sages

MISHNAH: He who sets fire to a stack of sheaves which contains implements, Rebbi Jehudah says, he has to pay everything contained in it but the Sages say, he pays only for a stack of wheat sheaves or a stack of barley sheaves. If a goat was tied to it, and a slave was nearby, and they were burned, he is liable. If a slave was tied to it, and a goat was nearby, and they were burned, he is not liable. But the Sages agree with Rebbi Jehudah that one who sets fire to a building has to pay everything contained in it since people regularly store things in houses.

MISHNAH: He who sets fire to a stack of sheaves which contains implements, Rebbi Jehudah says, he has to pay everything contained in it but the Sages say, he pays only for a stack of wheat sheaves or a stack of barley sheaves. If a goat was tied to it, and a slave was nearby, and they were burned, he is liable. If a slave was tied to it, and a goat was nearby, and they were burned, he is not liable. But the Sages agree with Rebbi Jehudah that one who sets fire to a building has to pay everything contained in it since people regularly store things in houses.

HALAKHAH: “He who sets fire to a stack of sheaves,” etc. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The Sages agree with Rebbi Jehudah about threshing tools which usually are hidden there. The argument of Rebbi Jehudah seems inverted. There he says except what is hidden, but here he says including what is hidden? But does not Rebbi Jehudah simply explain “stack”? Why was “stack” written? That he has to pay for all that is in it. The argument of the rabbis seems inverted. There they say, including what is hidden; but here they say, except what is hidden? But did not Rebbi Abbahu say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The Sages agree with Rebbi Joḥanan about threshing tools which usually are hidden there? Rebbi Hoshaia said, if there are no witnesses. But if there are witnesses, everybody agrees with Rebbi (Yose) as it was stated: “If it was a stack of wheat sheaves covered with barley or a stack of barley sheaves covered with wheat, he pays for a stack of barley.” As the following: A person deposited a tied sack with another person, when something happened. This one said, it was full of dross, but the other said, it was full of raw silk. [ ] He swears and collects.

HALAKHAH: “He who sets fire to a stack of sheaves,” etc. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The Sages agree with Rebbi Jehudah about threshing tools which usually are hidden there. The argument of Rebbi Jehudah seems inverted. There he says except what is hidden, but here he says including what is hidden? But does not Rebbi Jehudah simply explain “stack”? Why was “stack” written? That he has to pay for all that is in it. The argument of the rabbis seems inverted. There they say, including what is hidden; but here they say, except what is hidden? But did not Rebbi Abbahu say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The Sages agree with Rebbi Joḥanan about threshing tools which usually are hidden there? Rebbi Hoshaia said, if there are no witnesses. But if there are witnesses, everybody agrees with Rebbi (Yose) as it was stated: “If it was a stack of wheat sheaves covered with barley or a stack of barley sheaves covered with wheat, he pays for a stack of barley.” As the following: A person deposited a tied sack with another person, when something happened. This one said, it was full of dross, but the other said, it was full of raw silk. [ ] He swears and collects.

HALAKHAH: “If a spark is coming from under a hammer,” etc. “Rebbi Jehudah stated: In case of a Ḥanukkah light he is not liable because he acted with permission. But the Sages say, in any case he is liable, as, e. g., those who build huts in front of their stores on Tabernacles because it is permitted; but if somebody else is hurt by them, he is liable.”

MISHNAH: One who found documents of indebtedness containing an alienation clause should not return them since the court will foreclose on their basis. If they do not contain an alienation clause, he should return them since the court will not foreclose on their basis, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, in no case should he return them since the court will foreclose on their basis.

Rebbi Eleazar said, for I am saying that he wanted to take a loan but did not. Rebbi Eleazar said, if the debtor agreed, he should return it. Rebbi Eleazar said, if the document was generally known to be in the creditor’s hand, he should return it. But all three are broken, “the Sages say, in no case should he return them.” Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Because of conspiracy. Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If its date was that very day, he should return it.

“if you hit upon.” I could think, really if you hit upon him; the verse says, “if you see.” Concerning “if you see,” I could think even at a distance of a hundred mil? The verse says, “if you hit upon.” How is this? The Sages estimated one in 7 1/2 of a mil, i. e., a stadion. Putting in order you shall put in order,” this is unloading. “Uplifting you shall uplift,” this is loading. Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai says, just as his unloading is [an obligation] from the Torah, so his loading is from the Torah. If the donkey was a Jew’s but the load a Gentile’s, everybody says that he unloads and loads. If the donkey was a Gentile’s but the load a Jew’s, according to the Sages one neither unloads nor loads. According to Rebbi Simeon one unloads but does not load.

“if you hit upon.” I could think, really if you hit upon him; the verse says, “if you see.” Concerning “if you see,” I could think even at a distance of a hundred mil? The verse says, “if you hit upon.” How is this? The Sages estimated one in 7 1/2 of a mil, i. e., a stadion. Putting in order you shall put in order,” this is unloading. “Uplifting you shall uplift,” this is loading. Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai says, just as his unloading is [an obligation] from the Torah, so his loading is from the Torah. If the donkey was a Jew’s but the load a Gentile’s, everybody says that he unloads and loads. If the donkey was a Gentile’s but the load a Jew’s, according to the Sages one neither unloads nor loads. According to Rebbi Simeon one unloads but does not load.

MISHNAH: Cheating is four obols per tetradrachma of 24 obols, one sixth of the sale price. Until when may one return [the merchandise]? Until one can show it to a trader or a relative. Rebbi Tarphon instructed in Lydda that cheating is eight obols per tetradrachma, a third of the sale price, and the traders of Lydda were rejoicing. He told them, one may return [the merchandise] the entire day; they said, let Rebbi Tarphon keep our place quiet; they returned to the words of the Sages. Just as a private person can be cheated, so a trader can be cheated. Rebbi Jehudah says, a trader has no claim of being cheated. The person overcharged has the advantage; if he so desires, he says, give me my money back, or give me back by what you overcharged me.

MISHNAH: Just as there is cheating in trade so there is cheating by words. One should not say to another: how much for this object, if he is not interested in buying. If somebody was a repentant sinner, one should not say to him: remember your earlier deeds. If somebody was the son of a proselyte, one may not say to him: remember the deeds of your forefathers, for it is written: “A sojourner you may neither cheat nor oppress, for you were sojourners in the Land of Egypt.” One does not mix produce, not even new with new; no need to say new with old. In truth they permitted to mix strong wine with weak since it improves it. One does not mix wine lees with wine but one delivers the lees with the wine. If water became mixed with somebody’s wine, he should not sell it in the store unless he declares it, and not to a trader for that one would only use it to trick people; at a place where they usually put water into the wine they may do so. The trader may buy from five threshing floors and put into one chest, wine from five wine presses and put into one barrel, on condition that he not intend to mix. Rebbi Jehudah says, a store owner should not distribute roasted kernels and nuts to children because he induces them to come to him, but the Sages permit. He should not reduce the price, but the Sages say, may he be remembered as a benefactor. He should not clean the groats following Abba Shaul, but the Sages permit it. However, they agree that he may not clean the upper layer of the chest since that gives a dishonest impression. One may not put makeup on humans, animals, or vessels.

MISHNAH: Just as there is cheating in trade so there is cheating by words. One should not say to another: how much for this object, if he is not interested in buying. If somebody was a repentant sinner, one should not say to him: remember your earlier deeds. If somebody was the son of a proselyte, one may not say to him: remember the deeds of your forefathers, for it is written: “A sojourner you may neither cheat nor oppress, for you were sojourners in the Land of Egypt.” One does not mix produce, not even new with new; no need to say new with old. In truth they permitted to mix strong wine with weak since it improves it. One does not mix wine lees with wine but one delivers the lees with the wine. If water became mixed with somebody’s wine, he should not sell it in the store unless he declares it, and not to a trader for that one would only use it to trick people; at a place where they usually put water into the wine they may do so. The trader may buy from five threshing floors and put into one chest, wine from five wine presses and put into one barrel, on condition that he not intend to mix. Rebbi Jehudah says, a store owner should not distribute roasted kernels and nuts to children because he induces them to come to him, but the Sages permit. He should not reduce the price, but the Sages say, may he be remembered as a benefactor. He should not clean the groats following Abba Shaul, but the Sages permit it. However, they agree that he may not clean the upper layer of the chest since that gives a dishonest impression. One may not put makeup on humans, animals, or vessels.

MISHNAH: Just as there is cheating in trade so there is cheating by words. One should not say to another: how much for this object, if he is not interested in buying. If somebody was a repentant sinner, one should not say to him: remember your earlier deeds. If somebody was the son of a proselyte, one may not say to him: remember the deeds of your forefathers, for it is written: “A sojourner you may neither cheat nor oppress, for you were sojourners in the Land of Egypt.” One does not mix produce, not even new with new; no need to say new with old. In truth they permitted to mix strong wine with weak since it improves it. One does not mix wine lees with wine but one delivers the lees with the wine. If water became mixed with somebody’s wine, he should not sell it in the store unless he declares it, and not to a trader for that one would only use it to trick people; at a place where they usually put water into the wine they may do so. The trader may buy from five threshing floors and put into one chest, wine from five wine presses and put into one barrel, on condition that he not intend to mix. Rebbi Jehudah says, a store owner should not distribute roasted kernels and nuts to children because he induces them to come to him, but the Sages permit. He should not reduce the price, but the Sages say, may he be remembered as a benefactor. He should not clean the groats following Abba Shaul, but the Sages permit it. However, they agree that he may not clean the upper layer of the chest since that gives a dishonest impression. One may not put makeup on humans, animals, or vessels.

“What is increase?” It was stated: A Jew who lent to another Jew with interest can collect neither principal nor interest, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, he may collect the capital but not the interest. It is written: “Your money you shall not give him by biting.” Not only money by biting and food by increase. From where increase in money and biting in food? The verse says, “do not take from him biting and increase,” it brackets biting with increase and increase with biting. Since biting refers to money, increase also refers to money; since increase refers to food, biting also refers to food.

MISHNAH: One may increase rental fees but not sale price. How is this? He leased a courtyard saying to him, if [you pay] now it is yours for ten tetradrachmas a year but if paid monthly it is a tetradrachma per month; this is permitted. He sold his field and said to him, if [you pay] now it is yours for 1’000 zuz, but if after the threshing floor it is twelve mina; this is forbidden. If one sold his field, [the buyer] made a partial payment and [the seller] said, anytime you wish bring the remainder and take yours; this is forbidden. If one lent money on a field and said, if you do not repay me in three years from now, it will be mine, it is his; Boethos ben Zenon acted thus following the Sages.

HALAKHAH: “One may increase rental fees,” etc. It was stated: “If somebody sells a field to another and stipulates, on condition that I shall work it as a sharecropper, on condition that I shall be part owner, on condition that the tithes shall be mine, on condition that if you sell it, you will sell it only to me, that anytime I want I may pay you back and take it; this is permitted.” “If he owed him money and wrote his field over to him as a sale, any time the seller eats the yield it is permitted; any time the buyer eats the yield, it is forbidden. Rebbi Jehudah says, in any case it is permitted. Rebbi Jehudah said, that is what Boethos ben Zenon did following the Sages. They said to him, is that a proof? The seller was eating the yield.” Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Eleazar, and Rebbi Hoshaia said, Rebbi Jehudah learned from the houses of walled cities. As it was stated: The year mentioned in the Torah regarding walled cities is like interest but it is not interest. Another Tanna stated: This is interest but the Torah permitted it. He who said, it is like interest but it is not interest, Rebbi Meïr. He who said, this is interest but the Torah permitted it, Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Idi said, when I came from the Diaspora, I found that a case was before Rebbi Immi of “it is like interest but it is not interest.” Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, they only said that “this is interest but the Torah permitted it.” There, the Torah permitted it, therefore not in any other case. Nevertheless, Rebbi Immi did not consider it, for he said: a house dwells with its inhabitants.

MISHNAH: One does not contract for produce until a rate was established. If he was the first to harvest, he may contract for the stack of sheaves, or the vat of grapes, or the barrel of olives, or for potter’s clay and lime when it was loaded in his oven. One may contract for manure the entire year; Rebbi Yose says, one may not contract for manure unless he has manure on his dungheap, but the Sages permit it. One contracts for wholesale price; Rebbi Jehudah says, even if one did not contract for wholesale price he may say to him, give me some like that or return my money. A person may lend to his sharecroppers wheat for wheat as seed grain but not as food; but Rebban Gamliel lent his sharecroppers wheat grain; if at high price and the rate went down or at low price and the rate went up, he took from them at the low rate, not because this is practice but because he wanted to be strict with himself.

MISHNAH: A man may say to another, weed with me and I shall be weeding with you, hoe with me and I shall be hoeing with you, but he shall not tell him, weed with me and I shall be hoeing with you, hoe with me and I shall be weeding with you. All the dry season is one, all the wet season is not; one may not say to him, plough with me in the dry season and I shall be ploughing with you in the wet season. Rabban Gamliel says, there exists predated and postdated interest. How is this? If one indended to borrow from him and sent him [a gift] saying, so you should lend me; that is predated interest. If one had borrowed and returned the money when he sent him [a gift] saying, that is for your money which was not earning for you while it was with me; that is postdated interest. Rebbi Simeon says, there exists verbal interest. One should not say to him, you should know that X came from place Y. The following transgress prohibitions: The creditor, and the debtor, and the guarantor, and the witnesses; the Sages say, also the scribe. They transgress “do not give,” and “do not take from him,” and “do not be a creditor,” and “do not burden him with interest,” and “before a blind man do not put an obstacle; and fear your God, I am the Eternal.”

MISHNAH: A worker may eat zucchini even for a denar’s worth, or dates even for a denar’s worth. Rebbi Eleazar Ḥasma said, a worker may not eat more than his wages and the Sages permit it, but one instructs a man not to be voracious lest he close the door before him. A person may contract for himself, for his adult son or daughter, for his adult male and female slaves, for his wife, because they have understanding. But he may not contract for his underage son or daughter, nor for his underage male and female slaves, nor for his animal, because they have no understanding.

HALAKHAH: “One who contracts with another for a field,” etc. It was stated: “One who contracts with another for a field tithes and delivers to him, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, both for the same kind and for the same field he lifts heave and delivers to him. But from another field or another kind he tithes and delivers to him. Rebbi Meïr says, only for the same kind and for the same field he lifts heave and delivers to him. But from another field or another kind he does (not) tithe and deliver to him.”

HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Ismael says, the first three months,” etc. Samuel said, these are the words of Rebbi Ismael and Rebbi Aqiba. But the Sages say, three years grain cutting, three years grape harvesting, three years olive harvesting. Rav said, these are the words of Rebbi Ismael and Rebbi Aqiba. But the Sages say, three years from day to day. Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: Just as they disagree here, so they disgree about Elijah’s years.

HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Ismael says, the first three months,” etc. Samuel said, these are the words of Rebbi Ismael and Rebbi Aqiba. But the Sages say, three years grain cutting, three years grape harvesting, three years olive harvesting. Rav said, these are the words of Rebbi Ismael and Rebbi Aqiba. But the Sages say, three years from day to day. Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: Just as they disagree here, so they disgree about Elijah’s years.

Rav said, the essence of ḥalîṣah is the untying of the shoelace. Did not Rebbi Abba say in the name of Rav Jehudah, Rebbi Zeriqan turns to it in the name of Rav: The words of the Sages: If she slips off but did not spit, or spat but did not take off, the ḥaliṣah is invalid unless she slips off and spits. Rav agrees “unless she slips off and spits”; it is implied by what Rav said, the essence of slipping off is untying the shoelaces.

MISHNAH: Neither the cistern nor the cellar even though he wrote over to him “its bottom and height,” and he has to buy himself access, the words of Rebbi Aqiba, but the Sages say that he does not have to buy himself access. Rebbi Aqiba agrees that if he said “except these”, he does not have to buy himself access. If he sold them to another person, Rebbi Aqiba said, he does not have to buy access, but the Sages say, he has to buy access.

MISHNAH: Neither the cistern nor the cellar even though he wrote over to him “its bottom and height,” and he has to buy himself access, the words of Rebbi Aqiba, but the Sages say that he does not have to buy himself access. Rebbi Aqiba agrees that if he said “except these”, he does not have to buy himself access. If he sold them to another person, Rebbi Aqiba said, he does not have to buy access, but the Sages say, he has to buy access.

MISHNAH: He who sells a field sold the stones which are needed for it, and the posts in a vineyard which are needed for it, and grain standing on the ground, and a reed fence taking up less than a bet rova‘, and a watchman’s hut not made with mortar, and a carob tree not yet grafted, and a virgin sycamore tree. But he sold neither the stones which are not needed for it, nor the posts in a vineyard which are not needed for it, nor grain harvested from the ground. But if he said to him, “it and all it contains,” all is sold. In no case did he sell either a reed fence taking up more than a bet rova‘, or a watchman’s hut made with mortar, or a grafted carob tree, or an anvil sycamore tree. Neither the cistern, nor the wine press, nor a dovecote whether deserted or intact; and he has to buy himself access, the words of Rebbi Aqiba; but the Sages say that he does not not have to buy himself access. Rebbi Aqiba agrees that if he said “except these”, he does not not have to buy himself access. If he sold them to another person, Rebbi Aqiba said, he does not have to buy access, but the Sages say, he does have to buy access. When has this been said? For the seller. But one who gives a gift, gives everything. Brothers who divided [an inheritance]: if one acquired a field he acquired everything. Somebody taking possession of a proselyte’s property: if he took possession of a field, he took possession of everything. If somebody dedicated a field to the Temple, he dedicated everything; Rebbi Simeon says that he who dedicated a field to the Temple only dedicated a grafted carob tree and an anvil sycamore tree.

MISHNAH: He who sells a field sold the stones which are needed for it, and the posts in a vineyard which are needed for it, and grain standing on the ground, and a reed fence taking up less than a bet rova‘, and a watchman’s hut not made with mortar, and a carob tree not yet grafted, and a virgin sycamore tree. But he sold neither the stones which are not needed for it, nor the posts in a vineyard which are not needed for it, nor grain harvested from the ground. But if he said to him, “it and all it contains,” all is sold. In no case did he sell either a reed fence taking up more than a bet rova‘, or a watchman’s hut made with mortar, or a grafted carob tree, or an anvil sycamore tree. Neither the cistern, nor the wine press, nor a dovecote whether deserted or intact; and he has to buy himself access, the words of Rebbi Aqiba; but the Sages say that he does not not have to buy himself access. Rebbi Aqiba agrees that if he said “except these”, he does not not have to buy himself access. If he sold them to another person, Rebbi Aqiba said, he does not have to buy access, but the Sages say, he does have to buy access. When has this been said? For the seller. But one who gives a gift, gives everything. Brothers who divided [an inheritance]: if one acquired a field he acquired everything. Somebody taking possession of a proselyte’s property: if he took possession of a field, he took possession of everything. If somebody dedicated a field to the Temple, he dedicated everything; Rebbi Simeon says that he who dedicated a field to the Temple only dedicated a grafted carob tree and an anvil sycamore tree.

MISHNAH: He who sells a ship sold the mast, and the sail, and the anchors, and all steering gear, but he neither sold the slaves, nor the storage bags, nor the load. If he said, “it and all that is in it,” all is sold. He who sold a truck did not sell the mules; he who sold the mules did not sell the truck. He who sold the yoke did not sell the cattle; he who sold the cattle did not sell the yoke. Rebbi Jehudah says, the price is an indicator. How is that? If he said to him, sell me your yoke and harness for 200 denars, it is obvious that yoke and harness are not worth 200 denars. But the Sages say, the price is no indicator. He who sells a donkey did not sell its gear. Nahum the Mede says, he sold the gear. Rebbi Jehudah says, sometimes it is sold, sometimes it is not sold. How is this? If a donkey was standing there with his gear on it and he said, sell me this donkey, his gear is sold; your donkey, for this one the gear is not sold. He who sells a donkey sold the foal; he who sold a cow did not sell its young. He who sold a dungheap sold the manure; he who sold a cistern sold its water. He who sold a beehive sold the bees; he who sold the dovecote sold the pigeons. He who bought the yield of a dovecote leaves the first brood to fledge, of a beehive takes three swarms and then intermittently, honeycombs leaves two honeycombs, olive trees to cut down leaves two handbreadths.

HALAKHAH: “Four situations for sellers.,” etc. How is this? If the measuring vessel belonged to the seller, he has the property rights, if to the buyer, he has the property rights. Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel, Rebbi La in the name of the Great Rebbi Jehudah, so is the Mishnah: If the measuring vessel belonged to a third person. It was stated: Rebbi Jehudah says, Friday evenings close to sundown he is not liable since he has permission, but the Sages say, in any case he is liable. What is the reason for what Rebbi Jehudah said? “If he is hired, it is paid for by his wages.”

MISHNAH: Somebody sent his son to a grocer who measured him oil for an assarius and he gave him the assarius; if he broke the flask and lost the assarius, the grocer is liable. Rebbi Jehudah holds him not liable since for that he sent him. The Sages agree with Rebbi Jehudah that if the flask was in the child’s hand and the grocer measured into the flask, the grocer is not liable. The wolesaler cleans his measuring vessels once every thirty days, the householder every twelve months. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, it is the other way around. The retail grocer cleans his measuring vessels twice a week, wipes his weights clean once a week, and cleans his scales after each weighing. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, when has this been said? For fluids, but for dry matter it is not necessary; he has to let [the scales] bend down a handbreadth. If he weighed strictly by eyesight he has to give him surplus, one tenth for fluids and one twentieth for dry products. At a place where one is used to small measures he should not use large ones, to large measures he should not use small ones, to level one must not heap, to heap one must not level.

HALAKHAH: “Somebody sent his son to a grocer,” etc. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, for the tenths he has to let bend down a handbreadth. It is written: “Fair scales, fair weights.” From here the Sages said that any commandment whose reward is noted, the court is not warned about. “You shall have,” appoint market overseers over this. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, so is the baraita: Any commandment whose reward is noted the court is not punished about. Rav was appointed market overseer by the Head of the Diaspora; he intervened about measuring vessels but not prices. The Head of the Diaspora jailed him. Rav Qarna went to see him and said, the market overseer about whom they spoke was for measures but not prices. He answered, but you had stated: the market overseer is for both measures and prices. He said to him, go out and tell them, the market overseer is for measures but not prices. He went out and said to them, a person who teaches hidden things they send to jail!

HALAKHAH: “Some inherit and bequeath,” etc. It is written: “If a man die without a son, you shall transfer his estate to his daughter.” Rebbi Ismael stated: The verse distinguished this inheritance from all other inheritances mentioned in the Torah, since for all of them it is written “you shall give,” but here is written: “you shall transfer.” It is an extension of the law that the daughter shall inherit. The Gentile Sages say, son and daughter are equal, for they explain “if he have no son;” therefore, if he has one both are equal. One objected, is it not written “if he have no daughter;” therefore, if he has one are both equal? And you agree, if there is no child, here also, if there is no son. The Sadducees say, the son’s daughter and the daughter are equal, for they explain: Since my son’s daughter who comes by force of her father does inherit from me, would it not be logical that my daughter who comes by force of myself should inherit from me? One told them, no. If you mention the son’s daughter who only inherits by the power of the brothers, what could you say about the daughter who only inherits by the power of the old man? The verse says, “any daughter who is an heiress of the tribes.” How is it possible for a daughter to inherit from two tribes? But explain it if her father was from one tribe and her mother from another.

“And he shall inherit from her.” I could think that just as he inherits from her, she should inherit from him. The verse says, “from her.” He inherits from her, she does not inherit from him. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the words of the Sages are that her father inherits from her, her brothers inherit from her. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal objected: If you say that the inheritance status of a woman is not from the Torah, should he not inherit from his preliminarily wedded wife? As you say there, “the one close to him,” not the preliminarily wedded one, so also here, “the one close to him,” not the preliminarily wedded one. Rav Hamnuna objected: If you say that a woman does not inherit by the word of the Torah, should not the husband inherit the expectancy like existing property? Rebbi Yose said, so did Rebbi teach: The husband does not take the expectancy like that which is at hand. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, there is the first-born whose inheritance is from the Torah but he does not take the expectancy like that which is at hand.

MISHNAH: If one writes his properties over to others while neglecting his children, what he did is done but the Sages do not approve of him. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, if his children did not behave properly, let him be well remembered.

“If somebody says, I freed my slave Ṭabi, I freed him, I shall free him, he is free, this one is free; then he acquired.” Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: But only by a document. “He should be freed, Rebbi says, he acquired, but the Sages say, he did not acquire.”

If someone said, field X I gave to Y, it is given to him, it should be his, Y should inherit my property, Y should take possession of my property, he did not say anything. It should be given to him as a gift, Rebbi says, he acquired, but the Sages say, he did not acquire; but one forces the heirs to fulfill the deceased’s words. It was stated: Rebbi Simeon ben Gamliel says, also if one writes διέθεμεν in Greek it is a gift. Rebbi Ḥanin in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: I turned to all linguists to know what is διέθεμεν and nobody told me anything.

Rav Jeremiah in the name of Rav: That there should be twelve months of sustenance for all of them. Samuel said, this is the opinion of Rabban Gamliel ben Rebbi, but the words of the Sages are, until they reach adulthood or are married. That is both a leniency and a restriction. Sometimes they are close to adulthood, sometimes far from adulthood. They asked before Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, what did you hear from Rebbi Joḥanan? He said to them, I did not hear anything from him concerning this matter except what Nathan bar Hoshaia asked before Rebbi Joḥanan: what if there was sustenance for twelve months but the estate diminished in value? He answered him, since they started with permission, they started.

MISHNAH: If a bedridden person distributed all his properties to others but reserved any real estate his gift is permanent; if he did not reserve any real estate his gift is not permanent. If [in the document] it was not written “bedridden”; he says, I was bedridden, but they are saying, he was healthy, he must prove that he was bedridden, the words of Rebbi Meїr. But the Sages say, the burden of proof is on the claimants.

Rebbi Joḥanan said: Somebody became possibly impure in an agricultural area whether in summer or in winter; this refersn to the dispute between Rebbi Meїr and the Sages. If he comes to ask in summer, one answers him according to the rules of summer; in the winter, one answers him according to the rules of winter. Rebbi Joḥanan said, only days close to the rainy season.

Rebbi Yannai in the name of Rebbi: The holder of documents is disadvantaged. Rebbi Joḥanan said to him, is that not the Mishnah: “If [in the document] it was not written ‘bedridden’ but he says, I was bedridden,” etc. Rebbi Yannai praised him “those who pour out gold from the wallet,” “my son, they should not be removed from your eyes,” etc. A young man was selling his properties. The case came before Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph and Rebbi Joḥanan. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph said, the presumption is that they signed for a mentally capable person. Rebbi Joḥanan said, since he undertook to uproot the properties from the family, he has to bring proof. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the holder of documents is advantaged. Rebbi Yasa asked before Rebbi Joḥanan, how about Rebbi, since Rebbi said, the holder of documents is disadvantaged? He told him, everybody agrees that the holder of documents is advantaged. But how could you say that a case came before Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph who said, the presumption is that they signed for a mentally capable person. And you said, since he undertook to uproot the properties from the family to another family, he has to bring proof! He told him, I never said this. Rebbi Ze‘ira said before Rebbi Yasa, even if Rebbi Joḥanan wants to deny it, did not Rebbi Yannai say in the name of Rebbi: The holder of documents is disadvantaged. Rebbi Joḥanan said to him, is that not the Mishnah? This is the opinion of the Sages who follow Rebbi.

MISHNAH: If somebody distributes his property orally, Rebbi Eliezer says that whether he is healthy or critical, guaranteed properties can be acquired by money, or contract, or possession. Not guaranteed properties can only be acquired by drawing close. They said to him, it happened that the mother of the Bene Rokhel was sick and said, give my bonnet to my daughter, it is worth twelve minas. She died and the Sages confirmed her words. He answered them, the Bene Rokhel should have been buried by their mother.

HALAKHAH: So far if real estate and movables were at the same place. If real estate was at one place and movables elsewhere? Rebbi Abin bar Ḥiyya said, let us hear from the following: Rebbi Eliezer said to them, it happened that a man from Meron was dwelling in Jerusalem who was rich in movables. He wanted to distribute them, to give them as gifts. They said to him, you cannot do that except if you acquire real estate. What did he do? He went and bought a rock near Jerusalem and said: The Northern part I give to X with a hundred sheep and a hundred amphoras of wine, the Southern part I give to Y with a hundred amphoras of oil. The matter came before the Sages, who upheld his words. Rebbi Ḥananiah said before Rebbi Mana: But was he not bedridden? For in general a person might give property rights only in writing, and here even orally. In general, a person might give only if real estate and movables are at the same place; here, however, the real estate was at one place and the movables elsewhere. He said to him: But is there a difference for Rebbi Eliezer? Would the sick person for Rebbi Eliezer be like the healthy person for the rabbis? He said to him: The sick person for Rebbi Eliezer is like the healthy person for the rabbis.

MISHNAH: But the Sages say, on the Sabbath, his words are confirmed since he cannot write, but not on weekdays. Rebbi Joshua says, they said that for the Sabbath, so much more for weekdays. Similarly, one may acquire for an underage person but not for an adult. Rebbi Joshua says, they said that for an underage person, so much more for an adult.

HALAKHAH: “But the Sages say, on the Sabbath, his words are confirmed,” etc. Some Tannaїm state it inversely. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, so is the Mishnah: if they said that for the Sabbath, so much more for weekdays. Some Tannaїm state it inversely. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, so is the Mishnah: if they said that for an underage person, so much more for an adult.

MISHNAH: Money matters are judged by three [judges]; robberies and injuries by three [judges], damages, half damages, double restitution quadruple and quintuple restitution. The rapist, the seducer, and the calumniator are judged by three [judges], the words of Rebbi Meïr; but the Sages say that the calumniator is judged by 23 because it might be a capital case.

“The rapist and the seducer,” etc. Rebbi Mana said, they disagree about the preliminarily married adolescent female. Rebbi Meïr says, she loses her ketubah in a court of three and is stoned in a court of 23; but the Sages say, at the same place which sentences her to be stoned she loses her ketubah. But in the case of the calumniator, everybody agrees that by the court in which the witnesses are stoned, the husband is flogged and pays 100 tetradrachmas. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said to him, would they differ where it was not stated? But they differ about the calumniator! Rebbi Meïr says, he is flogged and pays 100 tetradrachmas by the judgment of three and the witnesses are stoned by the judgment of 23; but the rabbis say, by the court in which the witnesses are stoned, the husband is flogged and pays 100 tetradrachmas. But in the case of the preliminarily married adolescent female, everybody agrees that at the same place which sentences her to be stoned she loses her ketubah. It turns out that Rebbi Mana follows Rebbi Ze‘ira and Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun follows Rebbi Abbahu.

Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai stated: You shall sanctify the Fiftieth Year. You shall sanctify years but not months. But did we not state: “The president of the court says: sanctified”? What means sanctified? Confirmed. It was stated: For sanctifying months one starts with the most senior person. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, the Mishnah says this: “The president of the court says: sanctified.” It was stated, for intercalation of the (month) [year] one starts from the side. Rebbi Zebida said, but this lower house do not proceed in this way, for they did not hear what Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Marius and Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Abba bar Ḥiyya said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: For lengthening the month one starts with the most senior person, for intercalating the year one starts from the side. When Rebbi Joḥanan was participating as the most junior person, they told him, say: “this year is sanctified in its intercalation.” He said, “this year is sanctified in intercalation.” Rebbi Jonathan said, look at the language which the smith’s son taught us. If he had said, “in its intercalation,” I would have said that this refers to the eleven days by which the solar year exceeds the lunar one, but [he said] “in intercalation”, that the Sages added thirty days to it. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: For intercalation one follows the date of ordination. In the Academy one follows usage; each one gives his opinion at his place and sums up. For example, Rebbi Ḥanina started, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqisch summed up. Rebbi Abba bar Zavda started, Rebbi Yasa and Rebbi Immi summed up. Rebbi Ḥaggai started, Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose summed up. Rebbi Cahana was ordained before Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, but Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa participated in intercalation before Rebbi Cahana was invited. He said, the person who formulated the tradition does not respect it for himself.

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: “Deep sorrow” is only for the dead, for it is written: Its gates are in deep sorrow and mourning. Ḥiyya bar Ada objected: Is it not written: the fishermen are in deep sorrow? Rebbi Ḥanina said, so is the baraita: there is no deep sorrow in impurity except for the dead. It was stated: “What is deep sorrow? From the moment of death until the moment of burial, the word of Rebbi. But the Sages say, the entire day.” It turns out that one describes leniencies and stringencies following Rebbi, leniencies and stringencies following the rabbis. What is the difference between them? If he died and was buried within the hour. Following the rabbis, he is forbidden the entire day; following Rebbi he is forbidden only that hour. If he died and was buried after three days. Following the rabbis, he is forbidden the entire day; following Rebbi he is forbidden up to three days. There came Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, and Rav Ḥisda, both of whom said that Rebbi agrees with the Sages that he is forbidden only during the first day, as it was stated: Rebbi said, you know that deep mourning in the night is not biblical, since they said, “the deep mourner immerses himself and eats his Passover sacrifice in the evening.” But they said, deep mourning [during daytime] is biblical. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Huna: Explain it that he was buried close to sundown [and one cannot infer anything.]

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: “Deep sorrow” is only for the dead, for it is written: Its gates are in deep sorrow and mourning. Ḥiyya bar Ada objected: Is it not written: the fishermen are in deep sorrow? Rebbi Ḥanina said, so is the baraita: there is no deep sorrow in impurity except for the dead. It was stated: “What is deep sorrow? From the moment of death until the moment of burial, the word of Rebbi. But the Sages say, the entire day.” It turns out that one describes leniencies and stringencies following Rebbi, leniencies and stringencies following the rabbis. What is the difference between them? If he died and was buried within the hour. Following the rabbis, he is forbidden the entire day; following Rebbi he is forbidden only that hour. If he died and was buried after three days. Following the rabbis, he is forbidden the entire day; following Rebbi he is forbidden up to three days. There came Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, and Rav Ḥisda, both of whom said that Rebbi agrees with the Sages that he is forbidden only during the first day, as it was stated: Rebbi said, you know that deep mourning in the night is not biblical, since they said, “the deep mourner immerses himself and eats his Passover sacrifice in the evening.” But they said, deep mourning [during daytime] is biblical. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Huna: Explain it that he was buried close to sundown [and one cannot infer anything.]

MISHNAH: Money matters by three [judges]. Each party selects one judge and both together select a third, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, the two judges together select a third.

MISHNAH: Each of them disqualifies the other’s judge, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, when is this? If he brings proof that they are relatives or disqualified. But if they are unexceptionable or qualified by the court he cannot disqualify them.

MISHNAH: Each of them disqualifies the other’s witnesses, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, when is this? If he brings proof that they are relatives or disqualified. But if they are unexceptionable or qualified by the court he cannot disqualify them.

MISHNAH: If somebody said, I am accepting my father; I am accepting your father; I am accepting three cowboys; Rebbi Meïr says, he may change his opinion, but the Sages say, he may not change his opinion. If one was obligated to swear to another, who asked him to make a vow “by his life”, Rebbi Meïr says, he may change his opinion, but the Sages say, he may not change his opinion.

MISHNAH: If somebody said, I am accepting my father; I am accepting your father; I am accepting three cowboys; Rebbi Meïr says, he may change his opinion, but the Sages say, he may not change his opinion. If one was obligated to swear to another, who asked him to make a vow “by his life”, Rebbi Meïr says, he may change his opinion, but the Sages say, he may not change his opinion.

Or like the following. “One accepts the witnesses’ testimony only if they saw it together. Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥa says, even if they saw it one after the other.” Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rav: The Sages agree with Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥa with regard to witnesses of firstlings and witnesses of squatters’ rights. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah: the same holds for testimony regarding signs. In that case, it is obvious if one says, I saw two hairs on his back and the other says, I saw two hairs on his side. If one says, I saw one hair on his back and the other says, I saw one hair on his belly, that is nothing; so much more his back and his side. Two are saying, we saw one hair on his back; and two are saying, we saw one hair on his belly. Rav Yose and Rav Hoshaia ben Rav Shammai, one said, it is invalid, but the other said, it is valid. He who says it is invalid considers him as one who testifies to half a sign. He who says it is valid? I say, maybe they were rubbed off. One says, two hairs on his back; and one says, two on his belly. Rebbi Abba said, everybody agrees that this is valid. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, everybody agrees that this is invalid [testimony]. Rebbi Yose said, this is in disagreement. Rebbi [Yose] said to Rebbi Ḥaggai, does not Rebbi Yudan follow my opinion? He answered, I am disagreeing with his teacher, so much more with him. Rebbi Mama said, Rebbi Ḥaggai was correct. If a document was signed by four seals, if one person verified the signature of two [witnesses], and another those of the other two, and the document was attacked, is that worth anything? Does not every single signature need two witnesses? And here, every single hair needs two witnesses. Rebbi Ḥinena learns it (because of) [from the years of] squatting rights. If one [witness] testified that he ate from the property the first, second, and third years and another testified that he ate it the fourth, fifth, and sixth years, is that worth anything? Does not every single year need two witnesses? And here, every single hair needs two witnesses.

MISHNAH: The Synhedrion was like a semicircular threshing floor, so that they could see one another. Two court reporters were standing before them, one to the right and one to the left, and they wrote down the arguments of those who argued for acquittal and those who argued for conviction. Rebbi Jehudah says, there were three. One wrote the arguments for conviction, one wrote the arguments for acquittal, and one wrote the arguments for acquittal and for conviction. Three rows of students of the Sages were sitting before them; each one of them knew his place. If they needed to ordain, they ordained one from the first row. One of the second row came to sit in the first, and one of the third came to sit in the second. They chose a person from the general public and placed him in the third row; he did not sit in the place of the one promoted but in the place befitting him.

HALAKHAH: “Three rows of students of the Sages,” etc. Rebbi Abba (bar) [Rebbi] Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It says here congregation, and it says there congregation. Rav brought it from a Mishnah; the Mishnah says “be a tail of lions and not a head of jackals.” The parable says, be a head of jackals but not a tail of lions. But we have stated: “If they needed to ordain, they ordained one from the first row.”

HALAKHAH: “One says, on the second of the month,” etc. Until when? Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Up to the greater part of the month. Rebbi Yose said, e. g., those village dwellers. But the Sages say, it is nothing, and Rebbi Yasa said, for example I, who never in my life prayed musaf, since I do not know when the month starts.

“If he does not know how to confess,” etc. “It happened that one was led out to be executed. They told him, say: ˋMy death shall be atonement for all my sins.’ He said, ˋmy death shall be atonement for all my sins except for this sin; if I committed it, He should never forgive me, but the court of Israel is innocent.’ When the case came before the Sages, their tears flowed. They said, it is impossible to reopen the case, since it would never end. But this person’s blood hangs on the witnesses’ necks.”

MISHNAH: At a distance of four cubits from the place of stoning one removes his clothes. One covers a man in front, a woman one covers front and back, the words of Rebbi Jehudah; but the Sages say, a man is stoned naked, but no woman is stoned naked.

HALAKHAH: “All those stoned are hanged, the words of Rebbi Eliezer,” etc. It was stated: “Adding his own height, these are five.” Here you say, adding his own height, these are five. But for a pit in matters of damages, you say even ten handbreadths. One cannot compare one who falls consciously, and one who falls accidentally. Rebbi Jonathan ben Ḥali, Rebbi Eudaimon the son of Rebbi Tabi’s daughter, in the name of Rebbi Josia: Those who throw down an ox with all their might do not cause any of its limbs to break. In the days of Rebbi Phineas they threw down an ox with all their might. He told them, By yourlives, free it. They freed it, it got up and fled. He said, praised be He Who selected the Sages and their pronouncements, for they say, those who throw down an ox with all their might not cause any of its limbs to break.

MISHNAH: Anyone who was stoned is hanged, the words of Rebbi Eliezer. But the Sages say, only the blasphemer and the idolator are hanged. A man is hanged face to the people and a woman face to the pole, the words of Rebbi Eliezer. But the Sages say, a man is hanged, a woman is not hanged. Rebbi Eliezer said, it happened that Simeon ben Shetaḥ hanged women in Ascalon. They told him, he hanged eighty women, but one does not try two on the same day.

MISHNAH: Anyone who was stoned is hanged, the words of Rebbi Eliezer. But the Sages say, only the blasphemer and the idolator are hanged. A man is hanged face to the people and a woman face to the pole, the words of Rebbi Eliezer. But the Sages say, a man is hanged, a woman is not hanged. Rebbi Eliezer said, it happened that Simeon ben Shetaḥ hanged women in Ascalon. They told him, he hanged eighty women, but one does not try two on the same day.

Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥmani in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: If one says to it, you are my god, there is disagreement between Rebbi and the Sages. If he (prostrated himself), what is the rule? Rebbi Joḥanan said, everybody agrees that if he lowered his body, he is guilty. What is the difference between raising and lowering his body, and raising and lowering his lips? Rebbi Joḥanan said, following disagreement. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, following the distinction. Rebbi Zeˋira said, a verse supports Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: One rule should be for you, for the one acting in error. This only refers to what represents an action. The one who embraces (and who prostrates himself), which are not action, from where?

MISHNAH: One who desecrates the Sabbath by something which if performed intentionally makes him liable to extirpation, or to a purification sacrifice if in error. But he who curses father or mother is guilty only of he cursed them by the Name. If he cursed them by a substitute name, Rebbi Meïr declares him guilty but the Sages free him from prosecution. One who has sexual relations with a preliminarily married adolescent is only liable if she was an adolescent, a virgin, and preliminarily married, in her father’s house. If two [men] had relations with her, the first one is stoned, the second is subject to strangling.

HALAKHAH: “The one who leads astray is a commoner,” etc. Therefore, not a Sage? Since he seduces, he is not a Sage. Since he is seduced, he is not a Sage. What does one do to outwit him? One hides two witnesses in an inner room and puts him into the outer room, lights a candle near him so they can see him and hear his voice. That is what they did to Ben Sateda in Lydda, where they hid two Sages, brought him to court, and stoned him. And here, you say so? It is different because he said, “I am”. Here also, “I am”? That he should not get wise to it. And what if he got wise to it? That he should not go away, and continue to seduce himself and others with him.

Example. Rebbi Eliezer, and Rebbi Joshua, and Rabban Gamliel travelled to Rome. They came to a place where they found children making stone heaps and saying as follows: What they do in the Land of Israel is to say, this is heave, this is tithe. They said, it is clear that Jews live here. They entered a place and were received at a house. They sat down to eat. It happened that no dish was brought to them unless it was brought [first] to a certain bedroom. They became afraid that perhaps they were eating offerings to the dead. They asked him, why is it that you bring no dish before us unless you brought it first to that bedroom? He told them, I have an old father who vowed not to leave that bedroom until he might see the Sages of Israel. They told him, go and tell him to come out because they are here. He came out; they asked him, what is your problem? He told them, pray for my son because he is sterile. Rebbi Eliezer said to Rebbi Joshua: Joshua ben Ḥanania, look what you can do. He told them, bring me linseed; they brought him linseed. It appeared to them as if he was sowing it on a table. It appeared as if he was watering it; it appeared to grow; it appeared that he was plucking out of it, until there appeared a woman with braided hair. He told her, undo what you did. She answered, I shall not undo. He told her, then I shall make you known. She said, I cannot, because they were thrown into the sea. Rebbi Joshua commanded the prince of the sea who disgorged them. Then they prayed for him and he had the merit of raising Rebbi Jehudah ben Bathyra. They said, if we came here only to bring the just person to the world, it would have been enough.

MISHNAH: The deviant and rebellious son. When can one become a deviant and rebellious son? From the moment he grows two [pubic] hairs to when he sports a beard, the lower, not the upper, because the Sages used clean language. For it is written: If a man have a [deviant and rebellious] son. A son but not a daughter, a son but not a father. The underage [son] is not liable since he does not have any obligation.

MISHNAH: A murderer who attacked someone with a stone or an iron, or forced him under water or into fire so he could not escape from there and died, is [criminally] liable. If he pushed him into water or fire and he could have escaped from there by himself but died, he is not [criminally] liable. If he provoked a dog or a snake against him, he is not [criminally] liable. If he let a snake bite him, Rebbi Jehudah declares him [criminally] liable but for the Sages he is not [criminally] liable.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody injures another person,” etc. So is the Mishnah: “Rebbi Neḥemiah declares him not [criminally] liable but the Sages declare him [criminally] liable since it is not unsubstantiated.” The Sages say, two estimations have precedence over one estimation; Rebbi Neḥemiah says, the intermediate estimation has precedence over the two. What is Rebbi Neḥemiah’s reason? If he gets up and walks outside on his cane, the attacker is exonerated. Could you think that this one walks in the market and the other one is executed because of him? But even if he dies according to the first estimation, he cannot be prosecuted. What is the rabbi’s reason? If he does not die but is bedridden. Would we not know that even if he does not die that he will be bedridden? But if they did not estimate that he would die. If they did not estimate that he would die, that is what is written: If he gets up and walks outside on his cane, the attacker is exonerated. Therefore, if he does not get up, [the attacker] is [criminally] liable. But if they estimated that he would die? If they estimated that he would die, that is what is written: But he has to pay for his disability and the medical costs. Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: It is an extraordinary decree of Scripture that he has to pay. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: It was an erroneous estimation. What is the difference between them? “But he got better and only afterwards deteriorated and died; he is [criminally] liable. Rebbi Neḥemiah declares him not liable since it is not unsubstantiated.” For him who said, it is an extraordinary decree of Scripture that he has to pay; if he paid, he paid. If he did not pay, does he have to pay? For him who said, it was an erroneous estimation; if he did not pay, one does not order him to pay. If he paid, can he take it back? A baraita supports one and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina: If they estimated that he would live but he died, from when does one count for him? From the moment he turns worse. This implies that the estimate was wrong. If you would say, it is an extraordinary decree of Scripture that he has to pay, he should pay from the first moment. A baraita supports Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: If they estimated that he would die but he lived, from when does one count for him? From the moment he turns worse. Rebbi Yose said, it does not say here “from the moment he turns worse” but “from the moment he turns better.” That means, it is an extraordinary decree of Scripture that he has to pay. But if you say, it was an erroneous estimation, he has to pay until [the victim] dies.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody injures another person,” etc. So is the Mishnah: “Rebbi Neḥemiah declares him not [criminally] liable but the Sages declare him [criminally] liable since it is not unsubstantiated.” The Sages say, two estimations have precedence over one estimation; Rebbi Neḥemiah says, the intermediate estimation has precedence over the two. What is Rebbi Neḥemiah’s reason? If he gets up and walks outside on his cane, the attacker is exonerated. Could you think that this one walks in the market and the other one is executed because of him? But even if he dies according to the first estimation, he cannot be prosecuted. What is the rabbi’s reason? If he does not die but is bedridden. Would we not know that even if he does not die that he will be bedridden? But if they did not estimate that he would die. If they did not estimate that he would die, that is what is written: If he gets up and walks outside on his cane, the attacker is exonerated. Therefore, if he does not get up, [the attacker] is [criminally] liable. But if they estimated that he would die? If they estimated that he would die, that is what is written: But he has to pay for his disability and the medical costs. Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: It is an extraordinary decree of Scripture that he has to pay. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: It was an erroneous estimation. What is the difference between them? “But he got better and only afterwards deteriorated and died; he is [criminally] liable. Rebbi Neḥemiah declares him not liable since it is not unsubstantiated.” For him who said, it is an extraordinary decree of Scripture that he has to pay; if he paid, he paid. If he did not pay, does he have to pay? For him who said, it was an erroneous estimation; if he did not pay, one does not order him to pay. If he paid, can he take it back? A baraita supports one and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina: If they estimated that he would live but he died, from when does one count for him? From the moment he turns worse. This implies that the estimate was wrong. If you would say, it is an extraordinary decree of Scripture that he has to pay, he should pay from the first moment. A baraita supports Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: If they estimated that he would die but he lived, from when does one count for him? From the moment he turns worse. Rebbi Yose said, it does not say here “from the moment he turns worse” but “from the moment he turns better.” That means, it is an extraordinary decree of Scripture that he has to pay. But if you say, it was an erroneous estimation, he has to pay until [the victim] dies.

MISHNAH: If a murderer was mixed up with others, none of them are criminally liable. Rebbi Jehudah says, one keeps them in jail. Any condemned to death who were mixed up with others shall be executed by the easier way. Those to be stoned with those to be burned, Rebbi Simeon says they shall be stoned because burning is more painful, but the Sages say they shall be burned since stoning is more painful. Rebbi Simeon told them, if burning were not more painful it would not have been prescribed for a Cohen’s daughter who committed adultery. They answered him, if stoning were not more painful, it would not have been prescribed for the blasphemer and those who worship strange cults. Those to be slain with those to be strangled, Rebbi Simeon says by the sword, but the Sages say by strangulation.

MISHNAH: If a murderer was mixed up with others, none of them are criminally liable. Rebbi Jehudah says, one keeps them in jail. Any condemned to death who were mixed up with others shall be executed by the easier way. Those to be stoned with those to be burned, Rebbi Simeon says they shall be stoned because burning is more painful, but the Sages say they shall be burned since stoning is more painful. Rebbi Simeon told them, if burning were not more painful it would not have been prescribed for a Cohen’s daughter who committed adultery. They answered him, if stoning were not more painful, it would not have been prescribed for the blasphemer and those who worship strange cults. Those to be slain with those to be strangled, Rebbi Simeon says by the sword, but the Sages say by strangulation.

MISHNAH: He who steals the chalice, or who curses by charms, or who copulates with a Gentile woman, one strikes him. If a priest officiated while impure, his brother priests do not bring him to court but the young priests take him outside the courtyard and smash his brain with bats. A non-priest who officiated in the Temple: Rebbi Aqiba said, by strangulation, but the Sages say, by the hands of Heaven.

“One who copulates with a Gentile woman,” etc. Rebbi Ismael stated: This is one who marries a Gentile woman, sires children, and from her raises enemies of the Omnipresent. It is written: Phineas ben Eleazar ben Aharon the priest saw. What did he see? He understood what happened and remembered practice: “One who copulates with a Gentile woman, zealots strike him.” It was stated: not with the agreement of the Sages. Would Phineas act against the Sages? Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi said, they wanted to excommunicate him had not the Holy Spirit jumped on him and declared that an eternal covenant of priesthood shall be for him and his descendants after him, etc.

“One who copulates with a Gentile woman,” etc. Rebbi Ismael stated: This is one who marries a Gentile woman, sires children, and from her raises enemies of the Omnipresent. It is written: Phineas ben Eleazar ben Aharon the priest saw. What did he see? He understood what happened and remembered practice: “One who copulates with a Gentile woman, zealots strike him.” It was stated: not with the agreement of the Sages. Would Phineas act against the Sages? Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi said, they wanted to excommunicate him had not the Holy Spirit jumped on him and declared that an eternal covenant of priesthood shall be for him and his descendants after him, etc.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, these are the words of Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah, Rebbi Ismael, and Rebbi Aqiba. But the words of the Sages are that the sent-away ram pardons. How does it pardon? Rebbi Zeˋira said, by and by. Rebbi Ḥanina said, at the end. What is the difference between them? If somebody died in-between. In the opinion of Rebbi Zeˋira, he already was pardoned. In the opinion of Rebbi Ḥanina, he was not pardoned. Rebbi Ḥanina said, a baraita supports Rebbi Zeˋira: There is strength in the ram which is not in the Day of Atonement, and in the Day of Atonement which is not in the ram, for the Day of Atonement pardons without a ram, but the ram does not atone except on the Day of Atonement. There is strength in the ram, for it pardons immediately but the Day of Atonement only at nightfall. Rebbi Huna said, the question was raised before Rebbi Jeremiah and he said, explain it if they intended to bring another ram but they did not bring it. Rebbi Yose ben Yose said, but does the Holy One, praise to Him, not see into the future? Then He should pardon immediately.

The words of the Sages are like goads; Rebbi Huna said, like a pearl. There, they call a pearl dirah. Another explanation, like goads, like a girl’s ball. Just as this ball is caught from hand to hand but in the end will come to rest in one hand, so “Moses received the Torah from Sinai and transmitted it to Joshua, Joshua to the Elders, the Elders to the Prophets, and the Prophets transmitted it to the Men of the Great Assembly.” Another explanation, like goads. It has three names, mardea`, da̅rva̅n, malmad. Mardea`, because it teaches knowledge to the cow. Da̅reva̅n, because it plants understanding in the cow. Malmad, because it teaches the cow to plough, to keep its owners alive. Rebbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina said, if a person makes a goad for his cow, certainly [he has to make one] for his bad inclinations which will remove him from this world and the World to Come.

But what did Aḥaz do? He built a throne in the Temple Court. That is what is written: “The throne-hall which they built in the Temple,” etc. Rebbi Onias in the name of Rebbi Eleazar. Why is he called “the grabber”? For he grabbed synagogues and houses of study. To what may Aḥaz be compared? To a king who had a son whom he entrusted to his pedagogue. The latter wanted to kill him. He said, if I kill him, I will be put to death. But I shall draw his wet-nurse away from him and he will die of himself. So Aḥaz said, if there are no kid goats there are no he-goats. If there are no he-goats there are no goats. If there are no goats there is no shepherd. If there is no shepherd there is no world; if it were thinkable that there be no world. So Aḥaz was thinking, if there are no children there are no adults. If there are no adults, there are no Sages. If there are no Sages, there are no prophets. If there are no prophets, there is no Holy Spirit. If there is no Holy Spirit, there are no synagogues and no houses of study. If it were thinkable, the Holy One, praise to Him, will not let His Presence rest over Israel. Rebbi Jacob bar Abbai in the name of Rebbi Aḥa brings it from the following I shall wait for the Eternal, Who hid His Face from the House of Jacob, and put my hope in Him. There was no worse moment in the world than when the Holy One, praise to Him, said to Moses: I shall certainly hide My Face at that time. From that moment on, I put my hope in Him, Who said at Sinai, for it shall not be forgotten by his descendants. What would its use be? Behold, I and the children which the Eternal has given me. Were they his children? Were they not his students? But this teaches he loved them as if they were his sons and called them “my sons”.

But what did Aḥaz do? He built a throne in the Temple Court. That is what is written: “The throne-hall which they built in the Temple,” etc. Rebbi Onias in the name of Rebbi Eleazar. Why is he called “the grabber”? For he grabbed synagogues and houses of study. To what may Aḥaz be compared? To a king who had a son whom he entrusted to his pedagogue. The latter wanted to kill him. He said, if I kill him, I will be put to death. But I shall draw his wet-nurse away from him and he will die of himself. So Aḥaz said, if there are no kid goats there are no he-goats. If there are no he-goats there are no goats. If there are no goats there is no shepherd. If there is no shepherd there is no world; if it were thinkable that there be no world. So Aḥaz was thinking, if there are no children there are no adults. If there are no adults, there are no Sages. If there are no Sages, there are no prophets. If there are no prophets, there is no Holy Spirit. If there is no Holy Spirit, there are no synagogues and no houses of study. If it were thinkable, the Holy One, praise to Him, will not let His Presence rest over Israel. Rebbi Jacob bar Abbai in the name of Rebbi Aḥa brings it from the following I shall wait for the Eternal, Who hid His Face from the House of Jacob, and put my hope in Him. There was no worse moment in the world than when the Holy One, praise to Him, said to Moses: I shall certainly hide My Face at that time. From that moment on, I put my hope in Him, Who said at Sinai, for it shall not be forgotten by his descendants. What would its use be? Behold, I and the children which the Eternal has given me. Were they his children? Were they not his students? But this teaches he loved them as if they were his sons and called them “my sons”.

But what did the evil Bileam do? Because he counseled Balaq ben Ṣippor to fell Israel by the sword. He told him, the God of this people hates whoring. If you put up your daughters for whoring, you may rule over them. He answered, but will they listen to me? He told him, put your own daughter up, they will see and listen to you. That is what is written: he is the head of related tribes in Midian. What did they do? They built dining rooms from Bet Hayyešimon to the Snow Mountain and installed there women selling pastries. They put an old woman outside and a young girl inside. Israel were eating and drinking. If one of them went to stroll around, to buy himself something from the grocer, the old woman would offer to sell to him for the going price, but the girl told him, come and take it for less. This happened that first day, the second day, the third day. After that, she told him, from now on you are like a member of the family; enter and select for yourself. When he entered, there was a pitcher full of wine, of the strong Ammonite wine which seduces the body to whoring. Its smell was seething and (Gentile wine) [libation wine] was not yet forbidden for Israel. She told him, maybe you want to drink a cup of wine? He answered her, yes. She gave to him and he drank. When he drank, the wine was burning in him like a viper’s poison; he told her, consent to me. She told him, do you want me to consent to you? He answered, yes. Immediately she took out a shape of Peˋor from her bosom and told him, bow down before this one and I shall consent to you. But he answered her, should I bow down before foreign worship? She told him, you do not bow down, you only strip for it. This is what the Sages said, “one who defecates in front of Baal Peˋor follows its worship. One who throws a stone at a statue of Mercury follows its worship.” There was a pitcher full of wine, of the strong Ammonite wine which seduces the body to whoring. Its smell was seething and libation wine was not yet forbidden for Israel. She told him, maybe you want to drink a cup of wine? He answered her, yes. She gave to him and he drank. When he drank, the wine was burning in him like a viper’s poison; he told her, consent to me. She told him, do you want me to consent to you? He answered, yes. She told him, make a vow to deny the teachings of Moses and I shall consent to you. That is what is written: They came to Baal-Peˋor, made vows for the shame, and turned into abominations like their love life.

MISHNAH: And one who kidnaps a person from Israel is not punishable unless he bring him into his property. Rebbi Jehudah says, unless he bring him into his property and use him, as it is said, and enslaved him or sold him. One who kidnaps his own son, Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa declares punishable but the Sages make him not prosecutable. One who kidnapped a person half slave and half free Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa declares punishable but the Sages make him not prosecutable.

MISHNAH: And one who kidnaps a person from Israel is not punishable unless he bring him into his property. Rebbi Jehudah says, unless he bring him into his property and use him, as it is said, and enslaved him or sold him. One who kidnaps his own son, Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa declares punishable but the Sages make him not prosecutable. One who kidnapped a person half slave and half free Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa declares punishable but the Sages make him not prosecutable.

Rebbi Simeon ben Menasia says: Beauty, and vigor, and riches, and wisdom, and white hair, and honor, and children, are an adornment for the just. What is the reason? A crown of glory is white hair; on the way of piety it is found. A crown of the elderly are grandchildren; the glory of children are their parents. The glory of the young is their force; the splendor of the elderly is white hair. And it says, before his Elders in honor. It was stated: Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, these seven qualities which the Sages enumerated for the just were all realized by Rebbi and his sons. Rebbi Joḥanan said, all seven qualities which the Sages enunciated about the just were in Rebbi. Who was Rebbi? Rebbi is Rebbi Jehudah the Prince. Rebbi Abbahu said, Rebbi is Rebbi Yudan the Prince, is Our Teacher.

Rebbi Simeon ben Menasia says: Beauty, and vigor, and riches, and wisdom, and white hair, and honor, and children, are an adornment for the just. What is the reason? A crown of glory is white hair; on the way of piety it is found. A crown of the elderly are grandchildren; the glory of children are their parents. The glory of the young is their force; the splendor of the elderly is white hair. And it says, before his Elders in honor. It was stated: Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, these seven qualities which the Sages enumerated for the just were all realized by Rebbi and his sons. Rebbi Joḥanan said, all seven qualities which the Sages enunciated about the just were in Rebbi. Who was Rebbi? Rebbi is Rebbi Jehudah the Prince. Rebbi Abbahu said, Rebbi is Rebbi Yudan the Prince, is Our Teacher.

Rebbi Ismael stated: In the Torah there are forbidden matters and permitted matters. There are easy parts and severe parts. But in the words of the Sopherim all are severe. You can realize that this is so since we have stated: “He who says that there are no phylacteries, to transgress the words of the Torah, is not prosecutable. Five compartments to add to the words of the Sopherim is punishable.” Rebbi Ḥinena, the son of Rebbi Ada, in the name of Rebbi Tanḥum bar Ḥiyya: The words of the Sages carry more weight than those of the prophets since it is written, do not preach, they preach. And it is written, I shall preach to you for wine and liquor. The relation of prophet and scholar can be compared to the case of a king who sent two diplomatarii to a province. About one of them it was written, if he does not show you my seal and σημαντήριον, do not believe him. About the other it was written, even if he does not show you my seal and σημαντήριον, believe him. So about a prophet is written, he gives you a sign or miracle. But here it is written, according to the teachings that they will teach you.

HALAKHAH: “One who prophesies in the name of foreign worship,” etc. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, everything was included in do not testify against your neighbor as a false witness. It came to judge whether by sign, or by miracle, whether about foreign worship or any other commandment. But about foreign worship, whether he intended to uproot the entire body or did not intend to uproot the entire body, by the words of Rebbi Simeon one does not prosecute him, but by the words of the Sages one stones him. For any other commandment by the words of the Sages one stones him, by the words of Rebbi Simeon he should understand his pywnṭ.

HALAKHAH: “One who prophesies in the name of foreign worship,” etc. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, everything was included in do not testify against your neighbor as a false witness. It came to judge whether by sign, or by miracle, whether about foreign worship or any other commandment. But about foreign worship, whether he intended to uproot the entire body or did not intend to uproot the entire body, by the words of Rebbi Simeon one does not prosecute him, but by the words of the Sages one stones him. For any other commandment by the words of the Sages one stones him, by the words of Rebbi Simeon he should understand his pywnṭ.

HALAKHAH: “There are two kinds of oaths which are four kinds,” etc. Two which are four for liability and two which are four for no liability, or four for liability and four for no liability? Let us hear from the following: “There are two kinds of oaths which are four kinds,” etc. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah says so, “there are two kinds of oaths which are four kinds,” not because of liability? And similarly, “there are two kinds of export on the Sabbath which are four kinds,” because there is liability. Rebbi Abba said, there all are about liability, but here we come to state both liability and no liability. This implies four of liability and four of no liability. But did we not state, the doors of the Temple hall were two which are four? Can you say, liability and no liability? Should we state twelve cases of no liability? We come to state cases of no liability which correspond to cases of no liability. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, what is this “no liability” which we stated here? Permitted! Rebbi Yose said, the poor man and the rich man are one but the Sages counted them as two. Exporting or importing are two but the Sages counted them as one. Exporting on the Sabbath does not include importing; if one exports from a domain this does not include importing. If one who exports from one domain to the other, does this not include the one who imports? In addition, from what Rebbi Yasa said in the name if Rebbi Joḥanan: Somebody who imports half the size of a dried fig and exports half the size of a dried fig is liable. And from where that exporting is called work? Rebbi Samuel in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: “Moses ordered, they made a public proclamation in the camp,” etc. The people refrained from taking objects out from their houses to give them to the collectors, who also did not take out anything from them to import into the office. Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Aḥa understood it from the following: “do not bring out any load from your houses on the Sabbath day, and perform no work.”

HALAKHAH: “There are two kinds of oaths which are four kinds,” etc. Two which are four for liability and two which are four for no liability, or four for liability and four for no liability? Let us hear from the following: “There are two kinds of oaths which are four kinds,” etc. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah says so, “there are two kinds of oaths which are four kinds,” not because of liability? And similarly, “there are two kinds of export on the Sabbath which are four kinds,” because there is liability. Rebbi Abba said, there all are about liability, but here we come to state both liability and no liability. This implies four of liability and four of no liability. But did we not state, the doors of the Temple hall were two which are four? Can you say, liability and no liability? Should we state twelve cases of no liability? We come to state cases of no liability which correspond to cases of no liability. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, what is this “no liability” which we stated here? Permitted! Rebbi Yose said, the poor man and the rich man are one but the Sages counted them as two. Exporting or importing are two but the Sages counted them as one. Exporting on the Sabbath does not include importing; if one exports from a domain this does not include importing. If one who exports from one domain to the other, does this not include the one who imports? In addition, from what Rebbi Yasa said in the name if Rebbi Joḥanan: Somebody who imports half the size of a dried fig and exports half the size of a dried fig is liable. And from where that exporting is called work? Rebbi Samuel in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: “Moses ordered, they made a public proclamation in the camp,” etc. The people refrained from taking objects out from their houses to give them to the collectors, who also did not take out anything from them to import into the office. Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Aḥa understood it from the following: “do not bring out any load from your houses on the Sabbath day, and perform no work.”

From where that they can be joined one to the other? Rebbi Mana said, the Sages counted them as two and counted them as four. Just as two can be joined one to the other so also four can be joined one to the other. Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Abin: If it can be joined to what is not of its kind, so much more of its own kind. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun said, it is not written “they will be” but “it will be”. This teaches that they cannot be joined one to the other. Ḥizqiah stated: It is not written “skin diseases” but “skin disease”. This teaches that they cannot be joined one to the other.” “He said to him, they could have said ‘starting with eggshell and stronger it is impure’ but should not have said, ‘there are two kinds of appearances of skin disease which are four kinds.’ He answered him, it teaches that they are not one superior to the other.” Could they not be one superior to the other? If you say so, you would have said the darkened one is impure, the very darkened is impure. But the Torah said, behold, the diseased spot darkened. The darkened one is impure but the very much darkened is pure. It follows what Rebbi Ḥanina said, it is comparable to two kings and their two lieutenants. One king is greater then the other king, one lieutenant is greater than the other lieutenant. But the first one’s lieutenant is not greater than the other king. Samuel said, it is comparable to two kings and two of their ambassadors. One king is greater then the other king, one ambassador is greater than the other ambassador. But the first one’s ambassador is not greater than the other king. Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of Rav (Aḥa) [Ada] bar Aḥawa: A king, and his army commander, and the Arghabeṭa and the Head of the Captivity. Rebbi Eleasar ben Rebbi Yose said before Rebbi Yose: The Mishnah implies that one is no greater than the other. If s´et whose very darkened spot is pure has a second color, the shiny spot, whose very darkened spot is impure, certainly will have a second color. He answered him, look at what you are saying. It has a second degree; should it not also have a third? What causes you to say that the very white spot, whose very darkened spot is impure, is the s´et? The kind of s´et is like eggshell. “שְׂאֵ֤ת, this is s´et. בַהֶ֔רֶת, this is the shiny spot. סַפַּ֨חַת֙ is secondary to the shiny spot. [The diseased spot’s] look is deepened, secondary to s´et. What is the etymology of s´et? Elevated. As the shadow looks elevated compared to the sunny spot. What is the etymology of deepened? It is deep, as the sunny spot looks depressed compared to the shadow. What is the etymology of סַפַּ֨חַת֙? Adjunct. As it is said, adjoin me please to one of the priesthoods, etc.” Rebbi Eleazar said, these are the words of Rebbi Ismael and Rebbi Aqiba. But the words of the Sages are that s´et and the shiny spot are one. Sappaḥat is secondary to either one. The Mishnah says so: “Mispaḥat is turned into s´et or strong mispaḥat.”

From where that they can be joined one to the other? Rebbi Mana said, the Sages counted them as two and counted them as four. Just as two can be joined one to the other so also four can be joined one to the other. Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Abin: If it can be joined to what is not of its kind, so much more of its own kind. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun said, it is not written “they will be” but “it will be”. This teaches that they cannot be joined one to the other. Ḥizqiah stated: It is not written “skin diseases” but “skin disease”. This teaches that they cannot be joined one to the other.” “He said to him, they could have said ‘starting with eggshell and stronger it is impure’ but should not have said, ‘there are two kinds of appearances of skin disease which are four kinds.’ He answered him, it teaches that they are not one superior to the other.” Could they not be one superior to the other? If you say so, you would have said the darkened one is impure, the very darkened is impure. But the Torah said, behold, the diseased spot darkened. The darkened one is impure but the very much darkened is pure. It follows what Rebbi Ḥanina said, it is comparable to two kings and their two lieutenants. One king is greater then the other king, one lieutenant is greater than the other lieutenant. But the first one’s lieutenant is not greater than the other king. Samuel said, it is comparable to two kings and two of their ambassadors. One king is greater then the other king, one ambassador is greater than the other ambassador. But the first one’s ambassador is not greater than the other king. Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of Rav (Aḥa) [Ada] bar Aḥawa: A king, and his army commander, and the Arghabeṭa and the Head of the Captivity. Rebbi Eleasar ben Rebbi Yose said before Rebbi Yose: The Mishnah implies that one is no greater than the other. If s´et whose very darkened spot is pure has a second color, the shiny spot, whose very darkened spot is impure, certainly will have a second color. He answered him, look at what you are saying. It has a second degree; should it not also have a third? What causes you to say that the very white spot, whose very darkened spot is impure, is the s´et? The kind of s´et is like eggshell. “שְׂאֵ֤ת, this is s´et. בַהֶ֔רֶת, this is the shiny spot. סַפַּ֨חַת֙ is secondary to the shiny spot. [The diseased spot’s] look is deepened, secondary to s´et. What is the etymology of s´et? Elevated. As the shadow looks elevated compared to the sunny spot. What is the etymology of deepened? It is deep, as the sunny spot looks depressed compared to the shadow. What is the etymology of סַפַּ֨חַת֙? Adjunct. As it is said, adjoin me please to one of the priesthoods, etc.” Rebbi Eleazar said, these are the words of Rebbi Ismael and Rebbi Aqiba. But the words of the Sages are that s´et and the shiny spot are one. Sappaḥat is secondary to either one. The Mishnah says so: “Mispaḥat is turned into s´et or strong mispaḥat.”

“They asked him, could they be brought one for the other,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the words of the Sages [imply] that one may change; the words of Rebbi Simeon [imply] that one may not change. The words of the Sages [imply] that one may change, and you say “could they be brought one for the other”? They objected to him according to his argument. According to your argument, since you say that one may not change, could they be brought one for the other? Rebbi Yose said, since public sacrifices are designated only by use. Rebbi Yudan said, it was stated thus: “For the purpose of the sacrifice for which it is brought it was sanctified from the beginning.”

“They asked him, could they be brought one for the other,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the words of the Sages [imply] that one may change; the words of Rebbi Simeon [imply] that one may not change. The words of the Sages [imply] that one may change, and you say “could they be brought one for the other”? They objected to him according to his argument. According to your argument, since you say that one may not change, could they be brought one for the other? Rebbi Yose said, since public sacrifices are designated only by use. Rebbi Yudan said, it was stated thus: “For the purpose of the sacrifice for which it is brought it was sanctified from the beginning.”

Rebbi Joḥanan said, these are the words of Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah, Rebbi Ismael, and Rebbi Aqiba. But the Sages say that the scapegoat pardons. How does it pardon? Rebbi Ze`ira said, by and by. Rebbi Ḥanania said, at the end. What is between them? If somebody died in-between. In the opinion of Rebbi Ze`ira, he already was pardoned. In the opinion of Rebbi Ḥanina, he was not pardoned. Rebbi Ze`ira said, a baraita supports Rebbi Ḥanina: There is strength in the he-goat which is not in the Day of Atonement, and in the Day of Atonement which is not in the he-goat: The Day of Atonement pardons without a he-goat, but the he-goat does not atone without the Day of Atonement. The he-goat pardons immediately but the Day of Atonement only at nightfall. Rebbi Huna said, the question was raised before Rebbi Jeremiah and he said, explain it if they intended to bring another he-goat but they did not bring it. Rebbi Yose said, but does the Holy One, praise to Him, not see into the future? Then He should pardon immediately.

HALAKHAH: “An oath that I shall not drink,” etc. In this case, Rebbi Simeon declares not liable. Rebbi Simeon follows his own opinion, as we have stated there: “How much does he have to eat from ṭevel to be liable? Rebbi Simeon says, anything; but the Sages say, the volume of an olive. Rebbi Simeon told them, do you not agree that one who eats an ant is liable? They told him, because it is a creature. He answered them, also a grain of wheat is a creature.” In Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion, why does Rebbi Simeon declare not liable? Rebbi Ze`ira said, Rebbi Simeon follows his own opinion. It was stated in the name of Rebbi Simeon: You shall deprive yourselves, of what is permitted to you, not of what is forbidden to you.

MISHNAH: An oath about testimony applies to men but not to women, to unrelated persons but not to relatives, to qualified but not to disqualified ones; it applies only to those admitted to testify, in court and out of court, and by the person’s own words. By the words of others they only become liable if they renege before a court, the words of Rebbi Meїr. But the Sages say, whether by the person’s own words or by the words of others they only become liable if they renege before a court. They are liable both for intentional [violation of the] oath and for erroneous one, and for intentional [refusal of] testimony, but one is not liable unintentionally. What is one liable for if intentional? A variable value sacrifice.

Or like the following. “One accepts the witnesses’ testimony only if they saw it together. Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥa says, even if they saw it one after the other.” Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac in the name of Rav Isaac who said in the name of Rav: The Sages agree with Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥa with regard to witnesses of firstlings and witnesses of squatters’ rights. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah: the same holds for testimony regarding signs. In that case, it is obvious if one says, I saw two hairs on his back and one says, I saw one hair on his back and the other says, I saw one hair on his belly, that is nothing; so much more his back and his back. Two are saying, we saw one hair on his back; and one is saying, I saw one hair on his belly. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun and Rebbi Hoshaia ben Rebbi Shammai, one said, it is invalid, but the other said, it is valid. He who says it is invalid considers him as one who testifies to half a sign. He who says it is valid? I say, maybe it was rubbed off. One says, I saw two hairs on his back; and one says, I saw two on his belly. Rebbi Abba said, everybody agrees that this is valid. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, everybody agrees that this is invalid [testimony]. Rebbi Yose says, this is in disagreement. Rebbi Yudan said, this is in disagreement. Rebbi Yose said to Rebbi Ḥaggai, does not Rebbi Yudan follow my opinion? He answered, I am disagreeing with his teacher, so much more with him. Rebbi Mana said, Rebbi Ḥaggai was correct. If a document was signed by four seals, if one person (permitted) two, and another (questioned) the other two, and the document was attacked, is that worth anything? Does not every single signature need two witnesses? And here, every single sign needs two witnesses. Rebbi Ḥanina learns it from the years of squatting rights. If one [witness] testified that he ate from the property the first, second, and third years and another testified that he ate it the fourth and fifth years, is that worth anything? Does not every single year need two witnesses? And here, every single sign needs two witnesses.

MISHNAH: “I put an oath upon you, I command you, I bind you,” these are liable. “By Heaven and Earth,” they are not liable. “By א-ד, by י-ה, by the Almighty, by Sabaoth, by the Gracious and Merciful, by the Forbearing and Most Benevolent,” and all substitute names, they are liable. One who curses by any of these is liable, the words of Rebbi Meїr; but the Sages declare him not liable. One who curses his father or mother by any of these is liable, the words of Rebbi Meїr; but the Sages declare him not liable. One who curses himself or another person by any of these violates a prohibition. “May God punish you, so may God punish you,” this is the imprecation mentioned in the Torah. “May He not punish you, may He bless you, may He do well with you,” Rebbi Meїr declares liable but Rebbi Jehudah declares not liable.

MISHNAH: “I put an oath upon you, I command you, I bind you,” these are liable. “By Heaven and Earth,” they are not liable. “By א-ד, by י-ה, by the Almighty, by Sabaoth, by the Gracious and Merciful, by the Forbearing and Most Benevolent,” and all substitute names, they are liable. One who curses by any of these is liable, the words of Rebbi Meїr; but the Sages declare him not liable. One who curses his father or mother by any of these is liable, the words of Rebbi Meїr; but the Sages declare him not liable. One who curses himself or another person by any of these violates a prohibition. “May God punish you, so may God punish you,” this is the imprecation mentioned in the Torah. “May He not punish you, may He bless you, may He do well with you,” Rebbi Meїr declares liable but Rebbi Jehudah declares not liable.