rebbi

Rebbi Ḥinena said before Rebbi Mana: If Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish thought the entire Mishnaiot were Rebbi Meïr’s, he would call them “the words of Meïr.” But is it not written (Lev. 22:14): “If a person ate consecrated food in error, etc.”? But Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish must hold that the fifth is a sacrifice. But even if he holds that the fifth is a sacrifice, can the principal be a sacrifice? Rebbi Yudan bar Shalom said, the Mishnah declares that the principal is a fine, as we have stated: “He does not pay in heave but in totally profane food which is turned into heave.” If he had to pay from what he ate, it would be fine. And it was stated: “If he ate impure heave, he has to pay in pure profane food, but if he paid in impure profane, he discharged his obligation.” Does he not owe him the price of wood? That shows that the principal is a fine and since the principal is a fine, the fifth also is a fine. But Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish follows his own opinion. Just as Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, there, everybody was under the obligation of (Ex. 20:16) “Do not become a false witness against your neighbor”, but this one was treated separately, (Deut. 19:19) “do to him what he intended to do to his brother”, to force him to pay; also here, everybody was under the obligation of (Lev. 22:10) “no outsider shall eat holy [food],” but this one was treated separately, (Lev. 22:14) “if somebody should eat holy [food] in error,” to force him to pay.

Rebbi Ḥinena said before Rebbi Mana: If Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish thought the entire Mishnaiot were Rebbi Meïr’s, he would call them “the words of Meïr.” But is it not written (Lev. 22:14): “If a person ate consecrated food in error, etc.”? But Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish must hold that the fifth is a sacrifice. But even if he holds that the fifth is a sacrifice, can the principal be a sacrifice? Rebbi Yudan bar Shalom said, the Mishnah declares that the principal is a fine, as we have stated: “He does not pay in heave but in totally profane food which is turned into heave.” If he had to pay from what he ate, it would be fine. And it was stated: “If he ate impure heave, he has to pay in pure profane food, but if he paid in impure profane, he discharged his obligation.” Does he not owe him the price of wood? That shows that the principal is a fine and since the principal is a fine, the fifth also is a fine. But Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish follows his own opinion. Just as Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, there, everybody was under the obligation of (Ex. 20:16) “Do not become a false witness against your neighbor”, but this one was treated separately, (Deut. 19:19) “do to him what he intended to do to his brother”, to force him to pay; also here, everybody was under the obligation of (Lev. 22:10) “no outsider shall eat holy [food],” but this one was treated separately, (Lev. 22:14) “if somebody should eat holy [food] in error,” to force him to pay.

Rebbi Ḥinena said before Rebbi Mana: If Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish thought the entire Mishnaiot were Rebbi Meïr’s, he would call them “the words of Meïr.” But is it not written (Lev. 22:14): “If a person ate consecrated food in error, etc.”? But Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish must hold that the fifth is a sacrifice. But even if he holds that the fifth is a sacrifice, can the principal be a sacrifice? Rebbi Yudan bar Shalom said, the Mishnah declares that the principal is a fine, as we have stated: “He does not pay in heave but in totally profane food which is turned into heave.” If he had to pay from what he ate, it would be fine. And it was stated: “If he ate impure heave, he has to pay in pure profane food, but if he paid in impure profane, he discharged his obligation.” Does he not owe him the price of wood? That shows that the principal is a fine and since the principal is a fine, the fifth also is a fine. But Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish follows his own opinion. Just as Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, there, everybody was under the obligation of (Ex. 20:16) “Do not become a false witness against your neighbor”, but this one was treated separately, (Deut. 19:19) “do to him what he intended to do to his brother”, to force him to pay; also here, everybody was under the obligation of (Lev. 22:10) “no outsider shall eat holy [food],” but this one was treated separately, (Lev. 22:14) “if somebody should eat holy [food] in error,” to force him to pay.

Rebbi Ḥinena said before Rebbi Mana: If Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish thought the entire Mishnaiot were Rebbi Meïr’s, he would call them “the words of Meïr.” But is it not written (Lev. 22:14): “If a person ate consecrated food in error, etc.”? But Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish must hold that the fifth is a sacrifice. But even if he holds that the fifth is a sacrifice, can the principal be a sacrifice? Rebbi Yudan bar Shalom said, the Mishnah declares that the principal is a fine, as we have stated: “He does not pay in heave but in totally profane food which is turned into heave.” If he had to pay from what he ate, it would be fine. And it was stated: “If he ate impure heave, he has to pay in pure profane food, but if he paid in impure profane, he discharged his obligation.” Does he not owe him the price of wood? That shows that the principal is a fine and since the principal is a fine, the fifth also is a fine. But Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish follows his own opinion. Just as Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, there, everybody was under the obligation of (Ex. 20:16) “Do not become a false witness against your neighbor”, but this one was treated separately, (Deut. 19:19) “do to him what he intended to do to his brother”, to force him to pay; also here, everybody was under the obligation of (Lev. 22:10) “no outsider shall eat holy [food],” but this one was treated separately, (Lev. 22:14) “if somebody should eat holy [food] in error,” to force him to pay.

Rebbi Ḥinena said before Rebbi Mana: If Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish thought the entire Mishnaiot were Rebbi Meïr’s, he would call them “the words of Meïr.” But is it not written (Lev. 22:14): “If a person ate consecrated food in error, etc.”? But Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish must hold that the fifth is a sacrifice. But even if he holds that the fifth is a sacrifice, can the principal be a sacrifice? Rebbi Yudan bar Shalom said, the Mishnah declares that the principal is a fine, as we have stated: “He does not pay in heave but in totally profane food which is turned into heave.” If he had to pay from what he ate, it would be fine. And it was stated: “If he ate impure heave, he has to pay in pure profane food, but if he paid in impure profane, he discharged his obligation.” Does he not owe him the price of wood? That shows that the principal is a fine and since the principal is a fine, the fifth also is a fine. But Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish follows his own opinion. Just as Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, there, everybody was under the obligation of (Ex. 20:16) “Do not become a false witness against your neighbor”, but this one was treated separately, (Deut. 19:19) “do to him what he intended to do to his brother”, to force him to pay; also here, everybody was under the obligation of (Lev. 22:10) “no outsider shall eat holy [food],” but this one was treated separately, (Lev. 22:14) “if somebody should eat holy [food] in error,” to force him to pay.

Rebbi Ḥinena said before Rebbi Mana: If Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish thought the entire Mishnaiot were Rebbi Meïr’s, he would call them “the words of Meïr.” But is it not written (Lev. 22:14): “If a person ate consecrated food in error, etc.”? But Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish must hold that the fifth is a sacrifice. But even if he holds that the fifth is a sacrifice, can the principal be a sacrifice? Rebbi Yudan bar Shalom said, the Mishnah declares that the principal is a fine, as we have stated: “He does not pay in heave but in totally profane food which is turned into heave.” If he had to pay from what he ate, it would be fine. And it was stated: “If he ate impure heave, he has to pay in pure profane food, but if he paid in impure profane, he discharged his obligation.” Does he not owe him the price of wood? That shows that the principal is a fine and since the principal is a fine, the fifth also is a fine. But Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish follows his own opinion. Just as Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, there, everybody was under the obligation of (Ex. 20:16) “Do not become a false witness against your neighbor”, but this one was treated separately, (Deut. 19:19) “do to him what he intended to do to his brother”, to force him to pay; also here, everybody was under the obligation of (Lev. 22:10) “no outsider shall eat holy [food],” but this one was treated separately, (Lev. 22:14) “if somebody should eat holy [food] in error,” to force him to pay.

Did we not state: The Sages admit to Rebbi Meïr that one who stole his neighbor’s fat is flogged and has to pay since he who eats fat is flogged. Did we not state: The Sages admit to Rebbi Meïr that one who stole his neighbor’s heave is flogged and has to pay since he who eats his own heave is flogged. Did we not state: The Sages admit to Rebbi Meïr that one who muzzled his neighbor’s cow is flogged and has to pay six qab per cow and four qab for a donkey since he who muzzles his cow is flogged. Rebbi Yose said, the same holds if death is the penalty. If he stole Temple heave and ate it, he is whipped and has to pay since in any case he caused monetary loss.

Did we not state: The Sages admit to Rebbi Meïr that one who stole his neighbor’s fat is flogged and has to pay since he who eats fat is flogged. Did we not state: The Sages admit to Rebbi Meïr that one who stole his neighbor’s heave is flogged and has to pay since he who eats his own heave is flogged. Did we not state: The Sages admit to Rebbi Meïr that one who muzzled his neighbor’s cow is flogged and has to pay six qab per cow and four qab for a donkey since he who muzzles his cow is flogged. Rebbi Yose said, the same holds if death is the penalty. If he stole Temple heave and ate it, he is whipped and has to pay since in any case he caused monetary loss.

Did we not state: The Sages admit to Rebbi Meïr that one who stole his neighbor’s fat is flogged and has to pay since he who eats fat is flogged. Did we not state: The Sages admit to Rebbi Meïr that one who stole his neighbor’s heave is flogged and has to pay since he who eats his own heave is flogged. Did we not state: The Sages admit to Rebbi Meïr that one who muzzled his neighbor’s cow is flogged and has to pay six qab per cow and four qab for a donkey since he who muzzles his cow is flogged. Rebbi Yose said, the same holds if death is the penalty. If he stole Temple heave and ate it, he is whipped and has to pay since in any case he caused monetary loss.

Did we not state: The Sages admit to Rebbi Meïr that one who stole his neighbor’s fat is flogged and has to pay since he who eats fat is flogged. Did we not state: The Sages admit to Rebbi Meïr that one who stole his neighbor’s heave is flogged and has to pay since he who eats his own heave is flogged. Did we not state: The Sages admit to Rebbi Meïr that one who muzzled his neighbor’s cow is flogged and has to pay six qab per cow and four qab for a donkey since he who muzzles his cow is flogged. Rebbi Yose said, the same holds if death is the penalty. If he stole Temple heave and ate it, he is whipped and has to pay since in any case he caused monetary loss.

Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose: If it is so, he who sleeps with his minor sister should be flogged and have to pay since if he sleeps with his adult sister he is flogged. Rebbi Mana reversed himself and said, there death and payment fall on him simultaneously. But here, from the first muzzling he is subject to flogging but only later for payment. Rebbi Ezra objected before Rebbi Mana: He who sets fire to his neighbor’s grain stack on the Sabbath is subject to capital punishment from the first ear but only later for payment! One cannot say so, for every single ear there is cautioning for the death penalty. Here also, for every moment of muzzling there is cautioning for flogging (and cautioning for payment). Rebbi Yose bar Abun said, two Amoraïm. One said, if he muzzled for heave which is Temple property. The other one said, if he muzzled through an agent. Then the agent is flogged and he is free (Lev. 17:4): “As a blood guilt it will be charged on this man,” not on his employers.

Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose: If it is so, he who sleeps with his minor sister should be flogged and have to pay since if he sleeps with his adult sister he is flogged. Rebbi Mana reversed himself and said, there death and payment fall on him simultaneously. But here, from the first muzzling he is subject to flogging but only later for payment. Rebbi Ezra objected before Rebbi Mana: He who sets fire to his neighbor’s grain stack on the Sabbath is subject to capital punishment from the first ear but only later for payment! One cannot say so, for every single ear there is cautioning for the death penalty. Here also, for every moment of muzzling there is cautioning for flogging (and cautioning for payment). Rebbi Yose bar Abun said, two Amoraïm. One said, if he muzzled for heave which is Temple property. The other one said, if he muzzled through an agent. Then the agent is flogged and he is free (Lev. 17:4): “As a blood guilt it will be charged on this man,” not on his employers.

Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose: If it is so, he who sleeps with his minor sister should be flogged and have to pay since if he sleeps with his adult sister he is flogged. Rebbi Mana reversed himself and said, there death and payment fall on him simultaneously. But here, from the first muzzling he is subject to flogging but only later for payment. Rebbi Ezra objected before Rebbi Mana: He who sets fire to his neighbor’s grain stack on the Sabbath is subject to capital punishment from the first ear but only later for payment! One cannot say so, for every single ear there is cautioning for the death penalty. Here also, for every moment of muzzling there is cautioning for flogging (and cautioning for payment). Rebbi Yose bar Abun said, two Amoraïm. One said, if he muzzled for heave which is Temple property. The other one said, if he muzzled through an agent. Then the agent is flogged and he is free (Lev. 17:4): “As a blood guilt it will be charged on this man,” not on his employers.

Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose: If it is so, he who sleeps with his minor sister should be flogged and have to pay since if he sleeps with his adult sister he is flogged. Rebbi Mana reversed himself and said, there death and payment fall on him simultaneously. But here, from the first muzzling he is subject to flogging but only later for payment. Rebbi Ezra objected before Rebbi Mana: He who sets fire to his neighbor’s grain stack on the Sabbath is subject to capital punishment from the first ear but only later for payment! One cannot say so, for every single ear there is cautioning for the death penalty. Here also, for every moment of muzzling there is cautioning for flogging (and cautioning for payment). Rebbi Yose bar Abun said, two Amoraïm. One said, if he muzzled for heave which is Temple property. The other one said, if he muzzled through an agent. Then the agent is flogged and he is free (Lev. 17:4): “As a blood guilt it will be charged on this man,” not on his employers.

Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose: If it is so, he who sleeps with his minor sister should be flogged and have to pay since if he sleeps with his adult sister he is flogged. Rebbi Mana reversed himself and said, there death and payment fall on him simultaneously. But here, from the first muzzling he is subject to flogging but only later for payment. Rebbi Ezra objected before Rebbi Mana: He who sets fire to his neighbor’s grain stack on the Sabbath is subject to capital punishment from the first ear but only later for payment! One cannot say so, for every single ear there is cautioning for the death penalty. Here also, for every moment of muzzling there is cautioning for flogging (and cautioning for payment). Rebbi Yose bar Abun said, two Amoraïm. One said, if he muzzled for heave which is Temple property. The other one said, if he muzzled through an agent. Then the agent is flogged and he is free (Lev. 17:4): “As a blood guilt it will be charged on this man,” not on his employers.

Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose: If it is so, he who sleeps with his minor sister should be flogged and have to pay since if he sleeps with his adult sister he is flogged. Rebbi Mana reversed himself and said, there death and payment fall on him simultaneously. But here, from the first muzzling he is subject to flogging but only later for payment. Rebbi Ezra objected before Rebbi Mana: He who sets fire to his neighbor’s grain stack on the Sabbath is subject to capital punishment from the first ear but only later for payment! One cannot say so, for every single ear there is cautioning for the death penalty. Here also, for every moment of muzzling there is cautioning for flogging (and cautioning for payment). Rebbi Yose bar Abun said, two Amoraïm. One said, if he muzzled for heave which is Temple property. The other one said, if he muzzled through an agent. Then the agent is flogged and he is free (Lev. 17:4): “As a blood guilt it will be charged on this man,” not on his employers.

In error for heave and intentional for leavened, in error for heave and intentional for nazir, in error for heave and intentional for the Day of Atonement. If one explains it with two things, it is fine. If one explains it for one, this is the disagreement of Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish.

In error for heave and intentional for leavened, in error for heave and intentional for nazir, in error for heave and intentional for the Day of Atonement. If one explains it with two things, it is fine. If one explains it for one, this is the disagreement of Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish.

There, we have stated: “The only difference between the Sabbath and the Day of Atonement is that intentional infraction of the former is punished by the hands of man, but intentional infraction of the latter is punished by extirpation.” Therefore, for payment both follow the same rules. The Mishnah is by Rebbi Neḥoniah ben Haqanah since they stated: “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 Avina said, a menstruating 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, this one will become permitted after her prohibition started, he has to pay. But Rebbi Simeon ben Menassiah said, extirpation applies to Sabbath and the day of Atonement; extirpation applies also to this one, he does not have to pay.

There, we have stated: “The only difference between the Sabbath and the Day of Atonement is that intentional infraction of the former is punished by the hands of man, but intentional infraction of the latter is punished by extirpation.” Therefore, for payment both follow the same rules. The Mishnah is by Rebbi Neḥoniah ben Haqanah since they stated: “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 Avina said, a menstruating 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, this one will become permitted after her prohibition started, he has to pay. But Rebbi Simeon ben Menassiah said, extirpation applies to Sabbath and the day of Atonement; extirpation applies also to this one, he does not have to pay.

There, we have stated: “The only difference between the Sabbath and the Day of Atonement is that intentional infraction of the former is punished by the hands of man, but intentional infraction of the latter is punished by extirpation.” Therefore, for payment both follow the same rules. The Mishnah is by Rebbi Neḥoniah ben Haqanah since they stated: “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 Avina said, a menstruating 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, this one will become permitted after her prohibition started, he has to pay. But Rebbi Simeon ben Menassiah said, extirpation applies to Sabbath and the day of Atonement; extirpation applies also to this one, he does not have to pay.

There, we have stated: “The only difference between the Sabbath and the Day of Atonement is that intentional infraction of the former is punished by the hands of man, but intentional infraction of the latter is punished by extirpation.” Therefore, for payment both follow the same rules. The Mishnah is by Rebbi Neḥoniah ben Haqanah since they stated: “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 Avina said, a menstruating 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, this one will become permitted after her prohibition started, he has to pay. But Rebbi Simeon ben Menassiah said, extirpation applies to Sabbath and the day of Atonement; extirpation applies also to this one, he does not have to pay.

There, we have stated: “The only difference between the Sabbath and the Day of Atonement is that intentional infraction of the former is punished by the hands of man, but intentional infraction of the latter is punished by extirpation.” Therefore, for payment both follow the same rules. The Mishnah is by Rebbi Neḥoniah ben Haqanah since they stated: “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 Avina said, a menstruating 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, this one will become permitted after her prohibition started, he has to pay. But Rebbi Simeon ben Menassiah said, extirpation applies to Sabbath and the day of Atonement; extirpation applies also to this one, he does not have to pay.

There, we have stated: “The only difference between the Sabbath and the Day of Atonement is that intentional infraction of the former is punished by the hands of man, but intentional infraction of the latter is punished by extirpation.” Therefore, for payment both follow the same rules. The Mishnah is by Rebbi Neḥoniah ben Haqanah since they stated: “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 Avina said, a menstruating 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, this one will become permitted after her prohibition started, he has to pay. But Rebbi Simeon ben Menassiah said, extirpation applies to Sabbath and the day of Atonement; extirpation applies also to this one, he does not have to pay.

There, we have stated: “The only difference between the Sabbath and the Day of Atonement is that intentional infraction of the former is punished by the hands of man, but intentional infraction of the latter is punished by extirpation.” Therefore, for payment both follow the same rules. The Mishnah is by Rebbi Neḥoniah ben Haqanah since they stated: “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 Avina said, a menstruating 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, this one will become permitted after her prohibition started, he has to pay. But Rebbi Simeon ben Menassiah said, extirpation applies to Sabbath and the day of Atonement; extirpation applies also to this one, he does not have to pay.

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.

According to Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, what is between these Tannaïm and those rabbis? Rebbi Judan said, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish [is the one] who said following Rebbi Meïr, who said he is flogged and pays. Rebbi Ḥananiah said, he who puts fire to the grain stack of his neighbor on a holiday is between them. These Tannaïm think, since there is no extirpation, he pays. Those rabbis think, since there is flogging he does not pay. But then “these are the girls” cannot follow the rabbis! Rebbi Mattaniah said, he who sleeps with a bastard girl is between them.

According to Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, what is between these Tannaïm and those rabbis? Rebbi Judan said, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish [is the one] who said following Rebbi Meïr, who said he is flogged and pays. Rebbi Ḥananiah said, he who puts fire to the grain stack of his neighbor on a holiday is between them. These Tannaïm think, since there is no extirpation, he pays. Those rabbis think, since there is flogging he does not pay. But then “these are the girls” cannot follow the rabbis! Rebbi Mattaniah said, he who sleeps with a bastard girl is between them.

According to Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, what is between these Tannaïm and those rabbis? Rebbi Judan said, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish [is the one] who said following Rebbi Meïr, who said he is flogged and pays. Rebbi Ḥananiah said, he who puts fire to the grain stack of his neighbor on a holiday is between them. These Tannaïm think, since there is no extirpation, he pays. Those rabbis think, since there is flogging he does not pay. But then “these are the girls” cannot follow the rabbis! Rebbi Mattaniah said, he who sleeps with a bastard girl is between them.

According to Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, what is between these Tannaïm and those rabbis? Rebbi Judan said, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish [is the one] who said following Rebbi Meïr, who said he is flogged and pays. Rebbi Ḥananiah said, he who puts fire to the grain stack of his neighbor on a holiday is between them. These Tannaïm think, since there is no extirpation, he pays. Those rabbis think, since there is flogging he does not pay. But then “these are the girls” cannot follow the rabbis! Rebbi Mattaniah said, he who sleeps with a bastard girl is between them.

According to Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, what is between these Tannaïm and those rabbis? Rebbi Judan said, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish [is the one] who said following Rebbi Meïr, who said he is flogged and pays. Rebbi Ḥananiah said, he who puts fire to the grain stack of his neighbor on a holiday is between them. These Tannaïm think, since there is no extirpation, he pays. Those rabbis think, since there is flogging he does not pay. But then “these are the girls” cannot follow the rabbis! Rebbi Mattaniah said, he who sleeps with a bastard girl is between them.

According to Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, what is between these Tannaïm and those rabbis? Rebbi Judan said, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish [is the one] who said following Rebbi Meïr, who said he is flogged and pays. Rebbi Ḥananiah said, he who puts fire to the grain stack of his neighbor on a holiday is between them. These Tannaïm think, since there is no extirpation, he pays. Those rabbis think, since there is flogging he does not pay. But then “these are the girls” cannot follow the rabbis! Rebbi Mattaniah said, he who sleeps with a bastard girl is between them.

MISHNAH: The daughter of a Cohen married to an Israel who afterwards ate heave pays the principal but does not pay the fifth; her death is by burning. If she married one of the ineligible, she pays principal and fifth and her death is by strangulation, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, both pay principal but not the fifth and their deaths are by burning. He who feeds his minor children or his slaves, adult or minor, he who eats heave from outside the Land, and he who eats less than the volume of an olive of heave pays the principal but not the fifth. The payment is profane and if the Cohen wants to forgive it, he may forgive. This is the principle: In every case one pays the principal and the fifth, the payment is heave and although the Cohen may want to forgive, he may not forgive. In every case one pays the principal but not the fifth, the payment is profane and if the Cohen wants to forgive, he may do so.

What is the reason of Rebbi Meïr? (Lev. 21:9) “If she desecrates her father’s house by whoring,” one who may not return to her father’s house; this excludes one who may return to her father’s house. If she married acceptably but committed adultery, may she return to her father’s house? How is this? “If she desecrates by whoring;” the one whose desecration is by whoring, not the one whose desecration is by marriage. What is the reason of the rabbis? (Lev. 21:9) “A Cohen man’s daughter,” under all circumstances. Then also if her desecration is by her son? Rebbi Ḥinena par Papa stated before Rebbi Zeïra following Rebbi Ismael: (Lev. 21:9) “She desecrates her father.” One whose desecration is caused by herself, not one whose desecration is because of her father. Rebbi Ḥanina said, I learn from the words of Rebbi Ismael, even if her desecration is by her son.

What is the reason of Rebbi Meïr? (Lev. 21:9) “If she desecrates her father’s house by whoring,” one who may not return to her father’s house; this excludes one who may return to her father’s house. If she married acceptably but committed adultery, may she return to her father’s house? How is this? “If she desecrates by whoring;” the one whose desecration is by whoring, not the one whose desecration is by marriage. What is the reason of the rabbis? (Lev. 21:9) “A Cohen man’s daughter,” under all circumstances. Then also if her desecration is by her son? Rebbi Ḥinena par Papa stated before Rebbi Zeïra following Rebbi Ismael: (Lev. 21:9) “She desecrates her father.” One whose desecration is caused by herself, not one whose desecration is because of her father. Rebbi Ḥanina said, I learn from the words of Rebbi Ismael, even if her desecration is by her son.

What is the reason of Rebbi Meïr? (Lev. 21:9) “If she desecrates her father’s house by whoring,” one who may not return to her father’s house; this excludes one who may return to her father’s house. If she married acceptably but committed adultery, may she return to her father’s house? How is this? “If she desecrates by whoring;” the one whose desecration is by whoring, not the one whose desecration is by marriage. What is the reason of the rabbis? (Lev. 21:9) “A Cohen man’s daughter,” under all circumstances. Then also if her desecration is by her son? Rebbi Ḥinena par Papa stated before Rebbi Zeïra following Rebbi Ismael: (Lev. 21:9) “She desecrates her father.” One whose desecration is caused by herself, not one whose desecration is because of her father. Rebbi Ḥanina said, I learn from the words of Rebbi Ismael, even if her desecration is by her son.

What is the reason of Rebbi Meïr? (Lev. 21:9) “If she desecrates her father’s house by whoring,” one who may not return to her father’s house; this excludes one who may return to her father’s house. If she married acceptably but committed adultery, may she return to her father’s house? How is this? “If she desecrates by whoring;” the one whose desecration is by whoring, not the one whose desecration is by marriage. What is the reason of the rabbis? (Lev. 21:9) “A Cohen man’s daughter,” under all circumstances. Then also if her desecration is by her son? Rebbi Ḥinena par Papa stated before Rebbi Zeïra following Rebbi Ismael: (Lev. 21:9) “She desecrates her father.” One whose desecration is caused by herself, not one whose desecration is because of her father. Rebbi Ḥanina said, I learn from the words of Rebbi Ismael, even if her desecration is by her son.

What is the reason of Rebbi Meïr? (Lev. 21:9) “If she desecrates her father’s house by whoring,” one who may not return to her father’s house; this excludes one who may return to her father’s house. If she married acceptably but committed adultery, may she return to her father’s house? How is this? “If she desecrates by whoring;” the one whose desecration is by whoring, not the one whose desecration is by marriage. What is the reason of the rabbis? (Lev. 21:9) “A Cohen man’s daughter,” under all circumstances. Then also if her desecration is by her son? Rebbi Ḥinena par Papa stated before Rebbi Zeïra following Rebbi Ismael: (Lev. 21:9) “She desecrates her father.” One whose desecration is caused by herself, not one whose desecration is because of her father. Rebbi Ḥanina said, I learn from the words of Rebbi Ismael, even if her desecration is by her son.

What is the reason of Rebbi Meïr? (Lev. 21:9) “If she desecrates her father’s house by whoring,” one who may not return to her father’s house; this excludes one who may return to her father’s house. If she married acceptably but committed adultery, may she return to her father’s house? How is this? “If she desecrates by whoring;” the one whose desecration is by whoring, not the one whose desecration is by marriage. What is the reason of the rabbis? (Lev. 21:9) “A Cohen man’s daughter,” under all circumstances. Then also if her desecration is by her son? Rebbi Ḥinena par Papa stated before Rebbi Zeïra following Rebbi Ismael: (Lev. 21:9) “She desecrates her father.” One whose desecration is caused by herself, not one whose desecration is because of her father. Rebbi Ḥanina said, I learn from the words of Rebbi Ismael, even if her desecration is by her son.

Did we not state: “Rebbi Eliezer holds him responsible for principal and fifth, but Rebbi Joshua frees.” They wanted to say, they disagree about the fifth, but for the principal even Rebbi Joshua agrees. They disagree for the past, but for the future even Rebbi Joshua agrees.

Did we not state: “Rebbi Eliezer holds him responsible for principal and fifth, but Rebbi Joshua frees.” They wanted to say, they disagree about the fifth, but for the principal even Rebbi Joshua agrees. They disagree for the past, but for the future even Rebbi Joshua agrees.

Did we not state: “Rebbi Eliezer holds him responsible for principal and fifth, but Rebbi Joshua frees.” They wanted to say, they disagree about the fifth, but for the principal even Rebbi Joshua agrees. They disagree for the past, but for the future even Rebbi Joshua agrees.

Did we not state: “Rebbi Eliezer holds him responsible for principal and fifth, but Rebbi Joshua frees.” They wanted to say, they disagree about the fifth, but for the principal even Rebbi Joshua agrees. They disagree for the past, but for the future even Rebbi Joshua agrees.

How is this? If Reuben robbed from Simeon and served it to Levi, is he quit for his robbery? This is the disagreement between the elder Rebbi Ḥiyya and Rebbi Yannai, since they disagreed: One robbed a hooded coat from one person and gave it to someone else. Rebbi Eleazar in the name of the elder Rebbi Ḥiyya, one can collect from the first but not from the second. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai, one can also collect from the second. But the elder Rebbi Ḥiyya also agrees that when Levi gave, he is quit for his robbery.

How is this? If Reuben robbed from Simeon and served it to Levi, is he quit for his robbery? This is the disagreement between the elder Rebbi Ḥiyya and Rebbi Yannai, since they disagreed: One robbed a hooded coat from one person and gave it to someone else. Rebbi Eleazar in the name of the elder Rebbi Ḥiyya, one can collect from the first but not from the second. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai, one can also collect from the second. But the elder Rebbi Ḥiyya also agrees that when Levi gave, he is quit for his robbery.

How is this? If Reuben robbed from Simeon and served it to Levi, is he quit for his robbery? This is the disagreement between the elder Rebbi Ḥiyya and Rebbi Yannai, since they disagreed: One robbed a hooded coat from one person and gave it to someone else. Rebbi Eleazar in the name of the elder Rebbi Ḥiyya, one can collect from the first but not from the second. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai, one can also collect from the second. But the elder Rebbi Ḥiyya also agrees that when Levi gave, he is quit for his robbery.

How is this? If Reuben robbed from Simeon and served it to Levi, is he quit for his robbery? This is the disagreement between the elder Rebbi Ḥiyya and Rebbi Yannai, since they disagreed: One robbed a hooded coat from one person and gave it to someone else. Rebbi Eleazar in the name of the elder Rebbi Ḥiyya, one can collect from the first but not from the second. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai, one can also collect from the second. But the elder Rebbi Ḥiyya also agrees that when Levi gave, he is quit for his robbery.

How is this? If Reuben robbed from Simeon and served it to Levi, is he quit for his robbery? This is the disagreement between the elder Rebbi Ḥiyya and Rebbi Yannai, since they disagreed: One robbed a hooded coat from one person and gave it to someone else. Rebbi Eleazar in the name of the elder Rebbi Ḥiyya, one can collect from the first but not from the second. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai, one can also collect from the second. But the elder Rebbi Ḥiyya also agrees that when Levi gave, he is quit for his robbery.

How is this? If Reuben robbed from Simeon and served it to Levi, is he quit for his robbery? This is the disagreement between the elder Rebbi Ḥiyya and Rebbi Yannai, since they disagreed: One robbed a hooded coat from one person and gave it to someone else. Rebbi Eleazar in the name of the elder Rebbi Ḥiyya, one can collect from the first but not from the second. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai, one can also collect from the second. But the elder Rebbi Ḥiyya also agrees that when Levi gave, he is quit for his robbery.

How is this? If Reuben robbed from Simeon and served it to Levi, is he quit for his robbery? This is the disagreement between the elder Rebbi Ḥiyya and Rebbi Yannai, since they disagreed: One robbed a hooded coat from one person and gave it to someone else. Rebbi Eleazar in the name of the elder Rebbi Ḥiyya, one can collect from the first but not from the second. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai, one can also collect from the second. But the elder Rebbi Ḥiyya also agrees that when Levi gave, he is quit for his robbery.

MISHNAH: Two boxes, one of heave and one profane. A seah of heave fell into one of them and it is not known into which one; I say it fell into heave. If it is not known which [box] is heave and which one is profane, if one ate [the contents of] one of them, he is free. The [contents of] the second he treats as heave but it is subject to ḥallah, the words of Rebbi Meïr; but Rebbi Yose declares it free. If another person ate from the second [box], he is free. If he ate from both of them, he pays according to the lesser of the two. If one of them fell into profane [produce] it would not make it dema‘. The [contents of] the second he treats as heave but it is subject to ḥallah, the words of Rebbi Meïr; but Rebbi Yose declares it free. If the [contents of the] second [box] fell into another place, they would not make it dema‘. If both together fell into one place they would create dema‘ relative to the smaller one. sup>118 If he sowed [the contents of] one of them, he is free. The [contents o f ] the second he treats as heave but it is subject to ḥallah, the words of Rebbi Meir; but Rebbi Yose declares it free. If another person sowed the second one, he is free. If one person sowed [the contents of] both of them, if it is a kind whose seeds disappear, all is permitted, if they do not disappear, it is forbidden.

MISHNAH: Two boxes, one of heave and one profane. A seah of heave fell into one of them and it is not known into which one; I say it fell into heave. If it is not known which [box] is heave and which one is profane, if one ate [the contents of] one of them, he is free. The [contents of] the second he treats as heave but it is subject to ḥallah, the words of Rebbi Meïr; but Rebbi Yose declares it free. If another person ate from the second [box], he is free. If he ate from both of them, he pays according to the lesser of the two. If one of them fell into profane [produce] it would not make it dema‘. The [contents of] the second he treats as heave but it is subject to ḥallah, the words of Rebbi Meïr; but Rebbi Yose declares it free. If the [contents of the] second [box] fell into another place, they would not make it dema‘. If both together fell into one place they would create dema‘ relative to the smaller one. sup>118 If he sowed [the contents of] one of them, he is free. The [contents o f ] the second he treats as heave but it is subject to ḥallah, the words of Rebbi Meir; but Rebbi Yose declares it free. If another person sowed the second one, he is free. If one person sowed [the contents of] both of them, if it is a kind whose seeds disappear, all is permitted, if they do not disappear, it is forbidden.

MISHNAH: Two boxes, one of heave and one profane. A seah of heave fell into one of them and it is not known into which one; I say it fell into heave. If it is not known which [box] is heave and which one is profane, if one ate [the contents of] one of them, he is free. The [contents of] the second he treats as heave but it is subject to ḥallah, the words of Rebbi Meïr; but Rebbi Yose declares it free. If another person ate from the second [box], he is free. If he ate from both of them, he pays according to the lesser of the two. If one of them fell into profane [produce] it would not make it dema‘. The [contents of] the second he treats as heave but it is subject to ḥallah, the words of Rebbi Meïr; but Rebbi Yose declares it free. If the [contents of the] second [box] fell into another place, they would not make it dema‘. If both together fell into one place they would create dema‘ relative to the smaller one. sup>118 If he sowed [the contents of] one of them, he is free. The [contents o f ] the second he treats as heave but it is subject to ḥallah, the words of Rebbi Meir; but Rebbi Yose declares it free. If another person sowed the second one, he is free. If one person sowed [the contents of] both of them, if it is a kind whose seeds disappear, all is permitted, if they do not disappear, it is forbidden.

MISHNAH: Two boxes, one of heave and one profane. A seah of heave fell into one of them and it is not known into which one; I say it fell into heave. If it is not known which [box] is heave and which one is profane, if one ate [the contents of] one of them, he is free. The [contents of] the second he treats as heave but it is subject to ḥallah, the words of Rebbi Meïr; but Rebbi Yose declares it free. If another person ate from the second [box], he is free. If he ate from both of them, he pays according to the lesser of the two. If one of them fell into profane [produce] it would not make it dema‘. The [contents of] the second he treats as heave but it is subject to ḥallah, the words of Rebbi Meïr; but Rebbi Yose declares it free. If the [contents of the] second [box] fell into another place, they would not make it dema‘. If both together fell into one place they would create dema‘ relative to the smaller one. sup>118 If he sowed [the contents of] one of them, he is free. The [contents o f ] the second he treats as heave but it is subject to ḥallah, the words of Rebbi Meir; but Rebbi Yose declares it free. If another person sowed the second one, he is free. If one person sowed [the contents of] both of them, if it is a kind whose seeds disappear, all is permitted, if they do not disappear, it is forbidden.

MISHNAH: Two boxes, one of heave and one profane. A seah of heave fell into one of them and it is not known into which one; I say it fell into heave. If it is not known which [box] is heave and which one is profane, if one ate [the contents of] one of them, he is free. The [contents of] the second he treats as heave but it is subject to ḥallah, the words of Rebbi Meïr; but Rebbi Yose declares it free. If another person ate from the second [box], he is free. If he ate from both of them, he pays according to the lesser of the two. If one of them fell into profane [produce] it would not make it dema‘. The [contents of] the second he treats as heave but it is subject to ḥallah, the words of Rebbi Meïr; but Rebbi Yose declares it free. If the [contents of the] second [box] fell into another place, they would not make it dema‘. If both together fell into one place they would create dema‘ relative to the smaller one. sup>118 If he sowed [the contents of] one of them, he is free. The [contents o f ] the second he treats as heave but it is subject to ḥallah, the words of Rebbi Meir; but Rebbi Yose declares it free. If another person sowed the second one, he is free. If one person sowed [the contents of] both of them, if it is a kind whose seeds disappear, all is permitted, if they do not disappear, it is forbidden.

MISHNAH: Two boxes, one of heave and one profane. A seah of heave fell into one of them and it is not known into which one; I say it fell into heave. If it is not known which [box] is heave and which one is profane, if one ate [the contents of] one of them, he is free. The [contents of] the second he treats as heave but it is subject to ḥallah, the words of Rebbi Meïr; but Rebbi Yose declares it free. If another person ate from the second [box], he is free. If he ate from both of them, he pays according to the lesser of the two. If one of them fell into profane [produce] it would not make it dema‘. The [contents of] the second he treats as heave but it is subject to ḥallah, the words of Rebbi Meïr; but Rebbi Yose declares it free. If the [contents of the] second [box] fell into another place, they would not make it dema‘. If both together fell into one place they would create dema‘ relative to the smaller one. sup>118 If he sowed [the contents of] one of them, he is free. The [contents o f ] the second he treats as heave but it is subject to ḥallah, the words of Rebbi Meir; but Rebbi Yose declares it free. If another person sowed the second one, he is free. If one person sowed [the contents of] both of them, if it is a kind whose seeds disappear, all is permitted, if they do not disappear, it is forbidden.

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Bar Qappara: Only if the second [box] was larger. Rebbi Joḥanan said, even if the second was not larger. The opinion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish seems inverted. There, he says this doubt disappears in the plurality but here, he says so? There, he said it as his own [opinion], here in the name of Bar Qappara. The opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan seems inverted. There, he says all become subject to proof but here, he says so? There is a difference because here there is a peg to hang on.

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Bar Qappara: Only if the second [box] was larger. Rebbi Joḥanan said, even if the second was not larger. The opinion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish seems inverted. There, he says this doubt disappears in the plurality but here, he says so? There, he said it as his own [opinion], here in the name of Bar Qappara. The opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan seems inverted. There, he says all become subject to proof but here, he says so? There is a difference because here there is a peg to hang on.

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Bar Qappara: Only if the second [box] was larger. Rebbi Joḥanan said, even if the second was not larger. The opinion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish seems inverted. There, he says this doubt disappears in the plurality but here, he says so? There, he said it as his own [opinion], here in the name of Bar Qappara. The opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan seems inverted. There, he says all become subject to proof but here, he says so? There is a difference because here there is a peg to hang on.

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Bar Qappara: Only if the second [box] was larger. Rebbi Joḥanan said, even if the second was not larger. The opinion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish seems inverted. There, he says this doubt disappears in the plurality but here, he says so? There, he said it as his own [opinion], here in the name of Bar Qappara. The opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan seems inverted. There, he says all become subject to proof but here, he says so? There is a difference because here there is a peg to hang on.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, a doubt of dema‘ is free from ḥallah but a doubt of dema‘ which is eaten as dema‘ is subject to ḥallah. Rebbi Joḥanan said, this follows Rebbi Jehudah, as we have stated there: “If they ask together, they are impure. One after the other they are pure. Rebbi Yose says, in both cases they are impure.” Where do we hold? If somebody comes to ask about himself and his friend. Rebbi Jehudah says, he says: ask about yourself and go away. But Rebbi Yose said, it is as if both of them asked together. And here it is as if both of them asked together.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, a doubt of dema‘ is free from ḥallah but a doubt of dema‘ which is eaten as dema‘ is subject to ḥallah. Rebbi Joḥanan said, this follows Rebbi Jehudah, as we have stated there: “If they ask together, they are impure. One after the other they are pure. Rebbi Yose says, in both cases they are impure.” Where do we hold? If somebody comes to ask about himself and his friend. Rebbi Jehudah says, he says: ask about yourself and go away. But Rebbi Yose said, it is as if both of them asked together. And here it is as if both of them asked together.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, a doubt of dema‘ is free from ḥallah but a doubt of dema‘ which is eaten as dema‘ is subject to ḥallah. Rebbi Joḥanan said, this follows Rebbi Jehudah, as we have stated there: “If they ask together, they are impure. One after the other they are pure. Rebbi Yose says, in both cases they are impure.” Where do we hold? If somebody comes to ask about himself and his friend. Rebbi Jehudah says, he says: ask about yourself and go away. But Rebbi Yose said, it is as if both of them asked together. And here it is as if both of them asked together.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, a doubt of dema‘ is free from ḥallah but a doubt of dema‘ which is eaten as dema‘ is subject to ḥallah. Rebbi Joḥanan said, this follows Rebbi Jehudah, as we have stated there: “If they ask together, they are impure. One after the other they are pure. Rebbi Yose says, in both cases they are impure.” Where do we hold? If somebody comes to ask about himself and his friend. Rebbi Jehudah says, he says: ask about yourself and go away. But Rebbi Yose said, it is as if both of them asked together. And here it is as if both of them asked together.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, a doubt of dema‘ is free from ḥallah but a doubt of dema‘ which is eaten as dema‘ is subject to ḥallah. Rebbi Joḥanan said, this follows Rebbi Jehudah, as we have stated there: “If they ask together, they are impure. One after the other they are pure. Rebbi Yose says, in both cases they are impure.” Where do we hold? If somebody comes to ask about himself and his friend. Rebbi Jehudah says, he says: ask about yourself and go away. But Rebbi Yose said, it is as if both of them asked together. And here it is as if both of them asked together.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, a doubt of dema‘ is free from ḥallah but a doubt of dema‘ which is eaten as dema‘ is subject to ḥallah. Rebbi Joḥanan said, this follows Rebbi Jehudah, as we have stated there: “If they ask together, they are impure. One after the other they are pure. Rebbi Yose says, in both cases they are impure.” Where do we hold? If somebody comes to ask about himself and his friend. Rebbi Jehudah says, he says: ask about yourself and go away. But Rebbi Yose said, it is as if both of them asked together. And here it is as if both of them asked together.

Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: Only if he sowed the [contents of the] second [box] before he harvested from the first. If he sowed the [contents of the] second [box] before he harvested from the first then what is cut and what is standing does not all become subject to proof. Rebbi Ḥanina Eyntanaya in the name of Rebbi Yannai: An onion of heave that was uprooted and replanted becomes permitted as soon as the new growth is more [than what was planted]. Rebbi Zeïra objected: Did we not state: “If it is a kind whose seeds disappear, all is permitted, if they do not disappear, it is forbidden.” If it is a kind whose seeds disappear, [it is permitted] the moment the new growth is more [than the original amount]. Similarly, if they do not disappear, [it is forbidden] even if the new growth is more! Rebbi Zeïra follows his own opinion, as Rebbi Zeira said in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: An onion from kilaim in a vineyard that he removed from the soil and planted anew is forbidden even if it increases manifold, since growth of what is forbidden can never justify forbidden produce.

Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: Only if he sowed the [contents of the] second [box] before he harvested from the first. If he sowed the [contents of the] second [box] before he harvested from the first then what is cut and what is standing does not all become subject to proof. Rebbi Ḥanina Eyntanaya in the name of Rebbi Yannai: An onion of heave that was uprooted and replanted becomes permitted as soon as the new growth is more [than what was planted]. Rebbi Zeïra objected: Did we not state: “If it is a kind whose seeds disappear, all is permitted, if they do not disappear, it is forbidden.” If it is a kind whose seeds disappear, [it is permitted] the moment the new growth is more [than the original amount]. Similarly, if they do not disappear, [it is forbidden] even if the new growth is more! Rebbi Zeïra follows his own opinion, as Rebbi Zeira said in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: An onion from kilaim in a vineyard that he removed from the soil and planted anew is forbidden even if it increases manifold, since growth of what is forbidden can never justify forbidden produce.

Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: Only if he sowed the [contents of the] second [box] before he harvested from the first. If he sowed the [contents of the] second [box] before he harvested from the first then what is cut and what is standing does not all become subject to proof. Rebbi Ḥanina Eyntanaya in the name of Rebbi Yannai: An onion of heave that was uprooted and replanted becomes permitted as soon as the new growth is more [than what was planted]. Rebbi Zeïra objected: Did we not state: “If it is a kind whose seeds disappear, all is permitted, if they do not disappear, it is forbidden.” If it is a kind whose seeds disappear, [it is permitted] the moment the new growth is more [than the original amount]. Similarly, if they do not disappear, [it is forbidden] even if the new growth is more! Rebbi Zeïra follows his own opinion, as Rebbi Zeira said in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: An onion from kilaim in a vineyard that he removed from the soil and planted anew is forbidden even if it increases manifold, since growth of what is forbidden can never justify forbidden produce.

Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: Only if he sowed the [contents of the] second [box] before he harvested from the first. If he sowed the [contents of the] second [box] before he harvested from the first then what is cut and what is standing does not all become subject to proof. Rebbi Ḥanina Eyntanaya in the name of Rebbi Yannai: An onion of heave that was uprooted and replanted becomes permitted as soon as the new growth is more [than what was planted]. Rebbi Zeïra objected: Did we not state: “If it is a kind whose seeds disappear, all is permitted, if they do not disappear, it is forbidden.” If it is a kind whose seeds disappear, [it is permitted] the moment the new growth is more [than the original amount]. Similarly, if they do not disappear, [it is forbidden] even if the new growth is more! Rebbi Zeïra follows his own opinion, as Rebbi Zeira said in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: An onion from kilaim in a vineyard that he removed from the soil and planted anew is forbidden even if it increases manifold, since growth of what is forbidden can never justify forbidden produce.

Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: Only if he sowed the [contents of the] second [box] before he harvested from the first. If he sowed the [contents of the] second [box] before he harvested from the first then what is cut and what is standing does not all become subject to proof. Rebbi Ḥanina Eyntanaya in the name of Rebbi Yannai: An onion of heave that was uprooted and replanted becomes permitted as soon as the new growth is more [than what was planted]. Rebbi Zeïra objected: Did we not state: “If it is a kind whose seeds disappear, all is permitted, if they do not disappear, it is forbidden.” If it is a kind whose seeds disappear, [it is permitted] the moment the new growth is more [than the original amount]. Similarly, if they do not disappear, [it is forbidden] even if the new growth is more! Rebbi Zeïra follows his own opinion, as Rebbi Zeira said in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: An onion from kilaim in a vineyard that he removed from the soil and planted anew is forbidden even if it increases manifold, since growth of what is forbidden can never justify forbidden produce.

Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: Only if he sowed the [contents of the] second [box] before he harvested from the first. If he sowed the [contents of the] second [box] before he harvested from the first then what is cut and what is standing does not all become subject to proof. Rebbi Ḥanina Eyntanaya in the name of Rebbi Yannai: An onion of heave that was uprooted and replanted becomes permitted as soon as the new growth is more [than what was planted]. Rebbi Zeïra objected: Did we not state: “If it is a kind whose seeds disappear, all is permitted, if they do not disappear, it is forbidden.” If it is a kind whose seeds disappear, [it is permitted] the moment the new growth is more [than the original amount]. Similarly, if they do not disappear, [it is forbidden] even if the new growth is more! Rebbi Zeïra follows his own opinion, as Rebbi Zeira said in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: An onion from kilaim in a vineyard that he removed from the soil and planted anew is forbidden even if it increases manifold, since growth of what is forbidden can never justify forbidden produce.

Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: Only if he sowed the [contents of the] second [box] before he harvested from the first. If he sowed the [contents of the] second [box] before he harvested from the first then what is cut and what is standing does not all become subject to proof. Rebbi Ḥanina Eyntanaya in the name of Rebbi Yannai: An onion of heave that was uprooted and replanted becomes permitted as soon as the new growth is more [than what was planted]. Rebbi Zeïra objected: Did we not state: “If it is a kind whose seeds disappear, all is permitted, if they do not disappear, it is forbidden.” If it is a kind whose seeds disappear, [it is permitted] the moment the new growth is more [than the original amount]. Similarly, if they do not disappear, [it is forbidden] even if the new growth is more! Rebbi Zeïra follows his own opinion, as Rebbi Zeira said in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: An onion from kilaim in a vineyard that he removed from the soil and planted anew is forbidden even if it increases manifold, since growth of what is forbidden can never justify forbidden produce.

Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: Only if he sowed the [contents of the] second [box] before he harvested from the first. If he sowed the [contents of the] second [box] before he harvested from the first then what is cut and what is standing does not all become subject to proof. Rebbi Ḥanina Eyntanaya in the name of Rebbi Yannai: An onion of heave that was uprooted and replanted becomes permitted as soon as the new growth is more [than what was planted]. Rebbi Zeïra objected: Did we not state: “If it is a kind whose seeds disappear, all is permitted, if they do not disappear, it is forbidden.” If it is a kind whose seeds disappear, [it is permitted] the moment the new growth is more [than the original amount]. Similarly, if they do not disappear, [it is forbidden] even if the new growth is more! Rebbi Zeïra follows his own opinion, as Rebbi Zeira said in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: An onion from kilaim in a vineyard that he removed from the soil and planted anew is forbidden even if it increases manifold, since growth of what is forbidden can never justify forbidden produce.

MISHNAH: When they came to a woman who was eating heave and told her your husband died, or he divorced you; similarly a slave who was eating heave when they came and told him your master died, or he sold you to an Israel or gave you as a gift, or made you a free person; similarly a Cohen who was eating heave when it became known that he was the son of a divorcee or the son of a woman who had performed ḥaliẓah, Rebbi Eliezer obliges them to pay principal and fifth, but Rebbi Joshua frees them. If he was standing on top of the altar and sacrificing when it became known that he was the son of a divorcee or the son of a woman who had performed ḥaliẓah, Rebbi Eliezer says that all sacrifices he performed on the altar are invalid but Rebbi Joshua declares them valid. If it became known that he has a bodily defect, his work is invalid. All of these, if heave was in their mouths, Rebbi Eliezer says, they should swallow it, Rebbi Joshua says, they should spit it out. If they said to him, you and the heave have become impure, Rebbi Eliezer says, he should swallow it, Rebbi Joshua says, he should spit it out. You or the heave were impure, or if it became known that it was ṭevel, or First Tithe of which its heave had not been taken, or Second Tithe or dedicated [food] that had not been redeemed, or that he tasted the taste of a bed bug in his mouth, he has to spit it out.

MISHNAH: When they came to a woman who was eating heave and told her your husband died, or he divorced you; similarly a slave who was eating heave when they came and told him your master died, or he sold you to an Israel or gave you as a gift, or made you a free person; similarly a Cohen who was eating heave when it became known that he was the son of a divorcee or the son of a woman who had performed ḥaliẓah, Rebbi Eliezer obliges them to pay principal and fifth, but Rebbi Joshua frees them. If he was standing on top of the altar and sacrificing when it became known that he was the son of a divorcee or the son of a woman who had performed ḥaliẓah, Rebbi Eliezer says that all sacrifices he performed on the altar are invalid but Rebbi Joshua declares them valid. If it became known that he has a bodily defect, his work is invalid. All of these, if heave was in their mouths, Rebbi Eliezer says, they should swallow it, Rebbi Joshua says, they should spit it out. If they said to him, you and the heave have become impure, Rebbi Eliezer says, he should swallow it, Rebbi Joshua says, he should spit it out. You or the heave were impure, or if it became known that it was ṭevel, or First Tithe of which its heave had not been taken, or Second Tithe or dedicated [food] that had not been redeemed, or that he tasted the taste of a bed bug in his mouth, he has to spit it out.

MISHNAH: When they came to a woman who was eating heave and told her your husband died, or he divorced you; similarly a slave who was eating heave when they came and told him your master died, or he sold you to an Israel or gave you as a gift, or made you a free person; similarly a Cohen who was eating heave when it became known that he was the son of a divorcee or the son of a woman who had performed ḥaliẓah, Rebbi Eliezer obliges them to pay principal and fifth, but Rebbi Joshua frees them. If he was standing on top of the altar and sacrificing when it became known that he was the son of a divorcee or the son of a woman who had performed ḥaliẓah, Rebbi Eliezer says that all sacrifices he performed on the altar are invalid but Rebbi Joshua declares them valid. If it became known that he has a bodily defect, his work is invalid. All of these, if heave was in their mouths, Rebbi Eliezer says, they should swallow it, Rebbi Joshua says, they should spit it out. If they said to him, you and the heave have become impure, Rebbi Eliezer says, he should swallow it, Rebbi Joshua says, he should spit it out. You or the heave were impure, or if it became known that it was ṭevel, or First Tithe of which its heave had not been taken, or Second Tithe or dedicated [food] that had not been redeemed, or that he tasted the taste of a bed bug in his mouth, he has to spit it out.

MISHNAH: When they came to a woman who was eating heave and told her your husband died, or he divorced you; similarly a slave who was eating heave when they came and told him your master died, or he sold you to an Israel or gave you as a gift, or made you a free person; similarly a Cohen who was eating heave when it became known that he was the son of a divorcee or the son of a woman who had performed ḥaliẓah, Rebbi Eliezer obliges them to pay principal and fifth, but Rebbi Joshua frees them. If he was standing on top of the altar and sacrificing when it became known that he was the son of a divorcee or the son of a woman who had performed ḥaliẓah, Rebbi Eliezer says that all sacrifices he performed on the altar are invalid but Rebbi Joshua declares them valid. If it became known that he has a bodily defect, his work is invalid. All of these, if heave was in their mouths, Rebbi Eliezer says, they should swallow it, Rebbi Joshua says, they should spit it out. If they said to him, you and the heave have become impure, Rebbi Eliezer says, he should swallow it, Rebbi Joshua says, he should spit it out. You or the heave were impure, or if it became known that it was ṭevel, or First Tithe of which its heave had not been taken, or Second Tithe or dedicated [food] that had not been redeemed, or that he tasted the taste of a bed bug in his mouth, he has to spit it out.

MISHNAH: When they came to a woman who was eating heave and told her your husband died, or he divorced you; similarly a slave who was eating heave when they came and told him your master died, or he sold you to an Israel or gave you as a gift, or made you a free person; similarly a Cohen who was eating heave when it became known that he was the son of a divorcee or the son of a woman who had performed ḥaliẓah, Rebbi Eliezer obliges them to pay principal and fifth, but Rebbi Joshua frees them. If he was standing on top of the altar and sacrificing when it became known that he was the son of a divorcee or the son of a woman who had performed ḥaliẓah, Rebbi Eliezer says that all sacrifices he performed on the altar are invalid but Rebbi Joshua declares them valid. If it became known that he has a bodily defect, his work is invalid. All of these, if heave was in their mouths, Rebbi Eliezer says, they should swallow it, Rebbi Joshua says, they should spit it out. If they said to him, you and the heave have become impure, Rebbi Eliezer says, he should swallow it, Rebbi Joshua says, he should spit it out. You or the heave were impure, or if it became known that it was ṭevel, or First Tithe of which its heave had not been taken, or Second Tithe or dedicated [food] that had not been redeemed, or that he tasted the taste of a bed bug in his mouth, he has to spit it out.

MISHNAH: When they came to a woman who was eating heave and told her your husband died, or he divorced you; similarly a slave who was eating heave when they came and told him your master died, or he sold you to an Israel or gave you as a gift, or made you a free person; similarly a Cohen who was eating heave when it became known that he was the son of a divorcee or the son of a woman who had performed ḥaliẓah, Rebbi Eliezer obliges them to pay principal and fifth, but Rebbi Joshua frees them. If he was standing on top of the altar and sacrificing when it became known that he was the son of a divorcee or the son of a woman who had performed ḥaliẓah, Rebbi Eliezer says that all sacrifices he performed on the altar are invalid but Rebbi Joshua declares them valid. If it became known that he has a bodily defect, his work is invalid. All of these, if heave was in their mouths, Rebbi Eliezer says, they should swallow it, Rebbi Joshua says, they should spit it out. If they said to him, you and the heave have become impure, Rebbi Eliezer says, he should swallow it, Rebbi Joshua says, he should spit it out. You or the heave were impure, or if it became known that it was ṭevel, or First Tithe of which its heave had not been taken, or Second Tithe or dedicated [food] that had not been redeemed, or that he tasted the taste of a bed bug in his mouth, he has to spit it out.

MISHNAH: When they came to a woman who was eating heave and told her your husband died, or he divorced you; similarly a slave who was eating heave when they came and told him your master died, or he sold you to an Israel or gave you as a gift, or made you a free person; similarly a Cohen who was eating heave when it became known that he was the son of a divorcee or the son of a woman who had performed ḥaliẓah, Rebbi Eliezer obliges them to pay principal and fifth, but Rebbi Joshua frees them. If he was standing on top of the altar and sacrificing when it became known that he was the son of a divorcee or the son of a woman who had performed ḥaliẓah, Rebbi Eliezer says that all sacrifices he performed on the altar are invalid but Rebbi Joshua declares them valid. If it became known that he has a bodily defect, his work is invalid. All of these, if heave was in their mouths, Rebbi Eliezer says, they should swallow it, Rebbi Joshua says, they should spit it out. If they said to him, you and the heave have become impure, Rebbi Eliezer says, he should swallow it, Rebbi Joshua says, he should spit it out. You or the heave were impure, or if it became known that it was ṭevel, or First Tithe of which its heave had not been taken, or Second Tithe or dedicated [food] that had not been redeemed, or that he tasted the taste of a bed bug in his mouth, he has to spit it out.

MISHNAH: When they came to a woman who was eating heave and told her your husband died, or he divorced you; similarly a slave who was eating heave when they came and told him your master died, or he sold you to an Israel or gave you as a gift, or made you a free person; similarly a Cohen who was eating heave when it became known that he was the son of a divorcee or the son of a woman who had performed ḥaliẓah, Rebbi Eliezer obliges them to pay principal and fifth, but Rebbi Joshua frees them. If he was standing on top of the altar and sacrificing when it became known that he was the son of a divorcee or the son of a woman who had performed ḥaliẓah, Rebbi Eliezer says that all sacrifices he performed on the altar are invalid but Rebbi Joshua declares them valid. If it became known that he has a bodily defect, his work is invalid. All of these, if heave was in their mouths, Rebbi Eliezer says, they should swallow it, Rebbi Joshua says, they should spit it out. If they said to him, you and the heave have become impure, Rebbi Eliezer says, he should swallow it, Rebbi Joshua says, he should spit it out. You or the heave were impure, or if it became known that it was ṭevel, or First Tithe of which its heave had not been taken, or Second Tithe or dedicated [food] that had not been redeemed, or that he tasted the taste of a bed bug in his mouth, he has to spit it out.

HALAKHAH: “A woman who was eating heave,” etc. It is acceptable, “your husband died.” “He divorced you?” The rabbis say, this follows the old Mishnah, according to which the betrothed daughter of an Israel eats heave and her father accepts her divorce document. Rebbi Eliezer says, you may even say following the later Mishnah; explain it that she said to him, bring my divorce document from place X and usually that should have taken him ten days to deliver to her but he found a galloping horse and brought it to her in five days. Rebbi Eliezer cannot follow Rebbi Eleazar, as we have stated: “Rebbi Eleazar forbids her immediately.” Does Rebbi Eleazar not agree that if she said, bring my divorce document from place X, that she may eat heave until the document arrives at that place? Rebbi Ḥaninah said, when she said to him, bring my divorce document from place X, it is as if she had said to him, it shall become a divorce document only after ten days. What she ate, she ate with permission.

HALAKHAH: “A woman who was eating heave,” etc. It is acceptable, “your husband died.” “He divorced you?” The rabbis say, this follows the old Mishnah, according to which the betrothed daughter of an Israel eats heave and her father accepts her divorce document. Rebbi Eliezer says, you may even say following the later Mishnah; explain it that she said to him, bring my divorce document from place X and usually that should have taken him ten days to deliver to her but he found a galloping horse and brought it to her in five days. Rebbi Eliezer cannot follow Rebbi Eleazar, as we have stated: “Rebbi Eleazar forbids her immediately.” Does Rebbi Eleazar not agree that if she said, bring my divorce document from place X, that she may eat heave until the document arrives at that place? Rebbi Ḥaninah said, when she said to him, bring my divorce document from place X, it is as if she had said to him, it shall become a divorce document only after ten days. What she ate, she ate with permission.

HALAKHAH: “A woman who was eating heave,” etc. It is acceptable, “your husband died.” “He divorced you?” The rabbis say, this follows the old Mishnah, according to which the betrothed daughter of an Israel eats heave and her father accepts her divorce document. Rebbi Eliezer says, you may even say following the later Mishnah; explain it that she said to him, bring my divorce document from place X and usually that should have taken him ten days to deliver to her but he found a galloping horse and brought it to her in five days. Rebbi Eliezer cannot follow Rebbi Eleazar, as we have stated: “Rebbi Eleazar forbids her immediately.” Does Rebbi Eleazar not agree that if she said, bring my divorce document from place X, that she may eat heave until the document arrives at that place? Rebbi Ḥaninah said, when she said to him, bring my divorce document from place X, it is as if she had said to him, it shall become a divorce document only after ten days. What she ate, she ate with permission.

HALAKHAH: “A woman who was eating heave,” etc. It is acceptable, “your husband died.” “He divorced you?” The rabbis say, this follows the old Mishnah, according to which the betrothed daughter of an Israel eats heave and her father accepts her divorce document. Rebbi Eliezer says, you may even say following the later Mishnah; explain it that she said to him, bring my divorce document from place X and usually that should have taken him ten days to deliver to her but he found a galloping horse and brought it to her in five days. Rebbi Eliezer cannot follow Rebbi Eleazar, as we have stated: “Rebbi Eleazar forbids her immediately.” Does Rebbi Eleazar not agree that if she said, bring my divorce document from place X, that she may eat heave until the document arrives at that place? Rebbi Ḥaninah said, when she said to him, bring my divorce document from place X, it is as if she had said to him, it shall become a divorce document only after ten days. What she ate, she ate with permission.

HALAKHAH: “A woman who was eating heave,” etc. It is acceptable, “your husband died.” “He divorced you?” The rabbis say, this follows the old Mishnah, according to which the betrothed daughter of an Israel eats heave and her father accepts her divorce document. Rebbi Eliezer says, you may even say following the later Mishnah; explain it that she said to him, bring my divorce document from place X and usually that should have taken him ten days to deliver to her but he found a galloping horse and brought it to her in five days. Rebbi Eliezer cannot follow Rebbi Eleazar, as we have stated: “Rebbi Eleazar forbids her immediately.” Does Rebbi Eleazar not agree that if she said, bring my divorce document from place X, that she may eat heave until the document arrives at that place? Rebbi Ḥaninah said, when she said to him, bring my divorce document from place X, it is as if she had said to him, it shall become a divorce document only after ten days. What she ate, she ate with permission.

HALAKHAH: “A woman who was eating heave,” etc. It is acceptable, “your husband died.” “He divorced you?” The rabbis say, this follows the old Mishnah, according to which the betrothed daughter of an Israel eats heave and her father accepts her divorce document. Rebbi Eliezer says, you may even say following the later Mishnah; explain it that she said to him, bring my divorce document from place X and usually that should have taken him ten days to deliver to her but he found a galloping horse and brought it to her in five days. Rebbi Eliezer cannot follow Rebbi Eleazar, as we have stated: “Rebbi Eleazar forbids her immediately.” Does Rebbi Eleazar not agree that if she said, bring my divorce document from place X, that she may eat heave until the document arrives at that place? Rebbi Ḥaninah said, when she said to him, bring my divorce document from place X, it is as if she had said to him, it shall become a divorce document only after ten days. What she ate, she ate with permission.