since she became destined for him only because of the first brother. But if her brother-in-law declared his jealousy, took her in, and died, then she became destined for a brother-in-law who took her in, when she went to a secluded place he makes her drink on the basis of his declaration of jealousy.

Why can he not make her drink? It is a decision of the verse: “The man shall bring his wife to the Cohen.” Then he should not be able to declare his jealousy! The Torah said, “and he declared his jealousy to his wife,” “and he declared his jealousy to his wife,” even if she is only partially his wife.

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

MISHNAH: If she sold her ketubah entirely or partially, or donated her ketubah to another, entirely or partially, she cannot sell the remainder except under court supervision. But the Sages say, she may sell even four or five times, and may sell for sustenance without court supervision but writes in the document that “I sold for sustenance.” A divorcee may sell only under court supervision.

MISHNAH: If she sold her ketubah entirely or partially, or donated her ketubah to another, entirely or partially, she cannot sell the remainder except under court supervision. But the Sages say, she may sell even four or five times, and may sell for sustenance without court supervision but writes in the document that “I sold for sustenance.” A divorcee may sell only under court supervision.

HALAKHAH: “If she sold her ketubah entirely or partially,” etc. It was stated: “She sells and writes ‘this I sold for ketubah’ and ‘this I sold for sustenance,’ the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Yose said, she sells and writes non-specifically; in this she is empowered.” If a loan before witnesses [comes due], she says, I sold for sustenance. If a loan by contract [comes due], she says, I sold for my ketubah. And even if a loan before witnesses [comes due], she sells for sustenance and turns around and forecloses it for her ketubah; could one not say to her, show your sale? Explain it, if the object increased in value.

HALAKHAH: “ “I am ḥerem for you”, etc. ‘A qônām that I shall not have any usufruct from you and anyone I would ask about you’, he has to ask about the first but not the second. Some Tannaïm state: He has to ask both about the first and the second. Samuel the son of Rebbi Joseph ben Rebbi Abun said, that follows the one who said “after the prohibition”. But for the one who said “after the vow”, a vow which is partially invalid is totally invalid.

MISHNAH: One opens about festive days and Sabbaths. In earlier times, they said that these days are permitted but the rest forbidden, until Rebbi Aqiba came and taught that a vow which was partially voided is totally voided. How is this? ‘A qônām that I shall not benefit any one of you,’ if one was permitted, all are permitted. ‘That I shall not benefit this one and this one and this one,’ if the first one becomes permitted, all are permitted; if the last one becomes permitted, he is permitted and the others are prohibited. ‘That I shall not benefit, a qorbān for this one, a qorbān for that one’; each single one needs a separate opening. ‘A qônām that I shall not taste wine, for wine is bad for the intestines.’ If they told him, but old [wine] is good for the intestines, old [wine] was permitted; not only old wine is permitted but all wines. ‘A qônām that I shall not taste onion, for onion is bad for the heart.’ If they told him, but the rural kind is good for the heart, rural [onion] was permitted; not only rural is permitted but all onions. It happened that Rebbi Meїr permitted all onions to him.

HALAKHAH: Some Tannaïm state: “He shall confirm it”, even partially, “he shall dissolve it”, even partially. Some Tannaïm state: “He shall confirm it”, totally, “he shall dissolve it”, totally. Some Tannaïm state: “He shall confirm it”, even partially, “he shall dissolve it”, totally. Some Tannaïm state: “He shall confirm it”, totally, “he shall dissolve it”, even partially. The Mishnah follows him who said, “he shall confirm it”, even partially, “he shall dissolve it”, totally. As we have stated: “If he confirmed for the figs he confirmed everything. If he dissolved for figs it is not dissolved unless he also dissolves for grapes.” If she said, a qônām that I shall not taste a fig nor a grape berry, that is a matter of difference between Rebbi Ismael and Rebbi Aqiba since Rebbi Ismael says, the vow decides, and Rebbi Aqiba says, the prohibition decides.

HALAKHAH: Some Tannaïm state: “He shall confirm it”, even partially, “he shall dissolve it”, even partially. Some Tannaïm state: “He shall confirm it”, totally, “he shall dissolve it”, totally. Some Tannaïm state: “He shall confirm it”, even partially, “he shall dissolve it”, totally. Some Tannaïm state: “He shall confirm it”, totally, “he shall dissolve it”, even partially. The Mishnah follows him who said, “he shall confirm it”, even partially, “he shall dissolve it”, totally. As we have stated: “If he confirmed for the figs he confirmed everything. If he dissolved for figs it is not dissolved unless he also dissolves for grapes.” If she said, a qônām that I shall not taste a fig nor a grape berry, that is a matter of difference between Rebbi Ismael and Rebbi Aqiba since Rebbi Ismael says, the vow decides, and Rebbi Aqiba says, the prohibition decides.

HALAKHAH: Some Tannaïm state: “He shall confirm it”, even partially, “he shall dissolve it”, even partially. Some Tannaïm state: “He shall confirm it”, totally, “he shall dissolve it”, totally. Some Tannaïm state: “He shall confirm it”, even partially, “he shall dissolve it”, totally. Some Tannaïm state: “He shall confirm it”, totally, “he shall dissolve it”, even partially. The Mishnah follows him who said, “he shall confirm it”, even partially, “he shall dissolve it”, totally. As we have stated: “If he confirmed for the figs he confirmed everything. If he dissolved for figs it is not dissolved unless he also dissolves for grapes.” If she said, a qônām that I shall not taste a fig nor a grape berry, that is a matter of difference between Rebbi Ismael and Rebbi Aqiba since Rebbi Ismael says, the vow decides, and Rebbi Aqiba says, the prohibition decides.

HALAKHAH: Some Tannaïm state: “He shall confirm it”, even partially, “he shall dissolve it”, even partially. Some Tannaïm state: “He shall confirm it”, totally, “he shall dissolve it”, totally. Some Tannaïm state: “He shall confirm it”, even partially, “he shall dissolve it”, totally. Some Tannaïm state: “He shall confirm it”, totally, “he shall dissolve it”, even partially. The Mishnah follows him who said, “he shall confirm it”, even partially, “he shall dissolve it”, totally. As we have stated: “If he confirmed for the figs he confirmed everything. If he dissolved for figs it is not dissolved unless he also dissolves for grapes.” If she said, a qônām that I shall not taste a fig nor a grape berry, that is a matter of difference between Rebbi Ismael and Rebbi Aqiba since Rebbi Ismael says, the vow decides, and Rebbi Aqiba says, the prohibition decides.

HALAKHAH: Some Tannaïm state: “He shall confirm it”, even partially, “he shall dissolve it”, even partially. Some Tannaïm state: “He shall confirm it”, totally, “he shall dissolve it”, totally. Some Tannaïm state: “He shall confirm it”, even partially, “he shall dissolve it”, totally. Some Tannaïm state: “He shall confirm it”, totally, “he shall dissolve it”, even partially. The Mishnah follows him who said, “he shall confirm it”, even partially, “he shall dissolve it”, totally. As we have stated: “If he confirmed for the figs he confirmed everything. If he dissolved for figs it is not dissolved unless he also dissolves for grapes.” If she said, a qônām that I shall not taste a fig nor a grape berry, that is a matter of difference between Rebbi Ismael and Rebbi Aqiba since Rebbi Ismael says, the vow decides, and Rebbi Aqiba says, the prohibition decides.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody vowed two neziriot,” etc. If he finished his first period of nezirut and started to lean on the second, when they did not find an opening for the first while they found an opening for the second, the second can be used for the first. Where do we hold? If he said, “I am a nazir twice,” a vow which is partially annulled is totally annulled. If he said, “I am a nazir for these 30 days and those 30 days,” in this case the second cannot be used for the first. But we must hold that he said, “I am a nazir and nazir.” If he said, “these are for nezirut.” But if he said, “these are for my nezirut; those are for the other nezirut,” in this case the second cannot be used for the first. Rebbi Eleazar said, if he finished the first nezirut, as soon as he brought a sacrifice and shaved, the first is credited for the second. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa commanded the colleagues: If you hear anything formulated by Rebbi Eleazar, you should know that Rebbi Joḥanan disagrees: not unless he brings all his sacrifices, following the rabbis; but following Rebbi Simeon even if he brings only one sacrifice. If he dedicated both together, he has only one in his hand. If he dedicated each of them separately or brought each of them for the other, he did not acquit himself [of his obligation]. This means that as far as holiness goes, they became holy. But did not Rebbi Ḥiyya state: “His sacrifice to the Eternal for his nezirut,” i. e., that his vow of nazir should precede his sacrifice, rather than that his sacrifice precede his vow of nazir. It is different, because he still is in nezirut. One understands the second for the first. The first for the second? Rebbi Jehudah said, this supports Rebbi Eleazar. But did not Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa command the colleagues: If you hear anything formulated by Rebbi Eleazar, you should know that Rebbi Joḥanan disagrees; not unless he brings all his sacrifices. They wanted to say, following the rabbis. But here, we hold with Rebbi Simeon. Rebbi Ḥinena in the name of Rebbi Phineas: Explain it for his nezirut and the nezirut he pledged for his son. In that, the second can be used for the first. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, did we not argue about one who said, “I am a nazir”? He really should be a nazir only once. You were severe with him and obligated him to be a nazir twice. Is it not enough that you were severe with him and obligated him to be a nazir twice, that now you say, he has nothing in his hands?

Some want to derive it from the following: “For a hanged person is blasphemy.” Anybody warned about blasphemy is warned about a corpse of obligation. Anybody not warned about blasphemy is not warned about a corpse of obligation. They objected, are there not Gentiles? Those executed by hanging, this exludes those executed by the sword. “Bury!” A positive commandment. From where do you add the sword he was killed with, the gallows on which he was hanged, the towel with which he was strangled? Why does the verse say, “you shall bury him”? I could think he alone is buried; the verse says “bury, you shall bury him”, a burial for him, and his gallows, and his stone. How does one do it? One digs down three [handbreadths], so the plough shall not unearth him. “You shall bury him”, whole and not partially. “You shall bury him”, from here that if he left anything [unburied], he did not do anything, for it is said “bury, you shall bury him”. From here that it is not a corpse of obligation unless it consists of his head with most of the body.

If [the bill of divorce] contained documentation of a gift and [the messenger] said, it was written and signed before me, is [the husband’s] protest about the gift void since it is void about the divorce? Or, since his protest is void [only] about the divorce, is it valid about the gift? We have stated later: “Bills of divorce for wives and documents of manumission are equal in the rules of carrying and bringing.” If [the document of manumission] contained documentation of a gift and [the messenger] said, it was written and signed before me, is [the master’s] protest about the gift void since it is void about the manumission? Or since his protest is void [only] about the manumission, is it valid about the gift? If somebody signed all his property over to his slave, you say that the gift is the document of manumission. How do you treat this? Is it a document of manumission and his protest is void or is it a gift and his protest is valid? This can be compared to the following: If somebody signed all his property over to two persons in one document and the testimony of the witnesses was valid for one but invalid for the other. Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Immi: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagreed; one said, since it is invalid for one it is invalid for the other, but the other said, it is valid for one and invalid for the other. Rebbi Mana did not specify; Rebbi Abin specified: Rebbi Joḥanan said, since it is invalid for one it is invalid for the other; but Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it is valid for one and invalid for the other. Rebbi Eleazar said, a Mishnah supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “Since testimony of two [witnesses] is invalid if one of them turns out to be related or disqualified, so also of three [witnesses] it is invalid if one of them turns out to be related or disqualified”. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Rebbi Ḥanina the colleague of the rabbis and the rabbis disagree. One says, the argument of Rebbi Eleazar is correct, but the other says, Rebbi Eleazar is not correct. For him who says, the argument of Rebbi Eleazar is correct, it is a testimony about one person; as testimony it is totally invalid if it is partially invalid. For him who says, the argument of Rebbi Eleazar is not correct, it is as if two groups of witnesses came, valid for one and disqualified for the other.

MISHNAH: If somebody brings a bill of divorce from overseas and says, “it was written before me,” but not “it was signed before me,” or “it was signed before me” but not “it was written before me”, “it was written before me but signed only partially before me”, “it was partially written before me but signed completely before me”, it is invalid. If one said “it was written before me” and another “it was signed before me”, it is invalid; if two people say, “it was written before us” but only one says, “it was signed before me,” it is invalid; but Rebbi Jehudah declares it valid. If one says, “it was written before me” but two say, “it was signed before us,” it is valid.

MISHNAH: If somebody brings a bill of divorce from overseas and says, “it was written before me,” but not “it was signed before me,” or “it was signed before me” but not “it was written before me”, “it was written before me but signed only partially before me”, “it was partially written before me but signed completely before me”, it is invalid. If one said “it was written before me” and another “it was signed before me”, it is invalid; if two people say, “it was written before us” but only one says, “it was signed before me,” it is invalid; but Rebbi Jehudah declares it valid. If one says, “it was written before me” but two say, “it was signed before us,” it is valid.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody in divorcing his wife,” etc. Rebbi Ilai said, the reason of Rebbi Eliezer: “She left his house, went, and became another man’s”, even if he did permit her only to one other man. This argument proves more than the Mishnah! The Mishnah said if she was permitted to all but forbidden to one other man; the argument is that he forbade her to all but permitted her only to one other man. What is the reason of Rebbi Eliezer? Death permits and divorce permits. Since death permits only partially, so the bill of divorce permits only partially. What is the reason of the rabbis? “She left his house, went, and became another man’s”; it brackets marriage and divorce. Since her divorce is without participation of a third party, so her marriage must be without participation of a third party.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody in divorcing his wife,” etc. Rebbi Ilai said, the reason of Rebbi Eliezer: “She left his house, went, and became another man’s”, even if he did permit her only to one other man. This argument proves more than the Mishnah! The Mishnah said if she was permitted to all but forbidden to one other man; the argument is that he forbade her to all but permitted her only to one other man. What is the reason of Rebbi Eliezer? Death permits and divorce permits. Since death permits only partially, so the bill of divorce permits only partially. What is the reason of the rabbis? “She left his house, went, and became another man’s”; it brackets marriage and divorce. Since her divorce is without participation of a third party, so her marriage must be without participation of a third party.

“But the Sages say, small animals are taken possession of by drawing near.” What is the reason of the rabbis? “Draw near and take for yourselves small animals for your families.” As Rav Jehudah sent to ask: By what means is possession of large animals established? He answered, by handing over; and asked, is that not the Mishnah? There are Tannaïm who switch the attributions. Rav Jehudah asked Rebbi Eleazar: If a firstborn became “torn” within thirty days? He answered, he is as if dead and free from the five tetradrachmas of a son. Rav Jehudah sent and asked Rebbi Eleazar: A placenta which was delivered partially today and partially tomorrow? He answered, for pure blood she counts from the first day, for impure blood from the second day. Rebbi Mattaniah said, that is, if no child was produced with it. But if there was a child, both for pure and impure blood she counts only from the moment of birth of the child.

“But the Sages say, small animals are taken possession of by drawing near.” What is the reason of the rabbis? “Draw near and take for yourselves small animals for your families.” As Rav Jehudah sent to ask: By what means is possession of large animals established? He answered, by handing over; and asked, is that not the Mishnah? There are Tannaïm who switch the attributions. Rav Jehudah asked Rebbi Eleazar: If a firstborn became “torn” within thirty days? He answered, he is as if dead and free from the five tetradrachmas of a son. Rav Jehudah sent and asked Rebbi Eleazar: A placenta which was delivered partially today and partially tomorrow? He answered, for pure blood she counts from the first day, for impure blood from the second day. Rebbi Mattaniah said, that is, if no child was produced with it. But if there was a child, both for pure and impure blood she counts only from the moment of birth of the child.

MISHNAH: Anything I am obligated to watch I did set up for damage claims. If I partially set up for damage claims I am liable for claims as if I had set up for any claims. Properties of people of the covenant and private property, except for property belonging solely to the person responsible for the damage; but property common to the person suffering the damage and the person responsible for the damage falls under the rules of restitution.

“If I partially set up for damage claims” “as if I had set up for any claims.” This is the pit, as it was stated: If somebody dug a pit ten handbreadths deep and another came and deepened it another handbreadth, the latter is responsible. Rebbi says, one goes after the latter in case of death and after the former for damages. Rebbi Isaac says: So is the baraita: After the latter in case of death and after both of them for damages. If he dug [a pit] ten handbreadths deep and another person came, whitewashed and lined it, both of them are liable. Is he liable because he whitewashed and lined it? When he told him, whitewash this (house) [pit] and acquire it, for Rebbi Immi said in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, the prevention of damages follows the rules of guarding an acquisition. Rebbi Simon said, explain it when he was digging in the dunes. And it was stated: If each of them dug ten, or each one twenty, or each one a hundred, they are all liable. How deep does it have to be? To be deadly, ten handbreadths. To do damage, anything. Symmachos says, three in depth and four in width. Rebbi Eleazar the caper grower says, the length of the animal which falls in. What means the length of the animal which falls in? Whether chicken or camel.

HALAKHAH: “How does he pay for what it benefited from,” etc. Rav said, if it bent its neck and ate, he pays for what it damaged. But did we not state: “From the door of a store, he pays what it benefited from; inside the store he pays for what it damaged”? How is that? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, explain it that a donkey carried lambs and when it passed by, they bent their necks and ate; from the door of a store, he pays what they benefited from; inside the store he pays for what they damaged. Rav said, if it ate barley, he pays for straw. But did not Rebbi Ḥiyya state and disagree? “Therefore, if it ate wheat which is bad for it, it is free. If it changed and ate, he pays full damages. What means ‘if it changed and ate, he pays full damages’? If somebody had his chest hanging on his back and a cow stretched out its neck and ate from it, [its owner] pays full damages. If a large container was at the entrance to a store, partially outside and partially inside; if a cow stretched its neck and ate from it, he pays full damages.”

HALAKHAH: “How does he pay for what it benefited from,” etc. Rav said, if it bent its neck and ate, he pays for what it damaged. But did we not state: “From the door of a store, he pays what it benefited from; inside the store he pays for what it damaged”? How is that? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, explain it that a donkey carried lambs and when it passed by, they bent their necks and ate; from the door of a store, he pays what they benefited from; inside the store he pays for what they damaged. Rav said, if it ate barley, he pays for straw. But did not Rebbi Ḥiyya state and disagree? “Therefore, if it ate wheat which is bad for it, it is free. If it changed and ate, he pays full damages. What means ‘if it changed and ate, he pays full damages’? If somebody had his chest hanging on his back and a cow stretched out its neck and ate from it, [its owner] pays full damages. If a large container was at the entrance to a store, partially outside and partially inside; if a cow stretched its neck and ate from it, he pays full damages.”

HALAKHAH: “A person convicted of theft on the testimony of two witnesses,” etc. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, this implies that a perjured witness is not disqualified by the court but is disqualified by himself. Explain it by warning, as it was stated: “Rebbi Yose said, when has this been said? For two testimonies with two warnings. But for one testimony and one warning any testimony which is partially disqualified is totally disqualified.” What does it mean that if it is partially disqualified it is totally disqualified? If they were standing and testifying against him on then tenth of Nisan that he had stolen an ox on the first of Nisan. He slaughtered or sold on the tenth of Nisan. They were shown to be perjured on the fifteenth of Nisan. Any testimony which they delivered between the tenth and the fifteenth of Nisan is retroactively disqualified. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, explain it if they deliver their testimony in one group and you cannot infer anything, as we have stated: “They were the first and they were the later [witnesses]. If they were shown to be perjured at first, there is nothing. At the second time, there is one testimony. At the third time, there are two testimonies.” And how is that if they give testimony in one group, you cannot infer anything? It comes only based on multiple testimony.

HALAKHAH: “A person convicted of theft on the testimony of two witnesses,” etc. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, this implies that a perjured witness is not disqualified by the court but is disqualified by himself. Explain it by warning, as it was stated: “Rebbi Yose said, when has this been said? For two testimonies with two warnings. But for one testimony and one warning any testimony which is partially disqualified is totally disqualified.” What does it mean that if it is partially disqualified it is totally disqualified? If they were standing and testifying against him on then tenth of Nisan that he had stolen an ox on the first of Nisan. He slaughtered or sold on the tenth of Nisan. They were shown to be perjured on the fifteenth of Nisan. Any testimony which they delivered between the tenth and the fifteenth of Nisan is retroactively disqualified. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, explain it if they deliver their testimony in one group and you cannot infer anything, as we have stated: “They were the first and they were the later [witnesses]. If they were shown to be perjured at first, there is nothing. At the second time, there is one testimony. At the third time, there are two testimonies.” And how is that if they give testimony in one group, you cannot infer anything? It comes only based on multiple testimony.

It is written: To amusement I said, be praised. The Holy One, praise to him, said to Solomon: What is this crown on your head? Descend from My throne! Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, at that moment an angel came down looking like Solomon, removed him from his throne, and sat in his stead. He was going around in synagogues and houses of study, saying I am Ecclesiastes, I used to be king over Israel in Jerusalem. They were telling him, the king sits on his chair of honor and you say, I am Ecclesiastes? They hit him with a stick and brought a dish of split beans before him. At that moment, he said: that is my part. Some say, a staff. Others say, a rod. Others say, with his belt. Who had accused him? Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, י in יַרְבֶּה accused him. Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai stated: The book Deuteronomy ascended, bowed down before the Holy One, praise to Him, and said to Him: Master of the Universe, You wrote in Your Torah that any disposition which is partially invalid is totally invalid, and now Solomon wants to uproot a י from me! The Holy One, praise to Him, said to it: Solomon and a thousand like him will disappear but nothing from you will disappear.

It was stated: If an heir’s father held a partially paid promissory note, the son collects without swearing. In this the son’s power is greater than the father’s since the father can collect only by swearing. Rebbi Eleazar said, nevertheless he has to execute an heir’s oath, “that our father did not charge us, that our father did not tell us, that we did not find a document among our father’s documents stating that this note was paid.” Therefore, if there was a document, the note was paid. Rebbi Hoshaia asked, does the baraita follow the House of Shammai? For the House of Shammai say, “she collects her ketubah and does not drink.” Rebbi Yose said, there the reason of the House of Shammai is: bring my husband and I shall drink! But here, it would be in order that even his father would not have to swear. They instituted a rule that he has to swear. They instituted this for him, but not for his son. When he died, you put his son on the biblical rule.

What is the reason of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa? Of the Children of Israel. What is the reason of the rabbis? Of his brothers, not his sons. What is the reason of Rebbi Jehudah? Of his brothers, even partially his brother. What is the reason of the rabbis? Of his brothers, unless he be totally his brother.

If they were ten. There are Tannaïm who state, the first one is liable and all the rest are not liable. There are Tannaïm who state, the last one is not liable and all the rest are liable. The one who said, the first one is liable and all the rest are not liable, holds with him who said, the testimony can be verified by the remaining [witnesses]. The one who said, the last one is not liable and all the rest are liable, holds with him who said, testimony that was partially invalidated is totally invalidated. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah says so: “if there were two groups of witnesses.” He only said “two”. Therefore if there had been one, testimony that was partially invalidated it is totally invalidated.

If they were ten. There are Tannaïm who state, the first one is liable and all the rest are not liable. There are Tannaïm who state, the last one is not liable and all the rest are liable. The one who said, the first one is liable and all the rest are not liable, holds with him who said, the testimony can be verified by the remaining [witnesses]. The one who said, the last one is not liable and all the rest are liable, holds with him who said, testimony that was partially invalidated is totally invalidated. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah says so: “if there were two groups of witnesses.” He only said “two”. Therefore if there had been one, testimony that was partially invalidated it is totally invalidated.

“And the acknowledgment of one peruṭah.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, if somebody claims that another had stolen, the latter is not liable unless he partially admit. But all his colleagues differ from him. How do the colleagues uphold for this is it? If he claims money from him. If he claims money from him, is that double he shall pay to his neighbor? But this is a mixture of paragraphs.

It was stated, if it was stolen from the man’s house; not from the borrower’s house. If it was stolen from the man’s house; not from the house of the paid keeper or the renter? Since he is obligated to watch it, it is as if it referred to him; for you may say that there are three paragraphs. The last one about the borrower, the middle one about the paid keeper and the renter, the first one about the unpaid keeper. The borrower who profits from all pays everything. The paid keeper or the renter, because he profits partially and gives partial profit, swears about part and pays part. The unpaid keeper who does not profit at all swears and leaves. What does he swear? I did not commit anything. What is the situation if others know that he did not commit anything? Let us hear from the following: If the thief was found but has nothing with which to pay, may he say to him, swear to me that you were not thinking to take it? Let us hear from the following: If the thief was not found. Therefore, it he was found he is not liable.

HALAKHAH: “Plotting witnesses cannot be”. Rebbi Zeˋira said, this implies that a plotting witness is not disqualified by the court but is disqualified by himself. Explain it by warning, as it was stated: “Rebbi Yose said, when has this been said? For two testimonies with two warnings. But for one testimony and one warning any testimony which is partially disqualified is totally disqualified.” What does it mean, “if it is partially disqualified it is totally disqualified”? If they were standing and testifying against him on the tenth of Nisan that he had stolen an ox on the first of Nisan, and slaughtered or sold it on the fifth of Nisan. They were shown to be plotting on the eleventh of Nisan. Any testimony which they delivered between the second and the fifth of Nisan is retroactively disqualified. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, explain it if they deliver their testimony in one group and you cannot infer anything, as we have stated: “They were the first and they were the later [witnesses]. If they were shown to be plotting at first, there is nothing. At the second time, there is one testimony. At the third time, there are two testimonies. How? If they testify on one occasion, you could not infer anything. It only comes based on multiple testimonies. Rebbi Zeˋira said, this implies that a plotting witness is not disqualified by the court but is disqualified by himself.

HALAKHAH: “Plotting witnesses cannot be”. Rebbi Zeˋira said, this implies that a plotting witness is not disqualified by the court but is disqualified by himself. Explain it by warning, as it was stated: “Rebbi Yose said, when has this been said? For two testimonies with two warnings. But for one testimony and one warning any testimony which is partially disqualified is totally disqualified.” What does it mean, “if it is partially disqualified it is totally disqualified”? If they were standing and testifying against him on the tenth of Nisan that he had stolen an ox on the first of Nisan, and slaughtered or sold it on the fifth of Nisan. They were shown to be plotting on the eleventh of Nisan. Any testimony which they delivered between the second and the fifth of Nisan is retroactively disqualified. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, explain it if they deliver their testimony in one group and you cannot infer anything, as we have stated: “They were the first and they were the later [witnesses]. If they were shown to be plotting at first, there is nothing. At the second time, there is one testimony. At the third time, there are two testimonies. How? If they testify on one occasion, you could not infer anything. It only comes based on multiple testimonies. Rebbi Zeˋira said, this implies that a plotting witness is not disqualified by the court but is disqualified by himself.

MISHNAH: If two [witnesses] saw him from one window, two from another window, and a person in the middle gives the warning, if partially they can see one another then this is one testimony. Otherwise, these are two testimonies. Therefore, if one [group] of them is found plotting, he and they are executed; the second [group] is not prosecutable.

HALAKHAH: “If two [witnesses] saw him,” etc. Rebbi Jeremiah said, look how we are stating here: “If two [witnesses] saw him from one window, two from another window, and a person in the middle gives the warning, if partially they can see one another then this is one testimony. Otherwise, these are two testimonies.” Therefore, if they were three each, this does not apply. Rebbi Yose said, we stated “three each not so.” We state here what was not stated in all of Sanhedrin: “he and they are executed; the second [group] is not prosecutable.”

“Whose sentence was passed,” etc. If somebody wrote all his property over to two persons in one document and the testimony of the witnesses was valid for one but invalid for the other. Rebbi Hila said, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagreed; one said, since it is invalid for one it is invalid for the other, but the other said, it is valid for one and invalid for the other. Rebbi Mana did not specify; Rebbi Abun specified: Rebbi Joḥanan said, since it is invalid for one it is invalid for the other; but Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it is valid for one and invalid for the other. Rebbi Eleazar said, the Mishnah supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “Since the testimony of two [witnesses] is invalid if one of them is found to be a relative or a disqualified person, the same holds for three if one of them is found to be a relative or a disqualified person. From where even for a hundred? The verse says, witnesses.” Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Rebbi Ḥanina the colleague of the rabbis and the rabbis disagree. One says, the argument of Rebbi Eleazar is correct, but the other says, the argument of Rebbi Eleazar is not correct. For him who says, the argument of Rebbi Eleazar is correct, it is a single testimony and a single warning, and any testimony which is partially disqualified is totally disqualified. For him who says, the argument of Rebbi Eleazar is not correct, it is as if two groups of witnesses came, valid for one and invalid for the other.

If he ate five times the volume of an olive; the doubt became known to him before he was appointed, and (in court) after he was appointed. In the opinion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish he is liable; in the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan he is not liable. Did Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish state to insist on liability, not rather to free from liability? But it must be as follows: He ate five times the volume of an olive. The doubt became known to him after he was appointed; (in court) after he was removed. Following the opinion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish who said, if the sin was partially atoned for it was not totally atoned, he must say that he is not liable. Following the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan who said, if the sin was partially atoned for it was totally atoned, he must say that one is liable. Everybody agrees that if the first one was still in existence it is pushed aside. What should be done with it? Rebbi Yasa said, it is suspended for atonement. Rebbi Zeˋira said, if neither it nor its blood are usable it dies immediately.

If he ate five times the volume of an olive; the doubt became known to him before he was appointed, and (in court) after he was appointed. In the opinion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish he is liable; in the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan he is not liable. Did Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish state to insist on liability, not rather to free from liability? But it must be as follows: He ate five times the volume of an olive. The doubt became known to him after he was appointed; (in court) after he was removed. Following the opinion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish who said, if the sin was partially atoned for it was not totally atoned, he must say that he is not liable. Following the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan who said, if the sin was partially atoned for it was totally atoned, he must say that one is liable. Everybody agrees that if the first one was still in existence it is pushed aside. What should be done with it? Rebbi Yasa said, it is suspended for atonement. Rebbi Zeˋira said, if neither it nor its blood are usable it dies immediately.

Rav Jehudah sent and asked Rebbi Eleazar: If a placenta came out partially today and partially tomorrow? He told him, for pure blood she counts from the first day, for impure blood she counts from the second day. Rebbi Mattaniah said, this refers to the case that there was no child born with it. But if a child was born with it, then both for pure and for impure blood she counts only from the moment the child was born.