problem

Jesus said, "The Father's kingdom can be compared to a woman carrying a jar of flour. While she was walking down [a] long road, the jar's handle broke and the flour spilled out behind her on the road. She didn't know it, and didn't realize there was a problem until she got home, put down the jar, and found it empty."

But since he has ridiculed at great length the doctrine of the resurrection of the flesh, which has been preached in the churches, and which is more clearly understood by the more intelligent believer; and as it is unnecessary again to quote his words, which have been already adduced, let us, with regard to the problem (as in an apologetic work directed against an alien from the faith, and for the sake of those who are still “children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive”), state and establish to the best of our ability a few points expressly intended for our readers. Neither we, then, nor the Holy Scriptures, assert that with the same bodies, without a change to a higher condition, “shall those who were long dead arise from the earth and live again;” for in so speaking, Celsus makes a false charge against us. For we may listen to many passages of Scripture treating of the resurrection in a manner worthy of God, although it may suffice for the present to quote the language of Paul from the First Epistle to the Corinthians, where he says: “But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come? Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die. And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other grain; but God giveth it a body as it hath pleased Him, and to every seed his own body.” Now, observe how in these words he says that there is sown, “not that body that shall be;” but that of the body which is sown and cast naked into the earth (God giving to each seed its own body), there takes place as it were a resurrection: from the seed that was cast into the ground there arising a stalk, e.g. among such plants as the following, viz. the mustard plant, or of a larger tree, as in the olive, or one of the fruit-trees.

An elder rebelling against the ruling of the court [is strangled], for it says, “If there arise a matter too hard for you for judgement […you shall promptly repair to the place that the Lord your God will have chosen, and appear before the levitical priests, or the magistrate in charge at the time, and present your problem. When they have announced to you the verdict in the case, you shall carry out the verdict that is announced to you from that place that the Lord chose, observing scrupulously all their instructions to you. You shall act in accordance with the instructions given you and the ruling handed down to you; you must not deviate from the verdict that they announce to you either to the right or to the left. Should a man act presumptuously and disregard the priest charged with serving there the Lord your God, or the magistrate, that man shall die” (Deut. 17:8-13, JPS translation). Three courts of law were there, one situated at the entrance to the Temple mount, another at the door of the [Temple] court, and the third in the Chamber of Hewn Stone. They [first] went to the court which is at the entrance to the Temple mount, and he [the rebellious elder] stated, “Thus have I expounded and thus have my colleagues expounded; thus have I taught, and thus have my colleagues taught.” If [this first court] had heard [a ruling on the matter], they state it. If not, they go to the [second court] which is at the entrance of the Temple court, and he declares, “Thus have I expounded and thus have my colleagues expounded; thus have I taught, and thus have my colleagues taught.” If [this second court] had heard [a ruling on the matter] they state it; if not, they all proceed to the great court of the Chamber of Hewn Stone from whence instruction issued to all Israel, for it says, [you shall carry out the verdict that is announced to you] from that place that the Lord chose (Deut. 17:10). If he returned to his town and taught again as he did before, he is not liable. But if he gave a practical decision, he is guilty, for it says, “Should a man act presumptuously” (Deut. 17:12) he is liable only for a practical ruling. But if a disciple gave a practical decision [opposed to the court], he is exempt: thus his stringency is his leniency.

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.

Abba bar Rav Huna and Rav Ḥisda sat together and said, the same rule applies to blowing the Shofar. They went up to Rav’s Yeshivah and heard Rav Ḥuna in the name of Rav: Even if one heard it in up to nine hours he fulfilled his obligation. Rebbi Zeiïa said: When I was there, this was a problem for me. When I came here, I heard Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Yoḥanan: Even if one heard it during an entire day, one has fulfilled one’s obligation. But only if one heard it in the correct order. Rebbi Yose investigated: If one needed to hear the first simple tone and another one the final simple tone, one blow of the Shofar serves the requirements of both of them.

Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: If one is in doubt whether he mentioned the New Moon or not, one makes him repeat. Where does he return to? Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Yoḥanan, if he had moved his feet, he repeats from the start, otherwise from “Temple Service.” Rebbi Judah ben Pazi said, if he let his thoughts wander that is as if he had moved his feet. The private supplications are a problem.

Rebbi Yoḥanan took an olive and recited a benediction before and after. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba was looking at him. Rebbi Yoḥanan said to him: Babylonian, why are you looking at me? Don’t you agree that everything from the Seven Kinds needs a benediction before and after? He agrees. What is his problem? Because its pit reduces it. Does Rebbi Yoḥanan agree that its pit reduces it? What Rebbi Yoḥanan did was because of a creature. The word of Rebbi Yoḥanan implies that even one berry from a pomegranate needs a benediction before and after.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Abba bar Zamina in the name of Rebbi Zeïra: For two houses, there is a problem.

Rebbi Jonah had a problem: That dripping olive tree, since it is marked, in the opinion of Rebbi Yose even if he started with it it, should it be as if he had not started with it?

MISHNAH: Birsīm, Burdesīm, and Dalmatian garb as well as pinon shoes one should not wear unless one checks them. Rebbi Yose says, those coming from the sea shore in maritime countries do not have to be checked because usually they are made from hemp. Padded shoes have no problem with kilaim.

Rebbi Joḥanan and his colleagues were sitting and discussed the problem whether these are subject to removal or not. Rebbi Yannai was passing by. They said, this is a man worth asking. They asked him and he said to them: Everything that normally falls from the tree is subject to removal, but what does not normally fall is free from removal. Which ones normally fall, or normally do not fall, the Tanna refrained from [stating].

Rebbi Judah bar Pazi asked: What say these Tannaïm about prohibitions and extirpation? Rebbi Yose said, that is a problem for the rabbis. Rebbi Jonah said, why can we not understand it from what Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai stated? As Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai stated: “Rebbi Ṭarphon says, extirpation was mentioned for the Sabbath and the Day of Atonement. Since for extirpation mentioned for the Sabbath there is no payment in a case involving the death penalty, so for extirpation mentioned for the Day of Atonement there is no payment in a case involving extirpation.” Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose: When do we need this? For Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish! But for Rebbi Joḥanan, if he admits flogging in death penalty cases, certainly payment in extirpation cases. He said to him, we need it even for Rebbi Joḥanan! They disagreed: If somebody slaughters [an animal] and its young for idolatrous purposes. Rebbi Joḥanan says, if he was cautioned about an animal and its young, he is flogged, about idolatry, he is stoned to death. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, even if he was cautioned about an animal and its young, he is not flogged since he would be stoned to death had he been cautioned about idolatry. Here are two cases, there it is one case.

Rebbi Ḥaggai asked the colleagues, from where that he who eats with permission is free? What is the difference between him who thought that it was profane but it turned out that it was heave, who is obligated, and him who thought that he was an Israel but it turned out that he was a Cohen, who is free? They said to him, by the declaration of the court. He said to them, still I am having a problem. What is the difference between him who thought that it was a weekday but it turned out that it was a Sabbath, who is obligated, and him who thought that it was a Passover sacrifice but it turned out that it was a well-being offering, who is free? They said to him, because he slaughtered with permission. He said to them, still I am having a problem. What is the difference between him who thought that it was permitted fat but it turned out that it was forbidden fat, who is obligated, and him who thought that it was forbidden but it turned out that it was permitted, who is free? They did not answer him. What did he say to them? Let us take counsel! (Lev. 4:23,28): “Or his transgression in which he sinned was made known to him; he has to bring.” He who returns from his prior knowledge is obligated for his error; this excludes one who would not stop even if he knew! Rebbi Assi went to see them and said, why did you not answer him (Lev. 4:23,28): “Or his transgression in which he sinned was made known to him; he has to bring”? They said to him, he asked the question and gave the answer.

Rebbi Ḥaggai asked the colleagues, from where that he who eats with permission is free? What is the difference between him who thought that it was profane but it turned out that it was heave, who is obligated, and him who thought that he was an Israel but it turned out that he was a Cohen, who is free? They said to him, by the declaration of the court. He said to them, still I am having a problem. What is the difference between him who thought that it was a weekday but it turned out that it was a Sabbath, who is obligated, and him who thought that it was a Passover sacrifice but it turned out that it was a well-being offering, who is free? They said to him, because he slaughtered with permission. He said to them, still I am having a problem. What is the difference between him who thought that it was permitted fat but it turned out that it was forbidden fat, who is obligated, and him who thought that it was forbidden but it turned out that it was permitted, who is free? They did not answer him. What did he say to them? Let us take counsel! (Lev. 4:23,28): “Or his transgression in which he sinned was made known to him; he has to bring.” He who returns from his prior knowledge is obligated for his error; this excludes one who would not stop even if he knew! Rebbi Assi went to see them and said, why did you not answer him (Lev. 4:23,28): “Or his transgression in which he sinned was made known to him; he has to bring”? They said to him, he asked the question and gave the answer.

They asked before Rebbi Abbahu: What [is the status of] cooked wine that was left uncovered? He said to them, Rebbi Joḥanan had a problem with carenum, and you are asking me? Is that not [applicable to] cooked wine? He went to ask Rebbi Isaac who told him, it is forbidden. Rebbi Abbahu [then] remembered that Rebbi Joḥanan had said, it is forbidden.

The boys of Rebbi Jehudah Neśia hit Diodes the swine-herd. He became king and descended to Paneas. He sent letters to the rabbis that they should be at his place immediately after the end of the Sabbath. He said to his courier, do not deliver the letters before the evening, near sundown. The courier came to them in he evening, near sundown. Rebbi Jehudah Neśia and Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman had gone to bathe in the public baths of Tiberias. An אנגיטרוס came to them; Rebbi Jehudah Neśia wanted to scold him. Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman said, let him; he appears for wonders. He said to them, how are the rabbis? They told him about their problem. He said to them, go and bathe; your Creator will perform a miracle for you at Sabbath’s end. He carried them and brought them up. They said to him, the rabbis are outside. There was that bathhouse, he let it be heated for seven days and seven nights. He went out and cooled it before them. They went in and then appeared before him. He said to them: Because your Creator performs miracles for you, you insult the majesty! They said, we insulted Diocles the swine-herd; we do not insult Diocletianus the king. Even so, one should never vex a little Roman or a little Gueber.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Zeїra said, they asked before Rebbi Yannai: What [are the rules] if he put it on the plug of the amphora? He said to them (Job 36:33): “Its neighbor will inform about it.” What means, “its neighbor will inform about it”? Rebbi Yose said, that which we have stated there: “An amphora full of fruits added to fluids, or one full of fluids added to fruits.” As you say there, only if the fluids touch the amphora; so here only if the loaf touches the plug. Rebbi Mana said, from this it follows as you say there, only if the fluids touch the amphora itself; so here only if the loaf touches the plug itself. His opinion implies, even [if the pitta] is cold. Rebbi Abba said, the problem was about a cold one. But did we not state “hot”? Rav Ḥisda said, that one should not say since the vapor absorbs it should be permitted.

Are these forbidden because of robbery? Is wood not also forbidden because of robbery? What is his problem? For example, mulberry trees having no solidity.

There, we have stated: “Rebbi Eliezer says, heave is lifted at the rate of one in 100. Rebbi Joshua says by 100 and more.” There, [Rebbi] Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, everywhere where Rebbi taught a disagreement and returned to the problem later and taught it anonymously, practice follows the anonymous opinion. Since we have stated: “A seah of heave which fell into 100” and Rebbi Eleazar said, one cannot say “into 100” but “into 99.” As we have stated, Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Joshua.

Rebbi Mana did not say so but: Did not Rebbi Abbahu say in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, they taught this about sweeteners? Since sweeteners all taste the same, they are estimated as if they were onion, as if they were leeks. All other forbidden [foods], since they do not taste the same one does not estimate them as if they were onion, as if they were leeks. Cumin is a problem.

In the opinion of Rebbi Jehudah, what is the difference between him who plants on his own property and provines into a private person’s and him who plants on his own and provines into his own and a private road is in between? Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Miasha, when he provined through a gourd or a pipe. If he provined through a gourd or a pipe he should bring and make the declaration! Even according to the rabbis he should bring and make the declaration! Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Jehudah had a problem. If somebody sells a path to another person, does he sell him the place where the foot treads or does he sell him down to the abyss? If you say, he sold the place where the foot treads, he brings and makes the declaration. If you say, he sold down to the abyss, he should not bring at all. Because of the doubt he brings but does not make the declaration. For the rabbis it is obvious that he sold down to the abyss. Where do they differ? When he sells a path to another person. But if he sold him a field and reserved a path for himself, everybody agrees that he reserved for himself down to the abyss.

HALAKHAH: So far if he robbed the real estate. If he robbed a vine and planted it, does he not owe money? But the rabbis have a problem: do commandments follow the rules of Temple sacrifices or not? If you say they are like Temple sacrifices he may not bring; if you say they are not like Temple sacrifices he may bring. Everybody agrees that from a worshipped tree which was damaged one cannot bring logs for the altar fire. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked, may he take a lulav from it? Do commandments follow the rules of Temple sacrifices or not? If you say they are like Temple sacrifices he may not take; if you say they are not like Temple sacrifices he may take. It is obvious that he may take a lulav from it and commandments are not like Temple sacrifices. May he bring First Fruits? According to Rebbi Jehudah who compares them to country sacred food he may bring; according to the rabbis who compare them to Temple sacrifices he may not bring.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, in the remaining years of the Sabbatical cycle you treat it as a vegetable but in the Sabbatical as a tree. How is that? From the fifth to the sixth, sixth. From the sixth to the Sabbatical, sixth. If it stayed from the fifth to the sixth to the Sabbatical, if he harvested it in the Sabbatical [it is tithed for the] sixth; if he harvested it in the sixth [it is tithed for the] fifth. If it stayed from the sixth to the Sabbatical to the eighth, if he harvested it in the eighth [it is tithed for the] eighth. “Our teachers took the problem up a second time and voted that for a citron the moment it is harvested determines its tithe and Sabbatical status.”

Rebbi Joḥanan asked: If he was standing in the public domain, threw, and then caught it, what? Is that not a Mishnah, “if another person caught it, a dog caught it, or it was burned, he is not liable”? Rebbi Samuel in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira: So it is if he snatches; therefore if he caught it he is liable. What is the difference between its coming to rest on the ground to coming to rest in his arm? There, why is he liable? There he threw and another one received it but here he threw, he received it. Should it be obvious for him that he is not liable? Would he not be liable because of his mouth if he threw with his right hand and received with his left? Is his mouth not like another person? Here, his left hand should be like another person. Rebbi Yudan said, it is obvious to Rebbi Joḥanan that he is liable if he threw with his right hand and received with his left. What was his problem? If he threw with his right and and received with his right hand. The rabbis of Caesarea, Rebbi Shammai in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: He is in doubt whether he is liable even if he threw with his right hand and received with his left. If you want to say “his mouth”, his mouth is like another person since he ate it; but is here his hand like another person? Rebbi Mana asked, if this be so, then even if he exported the volume of a dried fig in both hands he should be not liable because of one action executed by two persons! Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said to him, is that when he did it? But was it not stated: An individual who acted is liable, two or three who acted are not liable.

But Rebbi Ismael himself had a problem: from where does one prove it? Rebbi Abbahu, Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Two prohibitions and one extirpation, the prohibitions split the extirpation. What is the reason? It should not be used to be rubbed on anybody’s skin and in its proportions you shall not imitate it, and it is written, a person who would compound similarly, or who would put it on a stranger, will be extirpated from his people, that is two prohibitions and one extirpation. The prohibitions split the extirpation. How does Rebbi Joḥanan treat this? The verse speaks about males. His sister is mentioned to teach about all females. Does Rebbi Eleazar not accept this? He has it from do not come near, equally male or female. How does Rebbi Joḥanan treat this? He explains it but it is not clear, so also from the following: Samuel bar Abba asked before Rebbi Zeˋira, should not well-being sacrifices, being treated separately, split all sancta regarding impurity? He told him, it was necessary that they be treated separately, to eliminate sancta dedicated for the upkeep of the Temple regarding larceny, lest one be liable for them because of mushiness, leftovers, and impurity. But is that not a Mishnah? “All sancta destined for the altar combine with one another with respect to liability for mushiness, leftovers, and impurity,” in contrast to sancta destined for the upkeep of the Temple. Since they do not combine, they do split. Rebbi Ḥanina said, so it is. They split but do not combine.

Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He who cooks carcass meat on a holiday is not flogged, because the category of cooking is permitted on a holiday. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he is flogged, for the category of cooking is permitted only for food. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal objected to this [statement] by Rebbi Joḥanan. Then one who ploughs on a holiday should not be flogged since actions of the category of ploughing are permitted on a holiday. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Ila: ordinary ploughing was not permitted. Rebbi Shammai said before Rebbi Yose: Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ila, this is Rebbi Simeon’s, for Rebbi Simeon said, only if he needs the essence of the matter. Rebbi Yose met Rebbi Aḥa. He said to him, did you say this? But did not Rebbi Joḥanan say, the words of Rebbi Meïr are that in 24 matters the House of Shammai are lenient and the House of Hillel restrictive, and this is one of them. Should we say 23? But Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon both said the same. But were we not of the opinion that Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Simeon both said the same? Should we say, Rebbi Meïr, Rebbi Yose, and Rebbi Simeon all three said the same? But matters which are problematic for the rabbis are obvious for you; are those which are obvious for the rabbis [problematic for you]? If one harvested for grasses he is liable for harvesting but is not liable for improving the soil. There is only the problem if he harvested in order to improve the soil. Is he liable for harvesting and for improving the soil? Even if you say it follows Rebbi Simeon, but for the rabbis in any case he ploughed, in any case he harvested. Rebbi Mana said, the words of the rabbis support Rebbi Yose, for Rebbi Ḥiyya said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if one compressed a fish, if for its body he is not liable, but if to produce fish sauce he is liable. Even if you say that he said this following Rebbi Simeon, but for the rabbis in any case he compressed, in any case he produced fish sauce.

Rebbi Jonah asked, if he did this on the Sabbath, in the opinion of the House of Shammai would he be liable? Rebbi Yose said to him, why not? If he did it on the Sabbath would he not be liable according to the House of Hillel? And here he is liable. Rebbi Mana said, my father Rebbi Jonah said it correctly. It is a problem only for the House of Shammai. Why? Because the category of selecting was permitted on the holiday, nothing of the category of selecting was permitted on the Sabbath.

He who burns potter’s clay, softens glass, melts pitch, melts מוסרין. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina: One who melts down lead is liable because of cooking. One who roasts, or who fries, who preserves by cooking, or by smoking, all these because of cooking. If somebody cooked in the hot springs of Tiberias, what? Ḥizqiah said, it is forbidden; Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is permitted. Rebbi Mana said, I went to Caesarea and heard Rebbi Zeriqan in the name of Ḥizqiah; for Ḥizqiah it was a problem: what if the Passover sacrifice was cooked in the hot springs of Tiberias? Two Amoraim, one said, it is forbidden; the other said, it is permitted. He who said, it is forbidden, do not eat from it raw, nor cooked in water. But he who said, it is permitted, but only roasted in fire, its head with its feet and its innards.

A wall, and a tree, and a copse of reeds are counted as double columns. If they grew by themselves one may carry there up to an area of two bet se’ah. If he planted them with his hands one may carry there even one or two bet kor. If there was one large well and he made [the double columns] for one half but not for the other half. For the half for which he made it it is permitted, for the half for which he did not make it it is forbidden. If there were two, could the space in-between be considered for both sides? What is his problem? If both were used to fill; but if only one was used to fill it is usable for both sides.

Paragraph. “Similarly three villages forming a triangle,” etc. Samuel said, if they are in a line. Bar Qappara said, it they are like a tripod. Which one is the middle one? It is understandable for him who said, they are in a line. For him who said, they are like a tripod, which one is the middle one? Rebbi Samuel, Rebbi Berekhiah’s brother, said, if you are measuring from one, the other is the middle one; if you are measuring from one, the other is the middle one. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina, only if the middle one not be farther than 2’000 cubits. Rebbi Yose said, I objected before Rebbi Jocob bar Aḥa, did we not state: “if between the two outer ones are 141⅓ [cubits], the middle one makes all three [to be one].” To permit the two outer ones. If there were two, could the middle one be counted for either side? His problem was if there were two people walking. But if one person is walking, it is counted for either side.

Rebbi Jeremiah said that Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac asked: May one check by the light of torches? What is his problem? Because their light is unsteady. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac is consistent since Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said, because a candle permits checking everywhere. [ Even though it is not proof of the matter, it is an allusion to the matter: It shall be on that daythat I shall search Jerusalem by candles. But some want to say,] one can understand it from the following: A candle of the Eternal is a person’s soul, it searches all rooms of the body.

Rebbi Jeremiah asked: Do synagogues and houses of study need checking? What is his problem? Since one brings there for intercalations and on the days of the New Moon. It should be obvious for him, but what really is his problem? Since they are very well illuminated, may one check them purposely during daytime by candlelight?

Rebbi Jeremiah asked: Do synagogues and houses of study need checking? What is his problem? Since one brings there for intercalations and on the days of the New Moon. It should be obvious for him, but what really is his problem? Since they are very well illuminated, may one check them purposely during daytime by candlelight?

“One does not knead mazzah with fluids but one may rub it with them. Rebbi Aqiba said, I was with Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Joshua on a ship and kneaded their mazzah with fluids. One may not knead mazzah with boiling water since it parboils, nor with lukewarm water because this makes leavened, but one kneads with cold water.” But did we not state: “All flour offerings are kneaded with lukewarm water and one guards them lest they become leavened”? Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: There the matter is in the hands of the Cohanim and Cohanim are quick; here it is in the hands of women and women are slow. Then it is a problem about Cohanim themselves, may they knead their mazzah with lukewarm water? It should be parallel to what Rebbi Zachariah the son-in-law of Rebbi Levi stated: A menstruating woman washes her hair and combs. A priestly woman does not wash her hair and combs. A menstruating priestly woman washes her hair and combs, not to differentiate between one menstruating woman and another. So also here, not to differentiate between mazzah and mazzah.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Eleazar said, for whom is this needed? For Rebbi Meïr. Does Rebbi Eleazar parallel Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? Just as Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish requires that his action be meritorious, does Rebbi Eleazar require that his action be meritorious? If you are saying that there is a difference, since this one has a defect, and a defective animal is not apt to be changed, also a calf is not apt to be changed, and Rebbi Eleazar said, the words of Rebbi Meïr: even a calf. Rebbi Yose said, if Rebbi Eleazar were of Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion, it would be understandable, since Rebbi Joḥanan said, a defective animals is not apt to be changed, but a calf is apt to be changed, because (it was a problem for Hillel) [it is needed for the slain]. Therefore {if it was torn} in the open, he is liable.

Rebbi Immi asked, if one cleaned out the tannur and roasted it in it? Rebbi Jeremiah said, his problem is following Rebbi Yose the Galilean, but it is obvious for him following Rebbi Aqiba. Rebbi Yose said, even following Rebbi Aqiba it is problematic for him. From the coals into the air of the tannur it is roasted in half an hour. From the coals into free air it is roasted in one hour. What is the difference between being roasted half because of the tannur or being roasted entirely because of the tannur? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, the tannur does nothing for the coals, it only keeps the heat together. If the coals are inside the tannur it is roasted in half an hour; if the coals are in free air it is roasted in one hour.

Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Hilfai asked: What is the status of a fistful given on the setting of the night? Rebbi Jeremiah said, Hilfai asked: What is the status of the public parts on the setting of the night? Is that not a baratta? Nothing precedes the daily sacrifice but incense. The baratta as commandment, what he is asking is as impediment. Does the diadem cover up for impurity of the hands? Do hands become disqualified by leaving? Is that not a barattai If he sanctified his hands and feet and they became impure, he immerses them and they are pure; if he left they did not become disqualified because of leaving. This comes following the one who said, an overnight stay does not disqualify hands. What is his problem? [But here] it is following him who said, an overnight stay disqualifies hands. Do hands become impure for missing time? Is that not a baraita? If he sanctified his hands and feet today for tomorrow’s service.

Rebbi Zeriqan said that Rebbi Zeˋira asked: If bulls and he-goats to be burned became impure, may they be burned according to their rules? What is his problem? If they became impure before the blood was poured, but if they became impure after the blood was poured I am applying to it, at its appointed time, even on the Sabbath, at its appointed time, even in impurity. [Rebbi Yose said, there where it is written at its appointed time; you do not infer anything from it.] Rebbi Mana said, does not Rebbi Yose refrain from applying it here? He applies it to the bull of the Anointed and the Congregation {he said to him}.

Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, Rebbi Eleazar asked: If bulls and he-goats to be burned were taken out and brought back? It is obvious for us that in returning they do not make garments impure. What our problem is, do they make garments impure from the moment they started to be brought out? Rebbi Abba objected, did we not state: “They were carrying them on yokes. If the front carriers left the walls of the Temple courtyard while the back carriers did not yet leave, the front carriers make garments impure while the back carriers do not make garments impure until they also leave. After they left, these and those make garments impure.” Rebbi Yudan, Rebbi Mattaniah’s father, said, there is a difference, for it is written, then he shall take out, until he completely leave the domain from which it is taken out.

Rebbi Jeremiah said, Rebbi Eleazar asked: If bulls and he-goats to be burned became impure, may they still become disqualified for being taken out? What is his problem? Following Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish; but following Rebbi Joḥanan it is obvious for him. For they disagreed: “If somebody slaughters a thanksgiving sacrifice inside while its bread is outside the walls, the bread was not sanctified.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, outside the walls of Jerusalem; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, outside the walls of the Temple court. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is consequent in his opinion since Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, meat of well-being offerings which was taken out and then returned, if the blood is poured for it already it is disqualified because of removal. Rebbi Yose said, he questions even according to Rebbi Joḥanan. While Jerusalem is not an enclosure for most holy sacrifices, it is an enclosure for simple sacrifice. Outside the walls of Jerusalem it is an enclosure neither for most holy sacrifices nor for simple sacrifices. Rebbi Mana said, it is not an enclosure for them.

And he who burns. Not the one who starts the fire, and not the one who prepares the stake. Who is he who burns? That is the one who helps during the burning. [Rebbi Yose said, this implies that the one who helps during the burning] makes his garments impure. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: One who turns over an olive-sized piece makes his garments impure. The problem is only one who stands inside and in his hand is a beam with which he turns over an olive-sized piece, [what is the rule]? Let us hear from the following: And he shall take out, and he shall burn. Since one who takes out, only after he took to the outside, also he who burns only if he burns outside. There Ḥizqiah said, he shall be impure until the evening; to include him who burns. Here it is the same.

Rebbi Yose said, Rebbi Joḥanan asked: Entire in the morning and entire in the evening, or half in the morning and half in the evening, [or entire in the morning and nothing in the evening]? Then it should be obvious to him, what about three log? Three log in the morning and three log in the afternoon, or a log and a half in the morning and a log and a half in the afternoon? Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, also the following was a problem for him: Two handful in the morning and two handful in the evening or one handful in the morning and one handful in the evening? Rebbi Yose said, did they not the two handful infer from the sinner’s flour offering? Just as there two handful, also here two handful. Just as there it was problematic for him, so here it is problematic for him. Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, did one not infer the three log from the daily afternoon sacrifice? Since there {are} three log, so also here three log. [Just as] there it was problematic for him, [so] here it is (obvious) [problematic] for him.

Rav Hoshaia asked: If he brought a plank and put it protruding on top of a pillar. It is obvious that if he measures from the plank there are twenty cubits, if he measures from the ground it is not twenty cubits. How do you treat this? As disqualified space, as disqualified thatching? If you are treating it as disqualified space, it disqualifies by three hand-breadths. If you are treating it as disqualified thatching, it only disqualifies by four cubits. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Ḥizqiah: Disqualified thatching only disqualifies by four cubits, since it serves only to permit the sukkah. Rebbi Miasha said, I am wondering what was Rav Hoshaia’s problem? Why does he not infer from the statement of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal, since we stated there: “If one makes the wall hanging from top to bottom, if it is more than three hand-breadths higher than the ground it is disqualified;” and Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, if he does not sit and eats in the shade of the walls, but if he was sitting and eating in the shade of the walls it is qualified. Rebbi Yose said, that of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal is not an inference since Rebbi Abba bar Mamal learned it from another Mishnah, as we have stated there: “From a balcony above the sea one may not draw water on the Sabbath unless one made a partition ten hand-breadths high either above or below.” And Rebbi Ze`ira said, Rav Jehudah in the name of Rav: Only if the partition is lowered into the water the full length of a pail. But one cannot compare it. The sea is karmelit, neither private nor public domain. But here the Torah said, in sukkot you shall dwell. From the floor of the sukkah you measure twenty cubits.

He who makes a lulav for himself says, praise to Him who sanctified us by His commandments and commanded us to make a lulav. For another, to make a lulav in his name. When he takes it he says, praise to Him who sanctified us by His commandments and commanded us about taking the lulav. If he prayed with it he says, praise to Him Who let us live, and kept us, and let us reach this time. He says the benediction every time when he takes it. How does one recite the benediction for the Ḥanukkah light? Rav said, praised to Him who sanctified us by His commandments and commanded us the commandment [to kindle] the light of Ḥanukkah. Everybody agrees that on the first day he says, about taking the lulav. What do they disagree about? The remaining days. Rebbi Joḥanan said, about taking the lulav. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, about commandments of the Elders. What did Rav say for the lulav? Since for Ḥanukkah which is from their words he is saying, about the commandment of the light of Ḥanukkah, for lulav which is from the Torah not so much more? What did Rebbi Joshua ben Levi say on Ḥanukkah? Since for lulav which is from the Torah he is saying, about commandments of the Elders, for Ḥanukkah which is from their words not so much more? The only problem is, what did Rebbi Joḥanan say on Ḥanukkah?

HALAKHAH: It was stated: All watches in the Temple doubled and tripled with bulls, except for the two last ones who doubled but did not triple. Rebbi Eleazar asked, would one start with them on the next holiday? Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah says this, “on the eighth day they returned to the lottery as on holidays.” It only is a problem following what was stated in the name of Rebbi Nathan: On the eighth day there was no lottery. In Rebbi Nathan’s opinion, would one start with them on the next holiday?

They were blowing before Rebbi Joshua ben Levi on a fast day. Rebbi Yose asked, should they not blow before him with trumpets? He had not heard what was stated, trumpets in the Temple, no trumpets in the countryside. Should they not pray 24 before him? As the following, Rebbi Joḥanan on the Ninth of Av was praying 24 but ordered his students, do not learn this action from me; because it was a problem for him whether it was mourning or a public fast day. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: It is not a public fast day. Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: It is mourning, it is not a public fast day. Rebbi Ze`ira said, the case of Rebbi Joḥanan implies that a person prays four [times] of the Ninth of Av. He only said four, but not 24.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He who cooks carcass meat on a holiday is not flogged, because the category of cooking is permitted on a holiday. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he is flogged, for the category of cooking is permitted only for food. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal objected to this {statement} by Rebbi Joḥanan. Then one who ploughs on a holiday should not be flogged since actions of the category of ploughing are permitted on a holiday. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Ila: ordinary ploughing was not permitted. Rebbi Shammai said before Rebbi Yose: Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ila, this is Rebbi Simeon’s, for Rebbi Simeon said, only if he needs the essence of the matter. Rebbi Yose met Rebbi Aḥa. He said to him, did you say this? But did not Rebbi Joḥanan say, the words of Rebbi Meïr are that in 24 matters the House of Shammai are lenient and the House of Hillel restrictive, and this is one of them. Should we say 23? But Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon both said the same. But were we not of the opinion that Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Simeon both said the same? Should we say, Rebbi Meïr, Rebbi Yose, and Rebbi Simeon all three said the same? But matters which are problematic for the rabbis are obvious for you; are those which are obvious for the rabbis problematic for you? If one harvested for grasses he is liable for harvesting but is not liable for improving the soil. There is only the problem if he harvested in order to improve the soil. Is he liable for harvesting and for improving the soil? Even if you say it follows Rebbi Simeon, but for the rabbis in any case he ploughed, in any case he harvested. Rebbi Mana said, the words of the rabbis support my teacher Rebbi Yose, for Rebbi Ḥiyya said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if one compressed a fish, if for its body he is not liable, but if to produce fish sauce he is liable. Even if you say that he said this following Rebbi Simeon, but for the rabbis in any case he compressed, in any case he produced fish sauce.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Jonah asked, if he did this on the Sabbath, in the opinion of the House of Shammai would he be liable? Rebbi Yose said to him, why not? If he did it on the Sabbath would he not be liable according to the House of Hillel? And here he is liable. Rebbi Mana said, my father Rebbi Jonah said it correctly. It is a problem only for the House of Shammai. Why? Because the category of selecting was permitted on the holiday, nothing of the category of selecting was permitted on the Sabbath.

Rebbi Yudan asked, may one move straw from a private domain to the public domain? Is that not the Mishnah, “he who transports straw may not tie the box and throw it over his shoulder”? The Mishnah follows him who says, for all breathing, also animal’s breathing is included. What is his problem? Following him who says, animal’s breathing is not included. Also for him who says, animal’s breathing is included, the Mishnah is about transporting as feed. What is his problem? If he transports as fuel.

Rebbi Yudan asked, may one move straw from a private domain to the public domain? Is that not the Mishnah, “he who transports straw may not tie the box and throw it over his shoulder”? The Mishnah follows him who says, for all breathing, also animal’s breathing is included. What is his problem? Following him who says, animal’s breathing is not included. Also for him who says, animal’s breathing is included, the Mishnah is about transporting as feed. What is his problem? If he transports as fuel.

It was seen by the rabbis, a certain donkey driver should pray and rain will come. The rabbis sent and brought him. They asked him, what is your profession? He said, I am a donkey driver. They asked him, what good deed did you do? He told them, once I rented out my donkey to a certain woman, and she was crying on the road. I asked her, what is your problem? She said to me, this woman’s husband is jailed and I have to see what to do to free him. I sold my donkey, gave her its value and told her, this is yours; free your husband and do not sin. They told him, you are worthy to pray and be heard.

It was seen by Rebbi Abbahu, Pantokaka shall pray and rain will come. Rebbi Abbahu sent and brought him. He asked him, what is your profession? He told him, five sins this man commits every day. He rents out prostitutes, maintains the theater, brings their garments to the baths, claps his hands and dances before them, and plays cymbals before them. They asked him, what good deed did you do? He told them, once I was maintaining the theater, when a woman came and stood behind a pillar, crying. I asked her, what is your problem? She said to me, this woman’s husband is jailed and I have to see what to do to free him. I sold my bed, and my bed-spread, gave her its value, and told her, this is yours; free your husband and do not sin. They told him, you are worthy to pray and be heard.

“The only difference between Sabbath and the Day of Atonement is that in the first case its intentional desecration is punished by man and in the second case by extirpation.” Therefore, for payment both follow the same rules. This is by Rebbi Neḥoniah ben Haqanah since Rebbi Neḥoniah ben Haqanah says, the Day of Atonement follows the rules of Sabbath for payment. But Rebbi Simeon ben Menassiah says those subject to extirpation equal those subject to capital punishment. What is between them? Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Abuna said, a menstruating adolescent girl is between them. Rebbi Mana said, also his wife’s sister is between them. In the opinion of Rebbi Neḥoniah ben Haqanah, just as the Sabbath does not become permitted after its prohibition started; so the Day of Atonement does not become permitted after its prohibition started. However, these may become permitted after their prohibition started, he has to pay. But Rebbi Simeon ben Menassiah said, extirpation applies to the Sabbath and the day of Atonement; extirpation does not apply to these, he has to pay. Rebbi Judah bar Pazi asked: What say these Tannaim about whipping and extirpation? Rebbi Yose said, that is a problem for the rabbis. Rebbi Jonah said, why can we not understand it from what Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai stated? As Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai stated: Rebbi Tarphon says, extirpation was mentioned for the Sabbath and the Day of Atonement. Since for extirpation mentioned for the Sabbath there can be no whipping connected to extirpation, so for extirpation mentioned for the Day of Atonement there is no whipping in a case involving extirpation. Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose: When do we need this? Not for Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? But for Rebbi Joḥanan, if he admits flogging in death penalty cases, certainly flogging in extirpation cases, since they disagreed: If somebody slaughters an animal and its young for idolatrous purposes. Rebbi Joḥanan says, if he was cautioned about an animal and its young, he is flogged, about idolatry, he is stoned to death. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, even if he was cautioned about an animal and its young, he is not flogged since he would be stoned to death had he been cautioned about idolatry. He said to him, we need it even for Rebbi Joḥanan! Here are two cases, there it is one case.

HALAKHAH: Therefore vessels used to prepare food are forbidden. But did he not make the vow about food? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: so is the Mishnah: The only difference between one who is under a vow {not to have} usufruct from another and one who is under a vow about use for food. In the House of Rebbi it was stated thus: “One who is under a vow about use of food should not borrow from him a fine or coarse sieve, a grindstone, or an oven.” It was stated: But he may borrow from him cups and bowls and fruit bowls, since these are not used to prepare food, only to serve food. Pans and pots are forbidden. To mill grain and to press grapes is forbidden. Harvesting grain is a problem, harvesting grapes is a problem. What kind of usufruct of food? It was stated: But he may borrow an axe from him. We wanted to say, an axe to split. Explain it by a hatchet for weeding, and you cannot infer anything. Rebbi Abuna said, that zwsta since one removes and separates the bran from flour with it, it is like a sieve.

HALAKHAH: Therefore vessels used to prepare food are forbidden. But did he not make the vow about food? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: so is the Mishnah: The only difference between one who is under a vow {not to have} usufruct from another and one who is under a vow about use for food. In the House of Rebbi it was stated thus: “One who is under a vow about use of food should not borrow from him a fine or coarse sieve, a grindstone, or an oven.” It was stated: But he may borrow from him cups and bowls and fruit bowls, since these are not used to prepare food, only to serve food. Pans and pots are forbidden. To mill grain and to press grapes is forbidden. Harvesting grain is a problem, harvesting grapes is a problem. What kind of usufruct of food? It was stated: But he may borrow an axe from him. We wanted to say, an axe to split. Explain it by a hatchet for weeding, and you cannot infer anything. Rebbi Abuna said, that zwsta since one removes and separates the bran from flour with it, it is like a sieve.

Rebbi Mana said in the name of Rebbi Jehudah who said in the name of Rebbi Yose the Galilean: If one interrupted so that he would have been able to read all of it, he did not fulfill his duty. Rebbi Abba, Rav Jeremiah in the name of Rav: The practice follows Rebbi Mana who said in the name of Rebbi Jehudah who said in the name of Rebbi Yose the Galilean, “if one interrupted.”. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Josadaq: The same applies to Hallel and the Esther Scroll. Abba bar Rav Huna and Rav Ḥisda sat together and said, the same rule applies to blowing the Shofar. They went up to (Rebbi’s) <rav’s> Yeshivah and heard Rav Ḥuna in the name of Rav: Even if one heard it in up to nine hours he fulfilled his obligation. Rebbi Ze`ira said: When I was there, this was a problem for me. When I came here, I heard Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Even if one heard it during an entire day, one has fulfilled one’s obligation. But only if one heard it in the correct order. Rebbi Yose investigated: If one needed to hear the initial simple tone and another one the final simple tone, one blow of the Shofar serves the requirements of both of them. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya investigated: The recitation of Shema` with its benedictions, the recitation of Shema` without its benedictions, its benedictions without it? If he interrupted after a third, interrupted after a second third? Does one estimate by the reader’s speed or by the average speed of all men? Rebbi Mattaniah said, is it not reasonable by the reader’s?

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

Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina asked before Rebbi Joḥanan: Here, you say, if his sister-in-law died, his wife is permitted to him, if his wife died, his sister-in-law is permitted to him, and here you say so? He said to him, I do not know the reason for [the rule regarding] sisters. Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: I do not know the reason for [the rule regarding] sisters who are sisters-in-law. Rebbi Hila, Rebbi Yasa, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The prohibition of sisters who are sisters-in-law cannot be compared to the prohibition of sisters who are not sisters-in-law. Rebbi Jeremiah said, explain it that the house fell on both [brothers] at the same time. Rebbi Yose asked, did Rebbi Joḥanan say, I do not know the reason for [the rule regarding] sisters who are sisters-in-law if the house fell on both [brothers] at the same time? Only if they died one after the other. They wanted to say, what was the problem of Rebbi Joḥanan? If the second one died, why should the first one not be permitted to him? But if the first one died, the second should be forbidden to him. Rebbi Yudan said, both cases are the same problem for him. And candidacy counts for nothing since if there are three brothers,two of them paternal but not maternal halfbrothers, and two maternal but not paternal halfbrothers. If the paternal halfbrother died first and the second brother had no time to perform ḥalîṣah or levirate before he died, and she became eligible for his maternal halfbrother, may he not take her? This shows that candidacy is nothing, [otherwise] she should be forbidden as the maternal halfbrother’s wife.

Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina asked before Rebbi Joḥanan: Here, you say, if his sister-in-law died, his wife is permitted to him, if his wife died, his sister-in-law is permitted to him, and here you say so? He said to him, I do not know the reason for [the rule regarding] sisters. Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: I do not know the reason for [the rule regarding] sisters who are sisters-in-law. Rebbi Hila, Rebbi Yasa, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The prohibition of sisters who are sisters-in-law cannot be compared to the prohibition of sisters who are not sisters-in-law. Rebbi Jeremiah said, explain it that the house fell on both [brothers] at the same time. Rebbi Yose asked, did Rebbi Joḥanan say, I do not know the reason for [the rule regarding] sisters who are sisters-in-law if the house fell on both [brothers] at the same time? Only if they died one after the other. They wanted to say, what was the problem of Rebbi Joḥanan? If the second one died, why should the first one not be permitted to him? But if the first one died, the second should be forbidden to him. Rebbi Yudan said, both cases are the same problem for him. And candidacy counts for nothing since if there are three brothers,two of them paternal but not maternal halfbrothers, and two maternal but not paternal halfbrothers. If the paternal halfbrother died first and the second brother had no time to perform ḥalîṣah or levirate before he died, and she became eligible for his maternal halfbrother, may he not take her? This shows that candidacy is nothing, [otherwise] she should be forbidden as the maternal halfbrother’s wife.

HALAKHAH: “If property came to a woman waiting for her levir,” etc. Here, you say “she may sell or give away and it is valid. If she dies, what does one do with her ketubah?” And you also say “the husband’s heirs should split with her father’s heirs!” Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, when do you say “she may sell or give away and it is valid”? If they came to her before she became a woman waiting for her levir. When do you say “the husband’s heirs should split with her father’s heirs”? If they came to her after she became a woman waiting for her levir. If they came to her before she became a woman waiting for her levir and produced revenue after she became a woman waiting for her levir, [that revenue is as if] they came to her after she became a woman waiting for her levir. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, the levir in this situation is a problem for the House of Shammai. If he is a husband, he inherits everything. If he is not a husband, he inherits nothing. Because of the doubt, “the husband’s heirs should split with her father’s heirs.” For the House of Hillel it is obvious that he is a husband and inherits everything. For even his brother had only the usufruct.

Rebbi Hoshaia stated: The heirs of her ketubah are obliged to bury her. Rebbi Yose said, if Rebbi Hoshaia had not stated this, we would have had a problem. If she had no ketubah, do they not have to bury her? This is difficult. If a woman has no ketubah, does she not have to be buried? A wife, even if she has a ketubah, must be buried. This one, if she has a ketubah, is entitled to burial costs. But here, if she does not have a ketubah, she is not entitled to burial costs.

HALAKHAH: “If they told her, your husband died,” etc. “If they told her, your husband died; she was betrothed,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: Her only problem would be aspersion on the priesthood, but the court will not tolerate aspersion.

HALAKHAH: “If [a girl] repudiates a man, etc.” Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: Her only problem would be aspersion on the priesthood, but the court will not tolerate aspersion.

HALAKHAH: “If [a girl] repudiates,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: Her only problem would be aspersion on the priesthood, but the court will not tolerate aspersion.

“If a woman made a vow forbidding herself any usufruct,” etc. Consider the following: He said, I copulated, but she says, I was not copulated with. Even if he changed and then said, I did not copulate, he cannot be believed since from the start he had said, I copulated. But if from the start he said that he had not copulated, the two together can uproot the presumption. The colleagues asked: What are we talking about? If following the early Mishnah, we have understood that one may marry in levirate. If following the later Mishnah, we have understood that one may perform ḥalîṣah. Where did we hear that one coerces? Rav Huna in the name of Rav: That is, if a bill of divorce has passed from his hand to her hand. He says, it is the bill of divorce of a wife. But she says, it is the bill of divorce of a sister-in-law. Within thirty days, the presumption is that he did not copulate; one coerces him to performḥalîṣah. After thirty days, one asks him to perform ḥalîṣah. Rebbi Yose asked, after thirty days, the presumption is that he copulated and you say one coerces? But it must be the following: Rav Huna in the name of Rav: That is, if a bill of divorce has passed from his hand to her hand. He says, it is the bill of divorce of a wife. But she says, it is the bill of divorce of a sister-in-law. Within thirty days, the presumption is that he did not copulate; one coerces him to performḥalîṣah. After thirty days, one asks him to performḥalîṣah. The following: If he says, I copulated, and she says, I was not copulated with, it is obvious that he has to sustain her. It is obvious that he does not inherit from her. The problem is whether he inherits his brother’s property. If she says, I was copulated with, and he says, I did not copulate, it is obvious that he does not have to sustain her. It is obvious that he inherits his brother’s property. The problem is whether he inherits from her.

“If a woman made a vow forbidding herself any usufruct,” etc. Consider the following: He said, I copulated, but she says, I was not copulated with. Even if he changed and then said, I did not copulate, he cannot be believed since from the start he had said, I copulated. But if from the start he said that he had not copulated, the two together can uproot the presumption. The colleagues asked: What are we talking about? If following the early Mishnah, we have understood that one may marry in levirate. If following the later Mishnah, we have understood that one may perform ḥalîṣah. Where did we hear that one coerces? Rav Huna in the name of Rav: That is, if a bill of divorce has passed from his hand to her hand. He says, it is the bill of divorce of a wife. But she says, it is the bill of divorce of a sister-in-law. Within thirty days, the presumption is that he did not copulate; one coerces him to performḥalîṣah. After thirty days, one asks him to perform ḥalîṣah. Rebbi Yose asked, after thirty days, the presumption is that he copulated and you say one coerces? But it must be the following: Rav Huna in the name of Rav: That is, if a bill of divorce has passed from his hand to her hand. He says, it is the bill of divorce of a wife. But she says, it is the bill of divorce of a sister-in-law. Within thirty days, the presumption is that he did not copulate; one coerces him to performḥalîṣah. After thirty days, one asks him to performḥalîṣah. The following: If he says, I copulated, and she says, I was not copulated with, it is obvious that he has to sustain her. It is obvious that he does not inherit from her. The problem is whether he inherits his brother’s property. If she says, I was copulated with, and he says, I did not copulate, it is obvious that he does not have to sustain her. It is obvious that he inherits his brother’s property. The problem is whether he inherits from her.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody declared his jealousy and she went to a secluded place,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: This entire chapter [deals with the case that] he warned her and said to her, do not be at a secluded place with man X, after he declared his jealousy and she went to a secluded place. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, even if she did not go to a secluded place. Rebbi Ze‘ira said before Rebbi Yasa: Not that Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagrees, only he is lenient about witnesses to the hiding. We have stated a disagreement. Some state it anonymously. Rebbi Ze‘ira said before Rebbi Mana: Rebbi Joshua does not disagree with what Rebbi Eliezer said, only that we have stated: “Rebbi Joshua says, only if she is the subject of talk of women carding by moonlight.” Rebbi Abba Mari asked: There, Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, everywhere where Rebbi taught a disagreement and returned to the problem later and taught it anonymously, practice follows the anonymous opinion. And here he says so?

Rebbi Jeremiah and Rebbi Ammi asked: What is the difference between her and one who had sex with a finger? Is the one who had sex with a finger not disabled for priesthood? Rebbi Haggai said, explain it that there was no penetration. Rebbi Haggai wanted to change his mind; Rebbi Abba said to him, do not change your mind. Why did Rebbi Haggai want to change his mind? Because of the verse: “But he shall marry a wife in her virginities,” only if she is a virgin in both respects. Similarly, “a virgin and no man had known her.” A virgin, with respect to penetration. No man had known her, without penetration. Rebbi Isaac ben Eleazar said, [no man] ever had wanted to touch her hand, for it was said: “The staff of evil shall not rest on the just’s lot.” Why did Rebbi Haggai want to change his mind? He could explain it by “touching”. Why does (Rav Yosef) [Rebbi Yasa] not explain it by “touching”? Rebbi Mana said, because it presented a problem for him: Rebbi Yasa asked: What is the legal status of “touching” with a male? “Touching” with an animal? When Rebbi Jeremiah heard that of Rebbi Haggai, he said, that was not Rebbi Ammi’s problem.

Rebbi Jeremiah and Rebbi Ammi asked: What is the difference between her and one who had sex with a finger? Is the one who had sex with a finger not disabled for priesthood? Rebbi Haggai said, explain it that there was no penetration. Rebbi Haggai wanted to change his mind; Rebbi Abba said to him, do not change your mind. Why did Rebbi Haggai want to change his mind? Because of the verse: “But he shall marry a wife in her virginities,” only if she is a virgin in both respects. Similarly, “a virgin and no man had known her.” A virgin, with respect to penetration. No man had known her, without penetration. Rebbi Isaac ben Eleazar said, [no man] ever had wanted to touch her hand, for it was said: “The staff of evil shall not rest on the just’s lot.” Why did Rebbi Haggai want to change his mind? He could explain it by “touching”. Why does (Rav Yosef) [Rebbi Yasa] not explain it by “touching”? Rebbi Mana said, because it presented a problem for him: Rebbi Yasa asked: What is the legal status of “touching” with a male? “Touching” with an animal? When Rebbi Jeremiah heard that of Rebbi Haggai, he said, that was not Rebbi Ammi’s problem.

Rebbi Judah bar Pazi asked: What say these Tannaïm about whipping and extirpation? Rebbi Yose said, that is a problem for the rabbis. Rebbi Jonah said, why can we not understand it from what Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai stated? As Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai stated: “Rebbi Ṭarphon says, extirpation was mentioned for the Sabbath and the Day of Atonement. Since for extirpation mentioned for the Sabbath there is no payment in a case involving the death penalty, so for extirpation mentioned for the Day of Atonement there is no payment in a case involving extirpation.” Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose: When do we need this? Not for Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? But for Rebbi Joḥanan, if he admits flogging in death penalty cases, certainly flogging in extirpation cases, since they disagreed: If somebody slaughters [an animal] and its young for idolatrous purposes. Rebbi Joḥanan says, if he was cautioned about an animal and its young, he is flogged, about idolatry, he is stoned to death. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, even if he was cautioned about an animal and its young, he is not flogged since he would be stoned to death had he been cautioned about idolatry. He said to him, we need it even for Rebbi Joḥanan! Here are two cases, there it is one case.

Rebbi Eleazar asked: Do the daughters of the rape victim have the rights given by the ketubah stipulations? It is clear to me that the rape victim has no [ketubah] of the male children, and that the seduced victim has no [ketubah] of the male children. If you say that he questions in both cases, we could ask, do the daughters of the rape victim and the daughters of the seduced girl have the rights given by the ketubah stipulations? That is a problem following the rabbis, but it is obvious following Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah; as it was stated: Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah says, the rapist gives a mina as ketubah.

HALAKHAH: “One who says, I seduced X’s daughter,” etc. Rebbi Isaac asked: Would he have to pay the slave’s value on his own testimony? What is his problem? Are the entire 30 [šeqel] a fine or is only the excess over his value a fine? If you say, the entire 30 [šeqel] are a fine, he does not pay. If you say, the excess over his value is a fine, he pays. There, we have stated: “‘Your ox killed my slave’! The other said, ‘he did not kill’. ‘I want you to swear’ and he said ‘Amen’, he is free.” Rebbi Ḥaggai said before Rebbi Yose, explain it if he killed a slave afflicted with boils. He said to him, what does it say afterwards? “‘Your ox killed my son’! The other said, ‘he did not kill’. ‘I want you to swear’ and he said ‘Amen’, he is obligated.” Why do you not explain it that he was afflicted with boils, then he would be free. Rebbi Ḥaggai said before Rebbi Yose, explain it following him who says “he shall pay the redemption of his person”, the one’s who caused the damage. He said to him, if following him who says “he shall pay the redemption of his person”, the one’s who caused the damage, everything is a fine. Can one say to him, be also in the clear with Heaven? Let us hear from the following: It happened that Rabban Gamliel knocked out his slave Tebi’s tooth. He came to Rebbi Joshua and said to him, I found a reason to free my slave Tebi. He said to him, what do you have in your hand? Fines can be imposed only by witnesses! Could they not say to him, do your duty before Heaven? That means one does not tell him, do your duty before Heaven! Rebbi Gamliel ben Avina asked before Rebbi Mana: Does Rabban Gamliel follow him who said, it is permitted to manumit? He said to him, the story in itself implies that it is forbidden to manumit since, otherwise, he could have freed him immediately!

From where comes this? Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: “You shall give them as inheritance to your sons to inherit property,” those to your sons and not your daughters to your sons; the verse speaks about the fine. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: They have no right to the fines of the daughter nor to payments for seduction or injuries. When does the fine become due? Rebbi Jonah said, from the first moment; Rebbi Yose said, at the end. Rebbi Yose objected to Rebbi Jonah: Since you say, from the first moment, did we not state: “If there were court proceedings during her father’s lifetime, [the payments] are the father’s; after the father’s death they are the brothers’”? He said to him, that refers to what Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai stated, “He shall give to the girl; he shall give to the girl’s father.” Rebbi Jonah objected to Rebbi Yose. In your opinion, since you say, at the end, did we not state: “If there were court proceedings before she became an adult, they are the father’s; after she became an adult they belong to herself.” Does an adult have a claim to a fine? He said to him, that refers to what Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, as Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: “Because he mistreated her,” that includes if she was an adolescent and became an adult. Does it turn out that this disagreement parallels another disagreement, as we have stated there: “If he stole from his father, slaughtered or sold, and afterwards [his father] died, …, he pays fourfold or fivefold”? Rebbi Yose objected to Rebbi Ḥaggai: In your opinion, since you say that it depends on the court proceedings, should one not state: If he stole from his father, slaughtered or sold during his father’s lifetime but did not appear in court until after his father’s death, he pays twofold? But it says fourfold or fivefold! But here, everybody agrees that they belong to herself. The only problem is whether he has to pay to her or to her father.

Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: If they saw her putting on her underpants and the pedlar leaves her house, the thing is ugly, she should leave. There is slime on her bed, the thing is ugly, she should leave. There is slime on his bed, the thing is ugly, she should leave. His sandal is in front of her bed, the thing is ugly, she should leave. Her sandal is in front of his bed, the thing is ugly, she should leave. Both leave the same dark place, the thing is ugly, she should leave. They lift one another from the cistern, the thing is ugly, she should leave. Both of them clap on her thighs in the bathhouse, the thing is ugly, she should leave. Ḥanina bar Iqa in the name of Rebbi Jehudah, in all these cases, if she brings an explanation for her behavior she is believed. Rav Ada bar Aḥawa in the name of Rav: A case came before Rebbi and he said, what of it? They asked before him: Even if they saw him putting his mouth on her mouth? He said, this did happen, that they saw a man putting his mouth on her mouth. The case came befote Rebbi Yose, who said that she should leave without ketubah. Her relatives appealed the case and said, if she is deviant, she should leave without ketubah. If she is not deviant, she should take the entire ketubah. Rebbi Mana said to them, bring the ketubah that we may read it. They brought the ketubah and found written in it: If this X marries this Y as her husband and should no longer desire his company, she shall take half the ketubah sum. Rebbi Abun said, since she agreed that he should put his mouth on her mouth it is as if she hated him; she has only half the ketubah. She lies in his bosom or he lies in her bosom, she is deviant. If they embrace, she is deviant. If they kiss, she is deviant. If the door is locked, she is deviant. If it is blocked, that is a problem.

HALAKHAH: “If property came to a woman waiting for her levir,” etc. Here, you say “she may sell or give away and it is valid.” And you also say “the husband’s heirs should split with her father’s heirs!” Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, when do you say “she may sell or give away and it is valid”? If they came to her before she became a woman waiting for her levir. When do you say “the husband’s heirs should split with her father’s heirs”? If they came to her after she became a woman waiting for her levir. If they came to her before she became a woman waiting for her levir and produced revenue after she became a woman waiting for her levir, [that revenue is as if] they came to her after she became a woman waiting for her levir. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, the levir in this situation is a problem for the House of Shammai. If he is a husband, he inherits everything. If he is not a husband, he inherits nothing. Because of the doubt, “the husband’s heirs should split with her father’s heirs.” For the House of Hillel it is obvious that he is a husband and inherits everything. For even his brother had only the usufruct.

Rebbi Hoshaia stated: Her heirs, those who inherit her ketubah are obliged to bury her. Rebbi Yose said, if Rebbi Hoshaia had not stated this, we would have had a problem. If she had no ketubah, do they not have to bury her? This is difficult. If a woman has no ketubah, does she not have to be buried? A wife, even if she has no ketubah, must be buried. This one, if she has a ketubah, is entitled to burial costs. But here, if she does not have a ketubah, she is not entitled to burial costs.

HALAKHAH: “One who makes a vow away from the seafaring men,” etc. That you should not say, not from those who go from Acco to Jaffa but those who frequently take to the sea. “From the dwellers on dry land he is forbidden the seafaring men,” not only those who go from Acco to Jaffa but even those who frequently take to the sea. But did he not make a vow regarding the dwellers on dry land? This implies that the seafaring men are part of the dwellers on dry land. If he made a vow away from the seafaring men after thirty days but [a certain mariner] became a land dweller, there is a dispute between Rebbi Ismael and Rebbi Aqiba. For Rebbi Ismael says, after the vow, and Rebbi Aqiba says, after the prohibition. And about children it is a problem.

HALAKHAH: “The only difference between one who is under a vow [not to have] usufruct from another,” etc. This means that vessels used to prepare food are forbidden. But did he not make the vow about food? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, so is the Mishnah: The only difference between one who is under a vow [not to have] usufruct from another and one who is under a vow about use for food. In the House of Rebbi it was stated thus: “One who is under a vow about use of food should not borrow from him a fine or coarse sieve, a grindstone, or an oven.” It was stated: But he may borrow from him cups and bowls and fruit bowls, since these are not used to prepare food, only to serve food. Pans and pots are forbidden. To mill and to press is forbidden. Cutting is a problem, harvesting is a problem. What kind of usufruct? It was stated: But he may borrow a spade from him. We wanted to say, a spade of a digger. Explain it by a spade for weeding, and you cannot infer anything. Rebbi Abuna said, that ysṭ’, since one removes and separates the bran from flour with it, it is forbidden to borrow from him.

HALAKHAH: “The only difference between one who is under a vow [not to have] usufruct from another,” etc. This means that vessels used to prepare food are forbidden. But did he not make the vow about food? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, so is the Mishnah: The only difference between one who is under a vow [not to have] usufruct from another and one who is under a vow about use for food. In the House of Rebbi it was stated thus: “One who is under a vow about use of food should not borrow from him a fine or coarse sieve, a grindstone, or an oven.” It was stated: But he may borrow from him cups and bowls and fruit bowls, since these are not used to prepare food, only to serve food. Pans and pots are forbidden. To mill and to press is forbidden. Cutting is a problem, harvesting is a problem. What kind of usufruct? It was stated: But he may borrow a spade from him. We wanted to say, a spade of a digger. Explain it by a spade for weeding, and you cannot infer anything. Rebbi Abuna said, that ysṭ’, since one removes and separates the bran from flour with it, it is forbidden to borrow from him.

Rebbi Abin in the name of Rebbi Hila: That is only if he vowed before they intercalated. But if they intercalated and then he vowed, that is not so. Is it no different for rent of houses? If one said, the First Adar, and the other one says, the Second Adar, they should split the intercalary month. Come and see, for vows you have no problem but for money matters you have a problem? Rebbi Hila said, that is, if they intercalated and after that he leased. But if he leased and after that they intercalated, that is not so. And in matters of documents one writes First Adar, Second Adar, only that for Second Adar one writes תניין. Rebbi Jehudah says, for Second Adar one writes ת̇ and that is enough.

Rebbi Abin in the name of Rebbi Hila: That is only if he vowed before they intercalated. But if they intercalated and then he vowed, that is not so. Is it no different for rent of houses? If one said, the First Adar, and the other one says, the Second Adar, they should split the intercalary month. Come and see, for vows you have no problem but for money matters you have a problem? Rebbi Hila said, that is, if they intercalated and after that he leased. But if he leased and after that they intercalated, that is not so. And in matters of documents one writes First Adar, Second Adar, only that for Second Adar one writes תניין. Rebbi Jehudah says, for Second Adar one writes ת̇ and that is enough.

HALAKHAH: “If his wife had a miscarriage,” etc. Should one not be afraid that he might have been viable? Rebbi Joḥanan said, [the Mishnah] is Rebbi Jehudah’s, since Rebbi Jehudah said, any doubt of nezirut is permitted. It was said to him that Rebbi Jehudah said so only for the end; but for the start even Rebbi Jehudah will agree. What is beginning and what is end? Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, everybody agrees that “I do not know whether I made a vow of nazir or not,” is at the beginning, “whether it was for 30 or 50 days”, is at the end. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbu Abun said: Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba and Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac disagreed: Everybody agrees that “I do not know whether I made a vow of nazir or not,” is at the beginning, “whether it was for 30 or 50 days”, is at the end. Where do they disagree? If it was once or twice. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba considered it the end, Rebbi Samuel considered it the beginning. Rebbi Mana: The problem for Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac about one or two times is whether it is the beginning or the end.

Ulla bar Ismael said, what is his problem? Of an impure nazir. But for a pure nazir, even Rebbi Eliezer agrees if he has nothing to omit. Samuel bar Abba asked: May one day of his nezirut and one day of nezirut for his son be combined? Where do we hold? If his son was born today and tomorrow he enters, he has two days for his nezirut. If his son was born the next day and he enters the next day, he has two days for his son’s nezirut! Rebbi Mana said, explain it at twilight. Rebbi Abin said, even if you say in the middle of the day, did we not intend to say that the start of the day is counted for him, the end of the day is counted for his son?

Rebbi Yose said, what is his problem? Of a pure nazir. But for an impure nazir, it is obvious to him that they cannot be combined. Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose: Is that not an argument of “so much more”? Since for days which are counted neither for his nor for his son’s nezirut, you say that they are combined, days which are counted for his and for his son’s nezirut, it would only be logical that they should be combined! Rebbi Mana said, there he is not in a state to receive a warning, but here he is in a state to receive a warning. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked: Since you say there about Rebbi Eliezer, at the start only if he has something to omit; at the end even if he has nothing to omit? Rebbi Ze‘ira said before Rebbi Mana, is that not a Mishnah? “If he became impure on day 101, he invalidated 30; Rebbi Eliezer said, he invalidated only seven.” He said, we hear that he invalidates; did we hear that he brings a sacrifice?

Rav said, none of these are invalid except for the last which is invalid. Issi said, all are invalid except for the first which is not invalid. Rebbi Abba bar Ḥinena said, all are invalid. The word of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish implied that all are invalid since Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, if he wrote the essential text with the formula, it is invalid. The word of Rebbi Joḥanan implied that none are invalid since Rebbi Joḥanan said, if he wrote the essential text with the formula, it is valid. Does the word of Rebbi Eleazar imply that none are invalid? Since Rebbi Eleazar asked: if one wrote a bill of preliminary marriage not for a specific name, does preliminary marriage take hold? If he had a problem with divorce, would he ask about preliminary marriage? Since in the case of divorce, where the document is required to be for a specific name and he did not write for a specific name, divorce will not touch her, is it not logical that in the case of preliminary marriage, where a specific name is not required and he did not write for a specific name, preliminary marriage take hold with her? That should be obvious to him. Really, the following is obvious to him: Since one inferred the bill of preliminary marriage only from divorce, and in the case of divorce she is not divorced, in the case of preliminary marriage she is not preliminarily married.

Rebbi Eleazar bar Yose asked before Rebbi Yose: Concerning what you say that one bill of divorce is invalid for two women, should not two bills of divorce be invalid for two women? He asked him, what is the question? He answered, did we not state: “If two people sent two [identical] bills of divorce which were intermingled, he gives both documents to both women.” There, it is a divorce for this one and a divorce for the other one; the mix-up caused [the problem]. But here, neither this one is divorced in her name nor is that one divorced in her name.

Rebbi Mana said, not only a neck-iron of mortal danger but also a neck-iron of money. For every neck-iron is a mortal danger. Rebbi Eleazar asked: Does his gift follow the rules of the gift of a sick person? Rebbi Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jacob the Armenian: That which is a problem for Rebbi Simeon is obvious for Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina, as we have stated there: “One may have use for the hair of a woman who was executed but an animal which was executed is forbidden for all use.” Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina said, if she said, my bonnet should be given to my daughter.

Rebbi Jeremiah asked: If he threw it to her in a courtyard which belongs to neither of them, what is the rule? Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: That is a problem for the rabbis. Rebbi Abin said, it is a disagreement between Rav and the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya, for Rebbi Samuel, Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi said in the name of Rav: Drawing close does not acquire in a courtyard which belongs to neither of them. But Rebbi Ḥiyya stated in disagreement: “Under which circumstances did they say that movables are acquired by drawing close? In the public domain or in a courtyard which belongs to neither of them. But in the buyer’s domain he acquired the moment he accepted it. In the seller’s domain he does not acquire unless either he lifts it up or moves it out of its prior owner’s domain. In a domain where it was deposited he does not acquire unless he either is explicitly empowered or he leases its place.”

HALAKHAH: “If he wrote a bill to divorce his wife and then changed his mind,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: There is no problem because of the purity of the priestly line and the court will not denigrate her. There came a case before the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya and he acted following the House of Hillel. Rav asked him, why did you bring yourself into this great doubt? He answered, Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose was with me. He quoted about them: “Two are better than one.”

HALAKHAH: “If two men sent two identical bills of divorce,” etc. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose asked before Rebbi Yose: Just as you say that a bill of divorce after a bill of divorce is invalid in the case of two wives, similarly two bills of divorce should be invalid for two women. He answered, that is correct. He said to him, but did we not state: “If two men sent two identical bills of divorce and they became mixed up, one delivers both to both women”? There, each of the bills was written in the name of the respective wife; the mix-up caused the problem. But here, neither one was written as divorce in her name; when it was delivered, could it be considered as divorce in her name from the start?

Rebbi Isaac asked: Why do we not say: “either by her own ḥalîṣah or that of her co-wife?” He turned around and said: Did we state “by her own ḥalîṣah”? Not “by her own ḥalîṣah”! But here either by her own ḥalîṣah or that of her co-wife. But did we not state, “by intercourse”? Can you say, either by her own intercourse or the intercourse of her cowife? The Mishnah speaks of one sister-in-law; the problem arises for two sisters-in-law.

Can she regain her autonomy through her master’s death or by the end of six [years]? What is the problem? Following Rebbi Aqiba? But Rebbi Aqiba said that the verse speaks about a woman half slave and half free engaged to be married by a free man. Therefore, his problem is following Rebbi Ismael, since Rebbi Ismael said that the verse speaks about a Canaanite slave girl married to a Hebrew slave, since this is marriage sanctioned by the Torah: “If his master give him a wife.” But his problem is whether she regains her autonomy through her master’s death or by the end of six [years] for him who says that the Hebrew slave does not serve the heir.

Can she regain her autonomy through her master’s death or by the end of six [years]? What is the problem? Following Rebbi Aqiba? But Rebbi Aqiba said that the verse speaks about a woman half slave and half free engaged to be married by a free man. Therefore, his problem is following Rebbi Ismael, since Rebbi Ismael said that the verse speaks about a Canaanite slave girl married to a Hebrew slave, since this is marriage sanctioned by the Torah: “If his master give him a wife.” But his problem is whether she regains her autonomy through her master’s death or by the end of six [years] for him who says that the Hebrew slave does not serve the heir.

Can she regain her autonomy through her master’s death or by the end of six [years]? What is the problem? Following Rebbi Aqiba? But Rebbi Aqiba said that the verse speaks about a woman half slave and half free engaged to be married by a free man. Therefore, his problem is following Rebbi Ismael, since Rebbi Ismael said that the verse speaks about a Canaanite slave girl married to a Hebrew slave, since this is marriage sanctioned by the Torah: “If his master give him a wife.” But his problem is whether she regains her autonomy through her master’s death or by the end of six [years] for him who says that the Hebrew slave does not serve the heir.

It is obvious that a slave may accept a gift by one third party to another, by a third party to his master, [but] not from his master to himself. From a third party to himself is in dispute between Rebbi Meïr and the Sages. If one said: Here [I am giving] you this money on condition that your master have no power over it, the slave acquired it and with him his master, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, the slave acquired it [but not] his master. What is the problem? From his master to a third party. Since the slave may receive from a third party for his master, may he receive from his master for a third party? Let us hear from the following: “If somebody borrowed a cow and [the lender] sent her to him through his slave, his son, or his agent.” Does this not mean that the slave is able to transfer rights from his master to a third party? Rebbi Eleazar said, explain it for a Hebrew slave. Rebbi Joḥanan said, you have to explain if for a Canaanite slave; explain it that he said, open [the gate] for her and she will come by herself, as we have stated: “If he led her, drew her to himself, called her and she followed him, he is responsible as a borrower.” Rebbi Zeïra understood it from here: “But he cannot make them acquire through his underage son or daughter or his Canaanite male or female slave, because their hand is not like his hand.” Does this not imply that a slave is not able to transfer rights from his master to another person? Explain it following Rebbi Meïr since Rebbi Meïr makes the hand of the slave the hand of his master. But did we not state “his wife”? Rebbi Meïr holds that the hand of the wife is the hand of her husband! Rebbi Ḥananiah said in the name of Rebbi Phineas, explain it following the Tanna who stated: “His wife cannot redeem Second Tithe for him. Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says in the name of Rebbi Meïr, his wife can redeem Second Tithe for him.” For that Tanna, Rebbi Meïr makes the hand of the slave the hand of his master but not the hand of the wife the hand of her husband!

Rebbi Joḥanan asked: Can movables be taken into possession by dragging? Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, what is his problem? With hard hides. But soft hides are not taken into posession until lifted. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: If somebody steals another person’s pouch and removes it on the Sabbath, he is obligated since he already is obligated for the theft of the wallet before he comes in conflict with the holiness of the Sabbath. But if he was dragging it until he left, he is free since the obligations of capital crime and restitution fall on him simultaneously. Therefore, if the obligations of capital crime and restitution do not fall on him simultaneously he is obligated. Rebbi Mattania said, explain it with large pouches which usually are dragged.

Rebbi Hoshaia the Elder and Rebbi Jehudah Neśia were sitting. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal came to them and asked: If it wagged its tail as those mules do, what are the rules? They did not tell him. Later, Rebbi Hoshaia the Elder told him, for if it were not so, what would we say? Does he have to grab its tail? That is, if it does not usually do it. But if it usually does it, he has to grab its tail. What is obvious to us? The problem of full damages. What is problematic for us? Half damages.

So far if [the corral] was fenced in on four sides. If it was fenced in on three sides and breached on one side, and [an animal] left through the breach, what is the rule? Let us hear from the following: “If his wall fell in from the noise of earthquakes or thunder and he rebuilt it as required, he is not liable, otherwise he is liable.” The only problem is if three better built walls fell together with it.

HALAKHAH: “The find of his small son or daughter,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, only if they are not dependent on their father. But if they are dependent on their father, their finds belong to the latter. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish says, a person cannot acquire a find for another. Rebbi [Hila] said: Not that Rebbi Simeon had formulated thus, but he had a problem with what Rebbi Hoshaiah stated: If a person hires a worker for any work, the latter’s finds belong to the employer. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, should the finds of a person who can resign at any moment belong to his employer?

A person sent to his preliminarily wedded wife 24 gourds filled with various kinds of agricultural produce between Passover and Pentecost. It was only a problem for the rabbis: from where did he bring flax and olive seeds?