pigeon

And he said unto him, Take me an heifer of three years old, and a she goat of three years old, and a ram of three years old, and a turtledove, and a young pigeon.

And when the days of her purifying are fulfilled, for a son, or for a daughter, she shall bring a lamb of the first year for a burnt offering, and a young pigeon, or a turtledove, for a sin offering, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, unto the priest:

And He said unto him: 'Take Me an heifer of three years, and a goat of three years, and a sheep of three years, and a turtle-dove, and a pigeon.'

When he heard that he went to another bed and slept; and awaking out of sleep he said: My lady Mygdonia, hearken to the dream which I have seen. I saw myself lie at meat near to Misdaeus the king, and a dish of all sorts was set before us: and I saw an eagle come down from heaven and carry off from before me and the king two partridges, which he set against his heart; and again he came over us and flew about above us, and the king bade a bow to be brought to him; and the eagle again caught away from before us a pigeon and a dove, and the king shot an arrow at him, and it passed through him from one side to the other and hurt him not; and he being unscathed rose up into his own nest. And I awoke, and I am full of fear and sore vexed, because I had tasted of the partridge, and he suffered me not to put it to my mouth again. And Mygdonia said unto him: Thy dream is good: for thou every day eatest partridges, but this eagle had not tasted of a partridge until now.

Go, take me a young heifer of three years old, and a she-goat of three years old, and a ram of three years old, and a turtledove and a pigeon, and bring me a pure sacrifice.

And I looked round, and lo! there were following us all the prescribed sacrificial (animals) — the young heifer, and the she-goat, and the ram, and the turtle-dove, and the pigeon.

And he said to me: "All these slaughter, and divide the animals into halves, one against the other, but the birds do not sever; and give to the men, whom I will shew thee, standing by thee, for these are the altar upon the Mountain, to offer a sacrifice to the Eternal; but the turtledove and the pigeon give to me, for I will ascend upon the wings of the bird, in order to shew thee in heaven, and on the earth, and in the sea, and in the abyss, and in the under-world, and in the Garden of Eden, and in its rivers and in the fulness of the whole world and its circle — thou shalt gaze in (them) all."

And the Angel took me with the right hand and set me on the right wing of the pigeon, and set himself on the left wing of the turtle dove, which (birds) had neither been slaughtered nor divided.

And I said unto him: Take for me a calf of three years old and a she-goat of three years and a ram of three years, a turtledove and a pigeon. And he took them as I commanded him. And I sent a sleep upon him and compassed him about with fear, and I set before him the place of fire wherein the works of them that commit iniquity against me shall be avenged, and I showed him the torches of fire whereby the righteous which have believed in me shall be enlightened.

And God commended his virtue, and said, Thou shalt not however lose the rewards thou hast deserved to receive by such thy glorious actions. He answered, And what advantage will it be to me to have such rewards, when I have none to enjoy them after me?—for he was hitherto childless. And God promised that he should have a son, and that his posterity should be very numerous; insomuch that their number should be like the stars. When he heard that, he offered a sacrifice to God, as he commanded him. The manner of the sacrifice was this:—He took an heifer of three years old, and a she-goat of three years old, and a ram in like manner of three years old, and a turtle-dove, and a pigeon and as he was enjoined, he divided the three former, but the birds he did not divide. After which, before he built his altar, where the birds of prey flew about, as desirous of blood, a Divine voice came to him, declaring that their neighbors would be grievous to his posterity, when they should be in Egypt, for four hundred years; during which time they should be afflicted, but afterwards should overcome their enemies, should conquer the Canaanites in war, and possess themselves of their land, and of their cities.

Celsus, indeed, evinced a slight knowledge of Scripture when he made Jesus say, that it is “a certain Satan who contrives such devices;” although he begs the question when he asserts that “Jesus did not deny that these works have in them nothing of divinity, but proceed from wicked men,” for he makes things which differ in kind to be the same. Now, as a wolf is not of the same species as a dog, although it may appear to have some resemblance in the figure of its body and in its voice, nor a common wood-pigeon the same as a dove, so there is no resemblance between what is done by the power of God and what is the effect of sorcery. And we might further say, in answer to the calumnies of Celsus, Are those to be regarded as miracles which are wrought through sorcery by wicked demons, but those not which are performed by a nature that is holy and divine? and does human life endure the worse, but never receive the better? Now it appears to me that we must lay it down as a general principle, that as, wherever anything that is evil would make itself to be of the same nature with the good, there must by all means be something that is good opposed to the evil; so also, in opposition to those things which are brought about by sorcery, there must also of necessity be some things in human life which are the result of divine power. And it follows from the same, that we must either annihilate both, and assert that neither exists, or, assuming the one, and particularly the evil, admit also the reality of the good. Now, if one were to lay it down that works are wrought by means of sorcery, but would not grant that there are also works which are the product of divine power, he would seem to me to resemble him who should admit the existence of sophisms and plausible arguments, which have the appearance of establishing the truth, although really undermining it, while denying that truth had anywhere a home among men, or a dialectic which differed from sophistry. But if we once admit that it is consistent with the existence of magic and sorcery (which derive their power from evil demons, who are spell-bound by elaborate incantations, and become subject to sorcerers) that some works must be found among men which proceed from a power that is divine, why shall we not test those who profess to perform them by their lives and morals, and the consequences of their miracles, viz. whether they tend to the injury of men or to the reformation of conduct? What minister of evil demons, e.g., can do such things? and by means of what incantations and magic arts? And who, on the other hand, is it that, having his soul and his spirit, and I imagine also his body, in a pure and holy state, receives a divine spirit, and performs such works in order to benefit men, and to lead them to believe on the true God? But if we must once investigate (without being carried away by the miracles themselves) who it is that performs them by help of a good, and who by help of an evil power, so that we may neither slander all without discrimination, nor yet admire and accept all as divine, will it not be manifest, from what occurred in the times of Moses and Jesus, when entire nations were established in consequence of their miracles, that these men wrought by means of divine power what they are recorded to have performed? For wickedness and sorcery would not have led a whole nation to rise not only above idols and images erected by men, but also above all created things, and to ascend to the uncreated origin of the God of the universe.

OF THE BLOOD OF THE BAT, PIGEON, AND OTHER ANIMALS Take a living bat and exorcise it thus:— THE EXORCISM OF THE BAT.

Bet Shammai says: one may not carry a ladder [on Yom Tov] from one dovecote to another, but he may incline it from one pigeon-hole to another. But Bet Hillel permits [this]. Bet Shammai says: one may not take [doves] unless he has shaken [them] the day before [Yom Tov]: But Bet Hillel says: he stands and declares: this one or that one I am taking.

And these are they which are not qualified [to be witnesses or judges]: A dice player, a usurer, pigeon racers, or traffickers in Seventh Year produce, and slaves. This is the general rule: any testimony for which a woman is not qualified, they too are not qualified.

A person’s ladder must not be kept within four cubits of [his neighbor’s] dovecote, lest a marten (a small animal that eats doves) should jump in. His wall may not be built four cubits from [his neighbor’s] roof-gutter, so that the other can set up his ladder [to clean it out]. A dovecote may not be kept within fifty cubits of a town, and none may build a dovecote in his own domain unless his ground extends fifty cubits in every direction. Rabbi Judah says: Four kor’s space of ground, which is the length of a pigeon’s flight. But if he had bought it [and it was built already in that place] and there was only a quarter-kab’s space of ground, he has a right to the dovecote.

If a young pigeon is found within fifty cubits it belongs to the owner of the dovecote; but if it is found beyond fifty cubits it belongs to who finds it. If it is found between two dovecotes: if it is nearer to this one than it belongs him [that owns this dovecote]; and if it is nearer to the other, it belongs to him [that owns the other dovecote]; and if it is at a like distance from either, they share it.

And these are they which are not qualified [to be witnesses or judges]: A dice player, a usurer, pigeon racers, or traffickers in Seventh Year produce. Rabbi Shimon said: “In the beginning they called them ‘gatherers’ of Seventh Year produce, but after the oppressors grew many they changed this and called them ‘traffickers’ of Seventh Year produce.” Rabbi Judah said: “This applies only if they have no other trade, but if they have some other trade other than that, they are not disqualified.”

“He whose opponent is suspected of taking a false oath,” How so? Whether it be the oath of testimony, or the oath of deposit, or even a vain oath. If one [of the litigants] was a dice-player, or usurer, or pigeon-flyer, or dealer in the produce of the seventh year, his opponent takes the oath and collects [his claim]. If both are suspect, the oath returns to its place, these are the words of Rabbi Yose. Rabbi Meir says: “They divide [the claim].”

[If one said,] “I take upon myself to offer an olah,” he must bring a lamb. Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah say: [he may bring] a turtle-dove or a young pigeon. [If he said,] “I specified a beast of the herd but I do not know what it was I specified,” he must bring a bull and a calf. [If he said, “I specified] a beast of the cattle but I do not know what it was I specified,” he must bring a bull, a bull calf, a ram, a he-goat, a he-kid, and a he-lamb. [If he said,] “I specified [some kind] but I do not know what it was I specified,” he must add to these a turtle-dove and a young pigeon.

[If one said,] “I take upon myself to offer an olah,” he must bring a lamb. Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah say: [he may bring] a turtle-dove or a young pigeon. [If he said,] “I specified a beast of the herd but I do not know what it was I specified,” he must bring a bull and a calf. [If he said, “I specified] a beast of the cattle but I do not know what it was I specified,” he must bring a bull, a bull calf, a ram, a he-goat, a he-kid, and a he-lamb. [If he said,] “I specified [some kind] but I do not know what it was I specified,” he must add to these a turtle-dove and a young pigeon.

Rabbi Shimon says: lambs are mentioned before goats in all places. You might think that it is because they are choicer, therefore Scripture states, “And if he brings a lamb as his offering,” (Leviticus 4:32) to teach that both are equal. Turtle-doves are mentioned before young pigeons in all places. You might think that it is because they are choicer, therefore Scripture states, “A young pigeon or a turtle-dove for a hatat,” (Leviticus 12:6) to teach that both are equal. The father comes before the mother in all places. You might think that it is because the honor due a father is greater than the honor due a mother, therefore Scripture states, “A man shall fear his mother and his father,” (Leviticus 19: to teach that both are equal. But the sages have said: the father comes before the mother in all places, because both a son and his mother are obligated to honor the father. And so it is also with the study of Torah; if the son has been worthy [to sit] before the teacher, the teacher comes before the father in all places, because both a man and his father are obligated to honor the teacher.

If from an unassigned pair of birds a single pigeon flew into the open air, or flew among birds that had been left to die, or if one [of the pair] died, then he must take a mate for the second one. If it flew among birds that are to be offered up, it becomes invalid and it invalidates another bird as its counterpart [in the pair]; for the pigeon that flew away is invalid and invalidates another bird as its counterpart [in the pair].

If from an unassigned pair of birds a single pigeon flew into the open air, or flew among birds that had been left to die, or if one [of the pair] died, then he must take a mate for the second one. If it flew among birds that are to be offered up, it becomes invalid and it invalidates another bird as its counterpart [in the pair]; for the pigeon that flew away is invalid and invalidates another bird as its counterpart [in the pair].

Hatat [birds] are on one side, and olot [birds] are on the other and an unassigned [pair] is in the middle: If from the middle pair one bird flew to this side, and one bird flew to this side, then he has not lost anything, because he [the priest] says that the bird that flew [from the middle] towards the hataot is a hatat and the bird that flew towards the olot is a olah. If one [from each side] returns to the middle, then [all] those in the middle must be left to die, but those [left on either side] can be offered up as hataot or as olot respectively. If again a bird [from the middle] returned and flew away to the sides, then all must be left to die. One cannot pair turtle-doves with pigeons or pigeons with turtle-doves. How is this so? If a woman has brought a turtle-dove as her hatat and a pigeon as her olah, she must then bring another turtle-dove as her olah; If her olah had been a turtle-dove and her hatat a pigeon, then she must bring another pigeon as her olah. Ben Azzai says: we go after the first [offering]. If a woman brought her hatat and then died, her heirs must bring her olah; [But if she first brought] her olah and then died, her heirs need not bring her hatat.

Hatat [birds] are on one side, and olot [birds] are on the other and an unassigned [pair] is in the middle: If from the middle pair one bird flew to this side, and one bird flew to this side, then he has not lost anything, because he [the priest] says that the bird that flew [from the middle] towards the hataot is a hatat and the bird that flew towards the olot is a olah. If one [from each side] returns to the middle, then [all] those in the middle must be left to die, but those [left on either side] can be offered up as hataot or as olot respectively. If again a bird [from the middle] returned and flew away to the sides, then all must be left to die. One cannot pair turtle-doves with pigeons or pigeons with turtle-doves. How is this so? If a woman has brought a turtle-dove as her hatat and a pigeon as her olah, she must then bring another turtle-dove as her olah; If her olah had been a turtle-dove and her hatat a pigeon, then she must bring another pigeon as her olah. Ben Azzai says: we go after the first [offering]. If a woman brought her hatat and then died, her heirs must bring her olah; [But if she first brought] her olah and then died, her heirs need not bring her hatat.

Hatat [birds] are on one side, and olot [birds] are on the other and an unassigned [pair] is in the middle: If from the middle pair one bird flew to this side, and one bird flew to this side, then he has not lost anything, because he [the priest] says that the bird that flew [from the middle] towards the hataot is a hatat and the bird that flew towards the olot is a olah. If one [from each side] returns to the middle, then [all] those in the middle must be left to die, but those [left on either side] can be offered up as hataot or as olot respectively. If again a bird [from the middle] returned and flew away to the sides, then all must be left to die. One cannot pair turtle-doves with pigeons or pigeons with turtle-doves. How is this so? If a woman has brought a turtle-dove as her hatat and a pigeon as her olah, she must then bring another turtle-dove as her olah; If her olah had been a turtle-dove and her hatat a pigeon, then she must bring another pigeon as her olah. Ben Azzai says: we go after the first [offering]. If a woman brought her hatat and then died, her heirs must bring her olah; [But if she first brought] her olah and then died, her heirs need not bring her hatat.

They said a general rule with regard to clean food: whatever is designated as food for human consumption is susceptible to uncleanness unless it is rendered unfit to be food for a dog; And whatever is not designated as food for human consumption is not susceptible to uncleanness unless it is designated for human consumption. How so? If a pigeon fell into a wine-press and one intended to pick it out for an idolater, it becomes susceptible to uncleanness; but if he intended it for a dog it is not susceptible to uncleanness. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri rules that it is susceptible to uncleanness. If a deaf mute, one not of sound senses or a minor intended it as food, it remains insusceptible. But if they picked it up it becomes susceptible; since only an act of theirs is effective while their intention is of no consequence.

Were these exchanged? We have stated there: “If he prepared black ones and found white, white and found black, two and found three, they are forbidden, three and found two they are permitted.” Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Assi, this is Rebbi’s, as we have stated: “Two hundred and he found a talent, a talent was taken, the word of Rebbi, but the Sages say, it is profane.” He turned around and said, this is everybody’s opinion since pigeon chicks usually start to fly. But did not Rebbi Ḥalaphta ben Shaul state: The same rule applies to pigeon chicks and to eggs. Therefore, it is Rebbi’s. There, he put it there and he found, here, his father put it there, did his father find it? Rebbi Abun bar Cohen said before Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: Rebbi Abba bar Zavda taught according to Rebbi for Second Tithe.

Were these exchanged? We have stated there: “If he prepared black ones and found white, white and found black, two and found three, they are forbidden, three and found two they are permitted.” Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Assi, this is Rebbi’s, as we have stated: “Two hundred and he found a talent, a talent was taken, the word of Rebbi, but the Sages say, it is profane.” He turned around and said, this is everybody’s opinion since pigeon chicks usually start to fly. But did not Rebbi Ḥalaphta ben Shaul state: The same rule applies to pigeon chicks and to eggs. Therefore, it is Rebbi’s. There, he put it there and he found, here, his father put it there, did his father find it? Rebbi Abun bar Cohen said before Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: Rebbi Abba bar Zavda taught according to Rebbi for Second Tithe.

MISHNAH: In what does one store away and in what may one not store away? One does not store away in olive cake, nor in manure, nor in salt, nor in lime, nor in sand, whether moist or dry. Not in straw, nor in fibers, nor in grape pits, nor in grasses when they are moist but one may store away in them when dry. One may store away in garments, and produce, and pigeon wings, and flax residue, and in fine sawdust. Rebbi Jehudah forbids if it is fine and permits coarse.

Abbin asked: It he mixed them, what? Let us hear from the following: “One may store away in garments, and produce, and pigeon wings.” Rebbi Yose ben Pazi in the name of Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina: This means, if they are not much rotten. But if they are much rotten it is forbidden to store away in them.

“One may store away in garments, and produce, and pigeon wings.” Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah bar Ḥanina: This means, if they are not much rotten. But if they are much rotten it is forbidden to store away in them.

“Nor with a city of gold.” Rav Jehudah said, for example a Jerusalem of gold The rabbis of Caesarea said, פרוש טוק טקלין. It happened that Rebbi Aqiba made a city of gold for his wife. Rabban Gamliel’s wife saw her and became jealous. She came and mentioned it before her husband. He told her, if you had done for me what she did for him, for she sold the braids of her head, gave him, and he studied Torah. There, we have stated: “Two in the name of Rebbi Eliezer. A woman may go out with a city of gold and participants in pigeon contests are disqualified for testimony.” It was stated, Rebbi Meïr declares liable. Between Rebbi Meïr and the rabbis it is understandable, Rebbi Meïr declares liable and the Sages declare not liable. Between Rebbi Eliezer and the rabbis it is understandable, Rebbi Eliezer permits and the Sages prohibit. Between Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Eliezer it is difficult, Rebbi Meïr declares liable and Rebbi Eliezer permits.

It was stated: “One may move mustard seed because it is pigeon feed, and rue because it is food for gazelles, and glass because it is food for ostriches. Rebbi Nathan said, then one should be able to move shoots since elephants eat them”.

MISHNAH: The following are disqualified: The dice-player, the lender on interest, participants in pigeon contests, dealers in sabbatical produce, and slaves. This is the principle: any testimony for which a woman is not qualified, they are not qualified.

“Participants in pigeon contests.” This is one who bets on pigeons. Whether one bets on pigeons or bets on any other domesticated animal, wild animal, or bird. “When is he accepted? After he tears up his tools of the catch, and is checked out, and repents in complete repentance.”

Rav Huna said: Who is the Tanna of “participants in pigeon contests”? Rebbi Eliezer, as we have stated there: “Two in the name of Rebbi Eliezer. A woman may go out with a city of gold, and participants in pigeon contests are disqualified from testimony.” Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose: Is the entire statement in Sanhedrin Rebbi Eliezer’s? He told him, it is everybody’s opinion. What means “it is everybody’s opinion”? So said Rebbi Yose: We knew that he was disqualified for testimony in money matters. What does he come to testify about? For as he is disqualified in money matters, so he is disqualified to testify in criminal trials. The witnesses for the New Moon are held to the standards of criminal trials, as we have stated: “any testimony for which a woman is not qualified, they are not qualified.” Who stated this? The rabbis! Do the rabbis follow Rebbi Eliezer? They agree with him and disagree with him. Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rav Huna: It follows Rebbi Eliezer in everything. It turns out that this disagreement parallels another disagreement, as it was stated: “A perjured witness is disqualified for any and all testimony required by the Torah, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Yose said, when? If he was found perjured in criminal matters. But if he was found perjured in money matters, he is suspect in money matters and disqualified in money matters.” It turns out that Rebbi Yose parallels the rabbis and Rebbi Meïr Rebbi Eliezer.

Rav Huna said: Who is the Tanna of “participants in pigeon contests”? Rebbi Eliezer, as we have stated there: “Two in the name of Rebbi Eliezer. A woman may go out with a city of gold, and participants in pigeon contests are disqualified from testimony.” Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose: Is the entire statement in Sanhedrin Rebbi Eliezer’s? He told him, it is everybody’s opinion. What means “it is everybody’s opinion”? So said Rebbi Yose: We knew that he was disqualified for testimony in money matters. What does he come to testify about? For as he is disqualified in money matters, so he is disqualified to testify in criminal trials. The witnesses for the New Moon are held to the standards of criminal trials, as we have stated: “any testimony for which a woman is not qualified, they are not qualified.” Who stated this? The rabbis! Do the rabbis follow Rebbi Eliezer? They agree with him and disagree with him. Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rav Huna: It follows Rebbi Eliezer in everything. It turns out that this disagreement parallels another disagreement, as it was stated: “A perjured witness is disqualified for any and all testimony required by the Torah, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Yose said, when? If he was found perjured in criminal matters. But if he was found perjured in money matters, he is suspect in money matters and disqualified in money matters.” It turns out that Rebbi Yose parallels the rabbis and Rebbi Meïr Rebbi Eliezer.

A calf born on a holiday is permitted since it permits itself by slaughter. Rebbi Ze`ira asked, in that case an animal kept outside should be permitted since it permits itself by slaughter, deer should be permitted since it permits itself by slaughter. Rebbi Ze`ira came back and said, a calf is fully formed the day before, but here it was born on the day it was fully formed. Rebbi Abba said, this follows him who said that an animal gives birth after split months; but what is for him who said, an animal gives birth after a fixed number of months? Think of it, that he knew when a male had mounted it. A pigeon chick born on a holiday is permitted since it permits itself by slaughter; did we not state, an egg which had started to develop, and chicks which do not yet have wings are forbidden as abomination, but one does not whip because of carcass meat? And Rebbi Ḥaggai said, even if he slaughtered them. Rebbi Abun said, explain it about those born with wings.

HALAKHAH: [5]: The Mishnah is Rebbi’s, as it was stated: “200 and he found a mina, (the mina was taken away) [a mina was deposited and a mina taken away], the words of Rebbi. But the Sages are saying, it is profane.” There, we have stated: “If somebody said to his son, ‘Second Tithe is in that corner’ but he found it in another corner, that is profane.” Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Assi, this is Rebbi’s, as we have stated: “Two hundred and he found a talent, a talent was taken, the word of Rebbi, but the Sages say, it is profane.” He turned around and said, this is everybody’s opinion since pigeon chicks usually start to fly. But did not Rebbi Ḥalaphta ben Shaul state, the same rule applies to pigeon chicks and to eggs? Therefore, it is Rebbi’s. There, his father put it there and he found, here, his he put it there and he found it. Rebbi Abba bar Cohen said before Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: Rebbi Abba bar Zavda instructed according to Rebbi for Second Tithe.

HALAKHAH: [5]: The Mishnah is Rebbi’s, as it was stated: “200 and he found a mina, (the mina was taken away) [a mina was deposited and a mina taken away], the words of Rebbi. But the Sages are saying, it is profane.” There, we have stated: “If somebody said to his son, ‘Second Tithe is in that corner’ but he found it in another corner, that is profane.” Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Assi, this is Rebbi’s, as we have stated: “Two hundred and he found a talent, a talent was taken, the word of Rebbi, but the Sages say, it is profane.” He turned around and said, this is everybody’s opinion since pigeon chicks usually start to fly. But did not Rebbi Ḥalaphta ben Shaul state, the same rule applies to pigeon chicks and to eggs? Therefore, it is Rebbi’s. There, his father put it there and he found, here, his he put it there and he found it. Rebbi Abba bar Cohen said before Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: Rebbi Abba bar Zavda instructed according to Rebbi for Second Tithe.

What are “the families of the pestle stealers and the fig hackers”? But when Jeroboam ben Nabat installed border guards on the roads which did not permit Israel to make a pilgrimage to Jerusalem, everybody who was qualified and sin-fearing in that generation brought his first fruits, put them in a basket, covered them with dried figs and took the pestle. He takes the basket on his shoulder and the pestle in his hand. When he reaches that guard-post they were asking him, where are you going? He answered him, I am only going to make these few dried figs into a single fig cake with this pestle in my hand. After he had passed this guard, he adorned them and brought them to Jerusalem. Why does one say, the family of Salmai the puller-down? But anybody who was volunteering logs and firewood for the altar brought wood and makes them into a kind of steps, assembles them into a kind of ladder, and puts them on his shoulder. When he reaches that guard he asks him, where are you going? He answers him, I am only going to bring two pigeon chicks from this dovecote over there using the ladder on my shoulder. After he had passed this guard, he disassembled {his package} and brought it to Jerusalem. Since they put themselves in danger for the meritorious deed that merited a good reputation in the world, and about them he says, the remembrance of the just is a blessing.

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

It was stated: “One who says, my house shall acquire for me any find that fell into it, did not say anything. If the find was known, his words stand.” As in the case of Rebbi Abba bar Mina’s sharecropper who climbed a date palm, found pigeon chicks there, and took them. He went to ask the master, who said nothing to him. He went and returned them. Rebbi Abba bar Mina said, his returning is more difficult for us than his finding.

MISHNAH: If one found pigeon chicks bound together behind a temporary or permanent fence or on paths between fields, he should not touch them. If one found a vessel on garbage heaps, if it was covered he should not touch it, if in the open he should take it and make it public. What one found in a heap or an old wall belongs to him. At a new wall, from the middle to the outside belongs to him, from the middle to the inside belongs to its owner. If he was renting out to others, even what is inside the house belongs to him.

HALAKHAH: “If one found behind a temporary fence”, etc. Rav Jehudah said: Only pigeon chicks tied together at their wings. Rebbi Abba bar Zavda found a ring covered in a box and took it. He came and asked Rav, who told him, you did not act correctly. He said, shall I return it? He answered, no, for we might say that his owner came, looked for it, did not find it and gave up hope for it.

MISHNAH: One distances the ladder from a dovecote by four cubits lest a marten jump, and the wall four cubits from the leader so it can support the ladder. One distances the dovecote from town by fifty cubits. A person may not build a dovecote on his property unless he have fifty cubits in each direction. Rebbi Jehudah says, the area of four bet kor, the distance one sends a pigeon. But if he bought it even with the area of a quarter [qab], it is in his power.

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

HALAKHAH: “A pigeon chick which is found within 50 cubits,” etc. That is, if no public road interrupts between them. But not if a public road interrupts between them. This is learned from that, and that is learned from this. This is learned from that: if there were two, he has to make it public. That is learned from this: if there were three, it would belong to its finder.

“One intercalates neither because of the cold, nor because of the rains; if they did intercalate it is not intercalated. One intercalates neither because of kid goats nor because of pigeon chicks, nor because of milk [lambs]; but all of them are ancillary reasons for the year. Rebbi Yannai said that Rabban Gamliel used to say: The sheep are thin and the pigeon chicks small; it appears good in my eyes and in those of my colleagues to add thirty days to the year.”

“One intercalates neither because of the cold, nor because of the rains; if they did intercalate it is not intercalated. One intercalates neither because of kid goats nor because of pigeon chicks, nor because of milk [lambs]; but all of them are ancillary reasons for the year. Rebbi Yannai said that Rabban Gamliel used to say: The sheep are thin and the pigeon chicks small; it appears good in my eyes and in those of my colleagues to add thirty days to the year.”

“Rebbi Jehudah said: it happened that Rabban Gamliel and the Elders were sitting on stairs on the Temple Mount; their scribe Joḥanan was sitting before them when Rabban Gamliel said to him, write: To our brothers in the Upper Southland and the Lower Southland, may you have much peace. We inform you that the time of liquidation has come, to deliver tithes from the sheaves of grain. To our brothers in the Upper Galilee and the Lower Galilee, may you have much peace. We inform you that the time of liquidation has come, to deliver tithes from the olive presses. To our brothers in the diaspora of Babylonia, the diaspora of Media, the diaspora of Greece, and all other diasporas of Israel, may you have much peace. We inform you that the sheep are thin, the pigeon chicks small, and springtime has not arrived; it appears good in my eyes and those of my colleagues to add thirty days to this year.”

MISHNAH: The following are disqualified: The dice-player, the lender on interest, participants in pigeon contests, dealers in sabbatical produce, and slaves. Rebbi Simeon said, earlier they were listing harvesters of sabbatical produce; but since the increase of oppressors they returned to list only dealers in sabbatical produce. Rebbi Jehudah said, when? If he has no profession but this; but if he has another profession, he is qualified.

“Participants in pigeon contests.” Whether one bets on pigeons or bets on any other domesticated animal, wild animal, or bird, he is not accepted unless he break his tools of the catch and repent in complete repentance.

Rav Huna said: Who is the Tanna of “participants in pigeon contests”? Rebbi Eliezer, as we have stated there: “Participants in pigeon contests are disqualified from testimony.” Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose: Is that statement in Sanhedrin Rebbi Eliezer’s? He told him, it is everybody’s opinion. So said Rebbi Yose: We knew that he was disqualified for testimony in money matters. What does he come to testify about? For as he is disqualified in money matters, so he is disqualified to testify in criminal trials. The witnesses for the New Moon are held to the standards of criminal trials, as we have stated: “This is the principle: Any testimony for which a woman is not qualified, they are not qualified for.” Who stated this? The rabbis! Do the rabbis follow Rebbi Eliezer? They agree with him and disagree with him. Rebbi Huna in the name of Rav Huna said: It follows Rebbi Eliezer in everything. It turns out that this disagreement parallels another disagreement, as it was stated: A perjured witness is disqualified for any and all testimony required by the Torah, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Yose said, when has this been said? When he was found perjured in criminal matters. But if he was found perjured in money matters, he is disqualified only from that particular testimony. It turns out that Rebbi Yose parallels the rabbis and Rebbi Meïr Rebbi Eliezer.

Rav Huna said: Who is the Tanna of “participants in pigeon contests”? Rebbi Eliezer, as we have stated there: “Participants in pigeon contests are disqualified from testimony.” Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose: Is that statement in Sanhedrin Rebbi Eliezer’s? He told him, it is everybody’s opinion. So said Rebbi Yose: We knew that he was disqualified for testimony in money matters. What does he come to testify about? For as he is disqualified in money matters, so he is disqualified to testify in criminal trials. The witnesses for the New Moon are held to the standards of criminal trials, as we have stated: “This is the principle: Any testimony for which a woman is not qualified, they are not qualified for.” Who stated this? The rabbis! Do the rabbis follow Rebbi Eliezer? They agree with him and disagree with him. Rebbi Huna in the name of Rav Huna said: It follows Rebbi Eliezer in everything. It turns out that this disagreement parallels another disagreement, as it was stated: A perjured witness is disqualified for any and all testimony required by the Torah, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Yose said, when has this been said? When he was found perjured in criminal matters. But if he was found perjured in money matters, he is disqualified only from that particular testimony. It turns out that Rebbi Yose parallels the rabbis and Rebbi Meïr Rebbi Eliezer.

MISHNAH: And if the opposing party was suspect of perjury, how? Equally oaths about testimony, or oaths about deposits, or even vain oaths, if one of them was a dice-player, a lender on interest, a participant in pigeon contests, or a dealer in sabbatical produce, the opposing party swears and collects. If both of them were suspect, the oath returns to its place, the words of Rebbi Yose. Rebbi Meїr says, they shall split.

Participants in pigeon contests, that is one who bets on pigeons. Whether one bets on pigeons or bets on any domesticated animal, wild animal, or bird, he is not accepted unless he break his tools of the catch and repent in complete repentance.

Rav Huna said: Who is the Tanna of “participants in pigeon contests”? Rebbi Eliezer, as we have stated there: “Participants in pigeon contests are disqualified from testimony.” Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose: Is that statement in Sanhedrin Rebbi Eliezer’s? He told him, it is everybody’s opinion. So said Rebbi Yose: We knew that he was disqualified for testimony in money matters. What does he come to testify about? For as he is disqualified in money matters, so he is disqualified to testify in criminal trials. The witnesses for the New Moon are held to the standards of criminal trials, as we have stated: “Any testimony for which a woman is not qualified, they are not qualified for.” Who stated this? The rabbis! Do the rabbis follow Rebbi Eliezer? They agree with him and disagree with him. Rebbi Huna in the name of Rebbi Jonah said: It follows Rebbi Eliezer in everything. It turns out that this disagreement parallels another disagreement, as it was stated: A perjured witness is disqualified for any and all testimony required by the Torah, the words of Rebbi Meїr. Rebbi Yose said, when has this been said? When he was found perjured in criminal matters. But if he was found perjured in money matters, he is disqualified only from that particular testimony. It turns out that Rebbi Yose parallels the rabbis and Rebbi Meїr Rebbi Eliezer.

Rav Huna said: Who is the Tanna of “participants in pigeon contests”? Rebbi Eliezer, as we have stated there: “Participants in pigeon contests are disqualified from testimony.” Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose: Is that statement in Sanhedrin Rebbi Eliezer’s? He told him, it is everybody’s opinion. So said Rebbi Yose: We knew that he was disqualified for testimony in money matters. What does he come to testify about? For as he is disqualified in money matters, so he is disqualified to testify in criminal trials. The witnesses for the New Moon are held to the standards of criminal trials, as we have stated: “Any testimony for which a woman is not qualified, they are not qualified for.” Who stated this? The rabbis! Do the rabbis follow Rebbi Eliezer? They agree with him and disagree with him. Rebbi Huna in the name of Rebbi Jonah said: It follows Rebbi Eliezer in everything. It turns out that this disagreement parallels another disagreement, as it was stated: A perjured witness is disqualified for any and all testimony required by the Torah, the words of Rebbi Meїr. Rebbi Yose said, when has this been said? When he was found perjured in criminal matters. But if he was found perjured in money matters, he is disqualified only from that particular testimony. It turns out that Rebbi Yose parallels the rabbis and Rebbi Meїr Rebbi Eliezer.