permissible

When they told him that this was not permissible, none of the nation, not even the priests in general, but only the supreme high priest of all, and he only once in a year, was allowed to go in, he would by no means give way.

And it is not permissible to slay it during any period of the light, but during the period bordering on the evening, and let them eat it at the time of the evening, until the third part of the night, and whatever is left over of all its flesh from the third part of the night and onwards, let them burn it with fire.

We acknowledge, however, although Celsus will not have it so, that we do desire to instruct all men in the word of God, so as to give to young men the exhortations which are appropriate to them, and to show to slaves how they may recover freedom of thought, and be ennobled by the word. And those amongst us who are the ambassadors of Christianity sufficiently declare that they are debtors to Greeks and barbarians, to wise men and fools, (for they do not deny their obligation to cure the souls even of foolish persons,) in order that as far as possible they may lay aside their ignorance, and endeavour to obtain greater prudence, by listening also to the words of Solomon: “Oh, ye fools, be of an understanding heart,” and “Who is the most simple among you, let him turn unto me;” and wisdom exhorts those who are devoid of understanding in the words, “Come, eat of my bread, and drink of the wine which I have mixed for you. Forsake folly that ye may live, and correct understanding in knowledge.” This too would I say (seeing it bears on the point), in answer to the statement of Celsus: Do not philosophers invite young men to their lectures? and do they not encourage young men to exchange a wicked life for a better? and do they not desire slaves to learn philosophy? Must we find fault, then, with philosophers who have exhorted slaves to the practice of virtue? with Pythagoras for having so done with Zamolxis, Zeno with Perseus, and with those who recently encouraged Epictetus to the study of philosophy? Is it indeed permissible for you, O Greeks, to call youths and slaves and foolish persons to the study of philosophy, but if we do so, we do not act from philanthropic motives in wishing to heal every rational nature with the medicine of reason, and to bring them into fellowship with God, the Creator of all things? These remarks, then, may suffice in answer to what are slanders rather than accusations on the part of Celsus.

Celsus goes on to say of us: “They set no value on the oracles of the Pythian priestess, of the priests of Dodona, of Clarus, of Branchidæ, of Jupiter Ammon, and of a multitude of others; although under their guidance we may say that colonies were sent forth, and the whole world peopled. But those sayings which were uttered or not uttered in Judea, after the manner of that country, as indeed they are still delivered among the people of Phœnicia and Palestine—these they look upon as marvellous sayings, and unchangeably true.” In regard to the oracles here enumerated, we reply that it would be possible for us to gather from the writings of Aristotle and the Peripatetic school not a few things to overthrow the authority of the Pythian and the other oracles. From Epicurus also, and his followers, we could quote passages to show that even among the Greeks themselves there were some who utterly discredited the oracles which were recognised and admired throughout the whole of Greece. But let it be granted that the responses delivered by the Pythian and other oracles were not the utterances of false men who pretended to a divine inspiration; and let us see if, after all, we cannot convince any sincere inquirers that there is no necessity to attribute these oracular responses to any divinities, but that, on the other hand, they may be traced to wicked demons—to spirits which are at enmity with the human race, and which in this way wish to hinder the soul from rising upwards, from following the path of virtue, and from returning to God in sincere piety. It is said of the Pythian priestess, whose oracle seems to have been the most celebrated, that when she sat down at the mouth of the Castalian cave, the prophetic spirit of Apollo entered her private parts; and when she was filled with it, she gave utterance to responses which are regarded with awe as divine truths. Judge by this whether that spirit does not show its profane and impure nature, by choosing to enter the soul of the prophetess not through the more becoming medium of the bodily pores which are both open and invisible, but by means of what no modest man would ever see or speak of. And this occurs not once or twice, which would be more permissible, but as often as she was believed to receive inspiration from Apollo. Moreover, it is not the part of a divine spirit to drive the prophetess into such a state of ecstasy and madness that she loses control of herself. For he who is under the influence of the Divine Spirit ought to be the first to receive the beneficial effects; and these ought not to be first enjoyed by the persons who consult the oracle about the concerns of natural or civil life, or for purposes of temporal gain or interest; and, moreover, that should be the time of clearest perception, when a person is in close intercourse with the Deity.

Rice, millet, poppy and sesame that had taken root before Rosh Hashanah must be tithed according to the previous year, and are permissible in the seventh year. If they did not then they are forbidden in the seventh year, and are tithed according to the year following.

These are the implements which a craftsman may not sell in the seventh year: A plow and all its [accompanying] implements, a yoke, a winnowing-fan, and a pickax. But he may sell a sickle used by hand, a scythe, and a cart with all its implements. This is the general principle: any tools designed for work involving a transgression [in the seventh year] is prohibited; but if for a forbidden and a permissible purpose, it may be [sold].

When may one buy vegetables at the outgoing of the sabbatical year [without fear that they are sabbatical produce]? When enough time has passed for similar [vegetables] to grow. Where produce ripens quickly, even that which is late in ripening is also permissible. Rabbi used to allow the buying of vegetables immediately after the sabbatical year was over.

If a seah of terumah fell into a hundred [of hullin] and he lifted [a seah] out, and then another fell in, and he lifted another out and another fell in, the pile is permissible as long as the amount of terumah does not exceed that of the hullin.

If a seah of terumah fell into a hundred [of hullin], and they were ground together and reduced in bulk, just as the hullin was reduced so too the terumah was reduced, and it is permitted. If a seah of terumah fell into less than a hundred [of hullin] and they were ground together and increased in bulk, just as the hullin became more, so too the terumah became more, and it is forbidden. If it is known that the kernels of hullin were better than the terumah, it is permitted. If a seah of terumah fell into less than a hundred [of hullin], and more hullin fell in afterwards, if it was accidental it is permissible, but if intentional it is forbidden.

If he used one of these [baskets] as seed, he is exempt, and the second is treated as if it were terumah and subject to the law of hallah, the words of Rabbi Meir. But Rabbi Yose exempts it. If another person uses the second as seed, then he is exempt. If one man uses both as seed, if it is of a kind whose seed disintegrates [in the ground] it is permissible, but if it is of the kind whose seed does not disintegrate it is prohibited.

As for untithed produce, what grows from it is permissible if of a kind whose seed disintegrates [in the soil]. But if of a kind whose seed does not disintegrate, then even what grows from plants which grew out of it are forbidden. Which is the kind whose seed does not disintegrate? Like luf, garlic and onions. Rabbi Judah says: garlic is like barley.

An onion [of terumah] was placed into lentils: If the onion was whole, it is permissible; But if [the onion] had been cut up, [it is forbidden if it] imparts a flavor. In the case of other dishes, whether the onion is whole or cut up [it is forbidden] if it imparts a flavor. Rabbi Judah permits it in the case of mashed fish, because it is used only to remove the unpleasant flavor.

If an apple [of terumah] was chopped and placed into dough [of hullin] so that it leavened it, [the dough] is forbidden. If barley [of terumah] fell into a cistern of water, though [the barley] stinks up the water, the water is permissible.

If a caravan camped in a valley and it was surrounded by the instruments used for the cattle it is permissible to move objects within it, provided [the instruments] form a fence ten handbreadths high and the gaps do not exceed the built-up parts. Any gap which is approximately ten cubits it is permitted [to carry within], because it is like an entrance. If it is greater, it is forbidden [to carry within].

If Rosh Hodesh Kislev came and no rain fell the court ordains upon the community three fasts; they may eat and drink while it is still dark and it is permissible to do work, to bathe, to anoint oneself with oil, to wear shoes, and to have marital relations.

What is considered a large town? One which has in it ten idle men. One that has fewer is considered a village. In respect of these they said that they should be moved up but not postponed. But with regard to the bringing the wood for the priests, the [fast of] Tisha B’Av, the hagigah, and assembling the people they postpone [until after Shabbat] and they do not move them up. Although they said that they should be moved up but not postponed, it is permissible to mourn, to fast, and to distribute gifts to the poor [on these earlier days]. Rabbi Judah said: When is this so? In a place where people gather on Mondays and Thursdays, but in places where people do not gather on Mondays and Thursdays, the Megillah is read only on its proper day.

The [absence of the] bull, or the rams, or the lambs or the goat does not invalidate the bread, neither does the [absence of the] bread invalidate them. The [absence of the] bread invalidates the lambs, but the [absence of the] lambs does not invalidate the bread, the words of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Shimon b. Nanas said: it is not so, but rather the [absence of the] lambs invalidates the bread, while the [absence of the] bread does not invalidate the lambs; for so we find that when the Israelites were in the wilderness for forty years they offered the lambs without the bread, therefore now too they may offer the lambs without the bread. Rabbi Shimon said: the halakhah is according to the words of Ben Nanas but not for the reason he stated; for every offering stated in the Book of Numbers was offered in the wilderness, but not every offering stated in the book of Leviticus was offered in the wilderness; however, when they came into the land of Israel they offered both kinds. Why then do I say that the lambs may be offered without the bread? Because the lambs render themselves permissible without the bread, whereas bread without lambs, there is nothing that renders it permissible.

The [absence of the] bull, or the rams, or the lambs or the goat does not invalidate the bread, neither does the [absence of the] bread invalidate them. The [absence of the] bread invalidates the lambs, but the [absence of the] lambs does not invalidate the bread, the words of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Shimon b. Nanas said: it is not so, but rather the [absence of the] lambs invalidates the bread, while the [absence of the] bread does not invalidate the lambs; for so we find that when the Israelites were in the wilderness for forty years they offered the lambs without the bread, therefore now too they may offer the lambs without the bread. Rabbi Shimon said: the halakhah is according to the words of Ben Nanas but not for the reason he stated; for every offering stated in the Book of Numbers was offered in the wilderness, but not every offering stated in the book of Leviticus was offered in the wilderness; however, when they came into the land of Israel they offered both kinds. Why then do I say that the lambs may be offered without the bread? Because the lambs render themselves permissible without the bread, whereas bread without lambs, there is nothing that renders it permissible.

The law of sacrilege applies to the handful [of a minhah], the frankincense, the incense, the minhah of a priest, the minhah of the anointed high priest and the minhah that is accompanied by a libation, from the moment of their dedication. Once they have become sacred by being put in the vessel, they become susceptible for unfitness through contact with a tevul yom or one who still requires atonement, or by remaining overnight, and they are subject to [the laws of] notar and defilement, but [the law of] piggul does not apply to them. This is the general rule: whatever has something else which renders it permissible [for the altar or for the use of the priests] is not subject to [the laws of] piggul, nothar and defilement until that act has been performed. And whatever does not have something else which renders it permissible becomes subject [to the laws of] notar and defilement as soon as it has become sacred by being put in the vessel, but piggul does not apply to it.

The law of sacrilege applies to the handful [of a minhah], the frankincense, the incense, the minhah of a priest, the minhah of the anointed high priest and the minhah that is accompanied by a libation, from the moment of their dedication. Once they have become sacred by being put in the vessel, they become susceptible for unfitness through contact with a tevul yom or one who still requires atonement, or by remaining overnight, and they are subject to [the laws of] notar and defilement, but [the law of] piggul does not apply to them. This is the general rule: whatever has something else which renders it permissible [for the altar or for the use of the priests] is not subject to [the laws of] piggul, nothar and defilement until that act has been performed. And whatever does not have something else which renders it permissible becomes subject [to the laws of] notar and defilement as soon as it has become sacred by being put in the vessel, but piggul does not apply to it.

If a pumpkin shell was immersed in water that was not fit for the mixing, it is permissible to mix in it the ashes with the water, as long as it had not been defiled. If it has been defiled, one cannot mix in it the ashes with the water. Rabbi Joshua says: if one is allowed to mix in it the ashes and water at the beginning, one should also be allowed to do so at the end; and if one is not allowed to do this at the end one should not be allowed to do it at the beginning. In either case it is not permissible to collect in it water that has already had ashes mixed in.

If a pumpkin shell was immersed in water that was not fit for the mixing, it is permissible to mix in it the ashes with the water, as long as it had not been defiled. If it has been defiled, one cannot mix in it the ashes with the water. Rabbi Joshua says: if one is allowed to mix in it the ashes and water at the beginning, one should also be allowed to do so at the end; and if one is not allowed to do this at the end one should not be allowed to do it at the beginning. In either case it is not permissible to collect in it water that has already had ashes mixed in.

It is not permissible to collect the water in a trough set in the stone, nor is it permissible to prepare the mixture in it, nor may the sprinkling be done from it, nor does it require a tightly fitting cover, nor does it render a ritual bath invalid. If it was first a movable vessel and then was subsequently joined to the ground with lime, it is permissible to collect the water in it, to prepare the mixture in it and to sprinkle from it. And it needs a tightly fitting cover and renders a ritual bath invalid. If there was a hole in it below, and he stopped it up with a rag, the water in it is invalid since it is not wholly enclosed by the vessel. If the hole was in the side and it was stopped up with a rag, the water in it is valid since it is wholly enclosed by the vessel. If he made a rim of clay for the vessel and the water had risen to that spot, it is invalid; But if it was solid enough for the vessel to be moved with it, the water is valid.

It is not permissible to collect the water in a trough set in the stone, nor is it permissible to prepare the mixture in it, nor may the sprinkling be done from it, nor does it require a tightly fitting cover, nor does it render a ritual bath invalid. If it was first a movable vessel and then was subsequently joined to the ground with lime, it is permissible to collect the water in it, to prepare the mixture in it and to sprinkle from it. And it needs a tightly fitting cover and renders a ritual bath invalid. If there was a hole in it below, and he stopped it up with a rag, the water in it is invalid since it is not wholly enclosed by the vessel. If the hole was in the side and it was stopped up with a rag, the water in it is valid since it is wholly enclosed by the vessel. If he made a rim of clay for the vessel and the water had risen to that spot, it is invalid; But if it was solid enough for the vessel to be moved with it, the water is valid.

It is not permissible to collect the water in a trough set in the stone, nor is it permissible to prepare the mixture in it, nor may the sprinkling be done from it, nor does it require a tightly fitting cover, nor does it render a ritual bath invalid. If it was first a movable vessel and then was subsequently joined to the ground with lime, it is permissible to collect the water in it, to prepare the mixture in it and to sprinkle from it. And it needs a tightly fitting cover and renders a ritual bath invalid. If there was a hole in it below, and he stopped it up with a rag, the water in it is invalid since it is not wholly enclosed by the vessel. If the hole was in the side and it was stopped up with a rag, the water in it is valid since it is wholly enclosed by the vessel. If he made a rim of clay for the vessel and the water had risen to that spot, it is invalid; But if it was solid enough for the vessel to be moved with it, the water is valid.

Text of the parallel Qiddušin 4:1: Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa presented traditions: Rebbi Ḥanina and Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, one declares permissible and the other admits. He who declares permissible admits. But he who admits does not declare admissible. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Naḥman bar Jacob: Babylonia, as far as family pedigree is concerned, extends up to the zrvq canal. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rav and Samuel, one said up to the zrvq canal, the other said up to the Wani canal. Rav Jehudah said, between the rivers is like Nahardea as far as family pedigree is concerned. Rebbi Ḥanina ben Beroqa in the name of Rav Jehudah: The people of Mesene are questionable only because of doubts of desecrated women. The Cohanim amongst them did not care about divorcees. There, they called Mesene dead, Media sick, Elam and gbby dying. The maritime district is the purple-blue of Babylonia. Šny’, gbby’, and ṣrry are purple-blue of the maritime district.

Text of the parallel Qiddušin 4:1: Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa presented traditions: Rebbi Ḥanina and Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, one declares permissible and the other admits. He who declares permissible admits. But he who admits does not declare admissible. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Naḥman bar Jacob: Babylonia, as far as family pedigree is concerned, extends up to the zrvq canal. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rav and Samuel, one said up to the zrvq canal, the other said up to the Wani canal. Rav Jehudah said, between the rivers is like Nahardea as far as family pedigree is concerned. Rebbi Ḥanina ben Beroqa in the name of Rav Jehudah: The people of Mesene are questionable only because of doubts of desecrated women. The Cohanim amongst them did not care about divorcees. There, they called Mesene dead, Media sick, Elam and gbby dying. The maritime district is the purple-blue of Babylonia. Šny’, gbby’, and ṣrry are purple-blue of the maritime district.

Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa presented traditions: Of Rebbi Ḥanina and Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, one declares permissible and the other admits. He who declares permissible admits. But he who admits does not declare admissible. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Naḥman: Babylonia, as far as family pedigree is concerned, extends up to the yzq canal. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, of Rav and Samuel, one said up to the yzq canal, the other said up to the Wani canal. Rav Jehudah said, between the rivers is like Nahardea as far as family pedigree is concerned. Rebbi Ḥanina ben Beroqa in the name of Rav Jehudah: The people of Moesia are questionable only because of doubts of desecrated women. The Cohanim amongst them did not care about divorcees. There they said, Moesia is dead, Media sick, Elam and gbby dying. The maritime district is the purple-blue of Babylonia. Šny’,gbby’,and ṣrry are purple-blue of the maritime district.

Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa presented traditions: Of Rebbi Ḥanina and Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, one declares permissible and the other admits. He who declares permissible admits. But he who admits does not declare admissible. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Naḥman: Babylonia, as far as family pedigree is concerned, extends up to the yzq canal. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, of Rav and Samuel, one said up to the yzq canal, the other said up to the Wani canal. Rav Jehudah said, between the rivers is like Nahardea as far as family pedigree is concerned. Rebbi Ḥanina ben Beroqa in the name of Rav Jehudah: The people of Moesia are questionable only because of doubts of desecrated women. The Cohanim amongst them did not care about divorcees. There they said, Moesia is dead, Media sick, Elam and gbby dying. The maritime district is the purple-blue of Babylonia. Šny’,gbby’,and ṣrry are purple-blue of the maritime district.

On that occasion I learnt three things from him : first, one should not enter ruins ; second, it is permissible to pray by the roadside ; third, one who prays by the roadside should offer an abbreviated prayer.

R. Johanan also said in the name of R. Simeon b. Johai : It is permissible to contend with the wicked in this world; as it is said, "They that forsake the law praise the wicked, but such as keep the law contend with him" (Prov. xxviii, 4).

There is a teaching to the same effect : R. Dostai b. R. Mattun said : It is permissible to contend with the wicked in this world ; as it is said, "They that forsake the law praise the wicked," etc. Should a man try to mislead thee, saying, Lo, it is written, "Contend not with evil-doers, neither be thou envious against them that work unrighteousness" (Ps. xxxvii 1), answer him, Only he whose conscience pricks him speaks thus. Nay, "Contend not with evil-doers" means, to emulate them; "be not envious against them that work unrighteousness" means, to be like them. And so it is stated,

MISHNAH IV In the morning [the reading of the Shema'] is preceded by two benedictions and followed by one ; in the evening it is preceded by two and followed by two, one long and one short. Where [the Rabbis] order to say a long benediction, it is not permissible to say a short one ;

[where they order] to say a short benediction, it is not permissible to say a long one. [Where they order] to "seal " a benediction, it is not permissible not to "seal" ; [where they order] not to "seal," it is not permissible to "seal."

[where they order] to say a short benediction, it is not permissible to say a long one. [Where they order] to "seal " a benediction, it is not permissible not to "seal" ; [where they order] not to "seal," it is not permissible to "seal."

[where they order] to say a short benediction, it is not permissible to say a long one. [Where they order] to "seal " a benediction, it is not permissible not to "seal" ; [where they order] not to "seal," it is not permissible to "seal."

Where [the Rabbis] order to say a long benediction, it is not permissible to say a short one. It is evident that one who took a cup of wine, and thinking that it was beer, commenced saying the benediction on the supposition that it was beer, and then concluded the benediction for wine, has complied with the requirements of the law ; because even if he had said "[Blessed]... by Whose word all things exist," he would also have complied with the requirements of the law. For there is a Mishnaic teaching : [not translated.] If one has uttered the benediction "By Whose word all things exist" over any kind of liquor, he has fulfilled his obligation.

How far may one go for it ? A Parsah. But this applies only in front of him ; in the rear he may not go even a Mil, [from which it is to be deduced] he may not go in the rear a Mil, but less than that distance is permissible.

Having demonstrated that [the Mishnah about the reading of the Megillah] is in accord with R. Judah and post factum it is permissible, but not ab initio, what, however, of the teaching of R. Judah, the son of R. Simeon b. Pazzi : A deaf person who speaks but cannot hear may separate the Terumah ab initio ? Whose view is that?

R. Judah's and even ab initio it is permissible. What, however, of the following ? There is a teaching : A man must not say Grace after meals in his heart ; but if he has done so, he has complied with the requirements of the law. Whose view is that ?

Nevertheless there is a difficulty: Since it is permitted to enter a regular priyy [with Tefillin], should it not be all the more permissible to enter a chance privy!

In the meantime Raba recalled it and he said to him : Thou must surely mean a brew of ground dates ; and thou remindest me of something that R. Assi said, viz. : It is permissible to make Trimma from dates brought as an offering, but one must not make strong drink of them. And the Halakah is : Over dates made into Trimma we say the benediction "...Who createst the fruit of the tree." On what ground ? Because [the dates are considered] as remaining in their original condition [as fruit].

Hananyah began to declare certain things unclean, and they pronounced them clean ; he forbade certain things, and they declared them permissible. He thereupon proclaimed concerning them, "These men are worthless and men of no standing [and their fathers defiled the High Priesthood]." They said to him, "Thou hast already built up [our reputation here] and thou canst not pull down ; thou hast already raised a fence and thou canst not make a breach."

It is quite right that Hananyah declared something unclean and they pronounced it clean ; that is merely taking the stricter view. But how could he declare anything unclean and they pronounce it clean? For lo, there is a teaching: If a Sage declares anything unclean, his colleague is not allowed to pronounce it clean ; and if he declares it forbidden, his colleague is not allowed to pronounce it permissible! They thought [to act thus] so that the people may not be led by him.

Now to what case does this refer? Now to what case does this refer? If I say where he did not interweave them, then behold he joins the invalid covering to the valid one? Rather it refers to a case where one did interweave them; and we learn from here that we don't decree against this?What might you have thought? That [this is permissible] only ex post facto but not ab initio, hence we were informed

Minyamin, the servant of R. Ashi, had his shirt soaked in water, and he spread it out on their Sukkah. R. Ashi said to him, ‘Remove it, lest they say that it is permissible to use as a covering something which is susceptible to impurity. ‘But can they not see that it is wet?’ ‘I mean [the first answered] when it is dry.'

Rav Judah said in the name of Shmuel, It is permissible to sleep in a canopied bed in a Sukkah, even though it has a flat roof, provided it is not ten [handbreadths] high.

For the reason that it is for him a commandment that is fulfilled through a transgression. As it says, "And you have brought the stolen [animal], the lame [animal], and the ill [animal as offerings] (Malachi 1:13)." [Therefore, we see] a stolen offering is similar to a lame one. Just like a lame animal has no way to fix it, so too a stolen animal has no way to fix it [to render it permissible]. It does not matter whether it is before the owner despaired of finding the animal, or after he despaired.

Although they said that they should be moved up but not postponed, it is permissible to mourn, to fast, and to distribute gifts to the poor [on these earlier days]. Rabbi Judah said: When is this so? In a place where people gather on Mondays and Thursdays, but in places where people do not gather on Mondays and Thursdays, the Megillah is read only on its proper day.

Huna b. Manoah said in the name of R. Aha the son of R. Ika: It is permitted to an Israelite to say to a non-Jew, “Take your idol and put it in your shin tof.” Ashi said: It is permissible to disgrace a person with the term gimel shin who has terrible reports about him. It is permissible to praise a person who has good reports about him and if one does praise him, “blessings shall rest upon his head.”

Huna b. Manoah said in the name of R. Aha the son of R. Ika: It is permitted to an Israelite to say to a non-Jew, “Take your idol and put it in your shin tof.” Ashi said: It is permissible to disgrace a person with the term gimel shin who has terrible reports about him. It is permissible to praise a person who has good reports about him and if one does praise him, “blessings shall rest upon his head.”

The statement of R. Papi is the more reasonable, since R. Joshua b. Levi said: It is permissible to make a synagogue into a bet hamidrash. Learn from this.

Rav Yehuda says in the name of Rav, A curse of a sage even if in vain will be fulfilled. From where [is this derived]? From Achitofel. That at the time when Dovid was digging the foundation [for the beis hamikdash], the [water of the] deeps rose up and threatened to destroy the world. [Dovid] asked, Is it permissible to write [God's] name on a shard and throw it into the deeps in order that [the water] should remain in its place? There was no one who said anything to him. [Dovid] said, Whoever knows this matter and doesn't speak shall strangle by their throat.

Achitofel reasoned to himself with a fortiori. He said to himself, If in regards to making peace between a man and his wife the Torah says, "My name that was written with holiness should be erased in water", then [in order to make peace] for the entire world is it not even more so? [Achitofel] said to [Dovid], It is permissible. [Dovid] wrote [God's] name on a shard and threw it into the deeps. [The water] calmed and remained in its place.

A murderer who exits the boundary etc.: The rabbis taught [in a baraisa], (Numbers 35,27) "And the goel hadam will kill the murderer" [we can derive that] it is a mitzvah in the hands of the goel hadam. If there is no goel hadam, it's permissible for anyone else. These are the words of Rebbi Yossi Hagalili. Rebbi Akiva says, It's permissible for the Goel Hadam, and anyone else is liable [for killing the murderer].

A murderer who exits the boundary etc.: The rabbis taught [in a baraisa], (Numbers 35,27) "And the goel hadam will kill the murderer" [we can derive that] it is a mitzvah in the hands of the goel hadam. If there is no goel hadam, it's permissible for anyone else. These are the words of Rebbi Yossi Hagalili. Rebbi Akiva says, It's permissible for the Goel Hadam, and anyone else is liable [for killing the murderer].

But I'd this logical?! Whether [one holds like] the opinion that it is a mitzvah [for the Goel HaDam to kill the murderer] or whether [one holds like] the opinion that it is permissible, is it permitted [for a son to kill his father]? But Rabba bar Rav Huna said, and so too was taught in a baraisa of the academy of Rebbi Yishmael, For everything a son may not be made into an agent [of the court] against his father to hit him or curse him, except in the case of one who instigates [idolatry] upon which the Torah says (Deuteronomy 13,9) "do not spare him and do not conceal him".