sages

Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai, as our Mishnah. But some say, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, so is our Mishnah: “Rebbi Meïr declares liable but Rebbi Jehudah declares not liable.” Rebbi Meїr follows his own opinion and Rebbi Jehudah follows his own opinion, as we have stated: “If he cursed them by a substitute name, Rebbi Meїr declares him guilty but the Sages free him from prosecution.”

MISHNAH: An oath about a deposit applies to men and women, unrelated persons and relatives, qualified and disqualified persons, before a court or out of court, from his own mouth. From the mouth of another he is liable only if he denies in court, the words of Rebbi Meїr. But the Sages say, whether by his own mouth or the mouth of others, from the moment that he denies, he is liable. He is liable for intent about the oath, or error about it with intent about the deposit, but he is not liable for error about the latter. What is he liable for in case of intentional violation? A reparation offering in the value of two Šeqalim.

HALAKHAH: “An oath about a deposit,” etc. It was stated: Is an oath in his own formulation of an oath of testimony like an imprecation; in his own words is an oath about a deposit like an imprecation? Rebbi Yose said, since it is written “a person, a person”, everything is here and everything is there. Rebbi Mana said, an imprecation made in court is the topic of disagreement between Rebbi Meїr and the Sages. He lied to his fellow man, if his confession was eliminated by the oath. It excludes one who lied to one of partners; it excludes one who lied where there are witnesses and a document. Rebbi Yose said, this implies that if two people took a loan from one person, even if they did not write “we are responsible and warrantors for one another”, they are responsible and warrantors for one another; but one does not act on this. If two made a joint deposit and one came to retrieve his property, one does not listen to him. Should he not be treated as denying his part and be liable? If one made a deposit with two people. If one denied it, he is liable. If the other denied it, he is liable. If the deposit was worth one peruṭa, does this not result in each of them bringing a sacrifice for half a peruṭa? What here? If one would swear, and swear, and swear, would he not bring a sacrifice for half a peruṭa? There, each oath refers to a peruṭa’s worth. Here no oath refers to a peruṭa’s worth.

Rebbi Joḥanan said: The words of Rebbi Eleazar, only if he mentioned “oath” at the start and at the end. The words of the Sages, if he mentioned “oath” at the start but not at the end. Or if he mentioned it at the end but not at the start in the opinion of the rabbis he brings a sacrifice for each single one, in Rebbi Eleazar’s opinion he brings one sacrifice for everything. If he mentions “oath” at the start but did not mention it at the end, does the oath fall on the middle ones? Come and see: If he had mentioned it at the start and the end, did he mention it for the middle ones? But you are saying that it is valid; so here it is valid.

HALAKHAH: “You raped or seduced my daughter,” etc. Rebbi Ze`ira, Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The words of Rebbi Simeon [imply that] the main claim is for the fine, which is not so for the words of the Sages. Rebbi Illa said, the words of Rebbi Simeon if he claims the fine, shame and diminution; the words of the Sages if he claims shame, diminution, and fine. The rabbis say, the words of Rebbi Simeon if he advances three claims; the words of the Sages if he advances one claim. Rebbi Ze`ira asked before Rebbi Yasa, did you hear explicitly from Rebbi Joḥanan, or from his word? Rebbi Yasa said, for he is of the rabbis’ opinion. Rebbi Mana said, even if he is of Rebbi Illa’s opinion, the words of Rebbi Simeon if he advances one claim; the words of the Sages if he advances three claims. “Not only matters for which he has to pay the capital, from where double payment, quadruple and quintuple payment, the rapist, and the seducer, and the calumniator? The verse says, everything about which one would swear falsely.” Is the calumniator’s not a fine? Rebbi Jeremiah says, this is Rebbi Simeon’s who said, all depends on the collection.

HALAKHAH: “You raped or seduced my daughter,” etc. Rebbi Ze`ira, Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The words of Rebbi Simeon [imply that] the main claim is for the fine, which is not so for the words of the Sages. Rebbi Illa said, the words of Rebbi Simeon if he claims the fine, shame and diminution; the words of the Sages if he claims shame, diminution, and fine. The rabbis say, the words of Rebbi Simeon if he advances three claims; the words of the Sages if he advances one claim. Rebbi Ze`ira asked before Rebbi Yasa, did you hear explicitly from Rebbi Joḥanan, or from his word? Rebbi Yasa said, for he is of the rabbis’ opinion. Rebbi Mana said, even if he is of Rebbi Illa’s opinion, the words of Rebbi Simeon if he advances one claim; the words of the Sages if he advances three claims. “Not only matters for which he has to pay the capital, from where double payment, quadruple and quintuple payment, the rapist, and the seducer, and the calumniator? The verse says, everything about which one would swear falsely.” Is the calumniator’s not a fine? Rebbi Jeremiah says, this is Rebbi Simeon’s who said, all depends on the collection.

HALAKHAH: “You raped or seduced my daughter,” etc. Rebbi Ze`ira, Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The words of Rebbi Simeon [imply that] the main claim is for the fine, which is not so for the words of the Sages. Rebbi Illa said, the words of Rebbi Simeon if he claims the fine, shame and diminution; the words of the Sages if he claims shame, diminution, and fine. The rabbis say, the words of Rebbi Simeon if he advances three claims; the words of the Sages if he advances one claim. Rebbi Ze`ira asked before Rebbi Yasa, did you hear explicitly from Rebbi Joḥanan, or from his word? Rebbi Yasa said, for he is of the rabbis’ opinion. Rebbi Mana said, even if he is of Rebbi Illa’s opinion, the words of Rebbi Simeon if he advances one claim; the words of the Sages if he advances three claims. “Not only matters for which he has to pay the capital, from where double payment, quadruple and quintuple payment, the rapist, and the seducer, and the calumniator? The verse says, everything about which one would swear falsely.” Is the calumniator’s not a fine? Rebbi Jeremiah says, this is Rebbi Simeon’s who said, all depends on the collection.

HALAKHAH: “You raped or seduced my daughter,” etc. Rebbi Ze`ira, Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The words of Rebbi Simeon [imply that] the main claim is for the fine, which is not so for the words of the Sages. Rebbi Illa said, the words of Rebbi Simeon if he claims the fine, shame and diminution; the words of the Sages if he claims shame, diminution, and fine. The rabbis say, the words of Rebbi Simeon if he advances three claims; the words of the Sages if he advances one claim. Rebbi Ze`ira asked before Rebbi Yasa, did you hear explicitly from Rebbi Joḥanan, or from his word? Rebbi Yasa said, for he is of the rabbis’ opinion. Rebbi Mana said, even if he is of Rebbi Illa’s opinion, the words of Rebbi Simeon if he advances one claim; the words of the Sages if he advances three claims. “Not only matters for which he has to pay the capital, from where double payment, quadruple and quintuple payment, the rapist, and the seducer, and the calumniator? The verse says, everything about which one would swear falsely.” Is the calumniator’s not a fine? Rebbi Jeremiah says, this is Rebbi Simeon’s who said, all depends on the collection.

MISHNAH: “You are holding for me a kor of grain;” “I am holding for you only a letek of legumes;” he is not liable. “You are holding for me a kor of produce;” “I am holding for you only a letek of legumes;” he is liable since legumes are subsumed under produce. If one sued for wheat and the other acknowledged barley, he is not liable, but Rebbi Simeon declares him liable. Somebody who sued for amphoras of oil and the other admitted to pitchers, Admon says since he admitted of the kind of the claim he has to swear. But the Sages say, the admission is not of the kind of the claim. Rabban Gamliel said, I see the words of Admon. If somebody sued for both vessels and real estate; if [the other] admitted the vessels but denied the real estate, or the real estate and denied the vessels, he is not liable. If he admitted part of the real estate he is not liable. Part of the vessels he is liable since non-guaranteed property obligates guaranteed property to be sworn about.

HALAKHAH: “You are holding for me a kor of grain;” etc. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Our Mishnah if he sued him for wheat and he admitted barley; but if he sued him for two kinds and he admitted one of them, everybody agrees that he is not liable. Rebbi Abbahu said about that of Rebbi Immi: Why did we state, “Rabban Gamliel declares him liable”? It comes to inform you of the power of Rabban Gamliel, how far he declares liable. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Not only if he claimed wheat and he admitted barley to him, but if he claimed two kinds and he admitted one of them, the words of the Sages are that he is not liable. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it is only if he claimed two kinds and he admitted one of them, but if he sued for wheat and he admitted barley according to everybody he is liable. Following Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: A person went to court before Rav: When he claimed from another wheat, barley, and spelt. Rav told him, wait until he charged you with anything he has to charge, and in the end you will swear one oath about everything. Rebbi Abbahu said, so argued Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish against Rebbi Joḥanan: In your opinion, since you say that if he claimed two kinds and he admitted one of them, according to the Sages he is not liable, did we not state “if he claimed vessels and real estate; if he admitted the vessels and denied the real estate, the real estate and denied the vessels”? For vessels about vessels he is liable, not so much more for vessels and real estate? He answered him, to transfer an oath to him by the following Mishnah, “since guaranteed property obligates non-guaranteed property to be sworn about.” This does not even disagree with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. But did we not state: “Somebody who sued for amphoras of oil and he admitted to vessels”? How do we hold? If he sued him for vessels and oil, and he admitted one of them, everybody agrees that this refers to the claim. But if he sued him for vessels and he did (not) admit oil, everybody agrees that what he admitted did not refer to the claim. Rebbi Ze`ira and Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Samuel: If he sued for vessels full of oil, one said vessels but not oil, the other said oil but not vessels. (Thrown) vessels but not oil. Oil but not vessels? Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Abin formulates it as oil buckets. Can one not ask him? If he was paralyzed.

HALAKHAH: “You are holding for me a kor of grain;” etc. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Our Mishnah if he sued him for wheat and he admitted barley; but if he sued him for two kinds and he admitted one of them, everybody agrees that he is not liable. Rebbi Abbahu said about that of Rebbi Immi: Why did we state, “Rabban Gamliel declares him liable”? It comes to inform you of the power of Rabban Gamliel, how far he declares liable. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Not only if he claimed wheat and he admitted barley to him, but if he claimed two kinds and he admitted one of them, the words of the Sages are that he is not liable. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it is only if he claimed two kinds and he admitted one of them, but if he sued for wheat and he admitted barley according to everybody he is liable. Following Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: A person went to court before Rav: When he claimed from another wheat, barley, and spelt. Rav told him, wait until he charged you with anything he has to charge, and in the end you will swear one oath about everything. Rebbi Abbahu said, so argued Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish against Rebbi Joḥanan: In your opinion, since you say that if he claimed two kinds and he admitted one of them, according to the Sages he is not liable, did we not state “if he claimed vessels and real estate; if he admitted the vessels and denied the real estate, the real estate and denied the vessels”? For vessels about vessels he is liable, not so much more for vessels and real estate? He answered him, to transfer an oath to him by the following Mishnah, “since guaranteed property obligates non-guaranteed property to be sworn about.” This does not even disagree with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. But did we not state: “Somebody who sued for amphoras of oil and he admitted to vessels”? How do we hold? If he sued him for vessels and oil, and he admitted one of them, everybody agrees that this refers to the claim. But if he sued him for vessels and he did (not) admit oil, everybody agrees that what he admitted did not refer to the claim. Rebbi Ze`ira and Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Samuel: If he sued for vessels full of oil, one said vessels but not oil, the other said oil but not vessels. (Thrown) vessels but not oil. Oil but not vessels? Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Abin formulates it as oil buckets. Can one not ask him? If he was paralyzed.

MISHNAH: About the following one does not swear: slaves, and documents, and real estate, and gifts to the Temple. Not about double restitution, nor quadruple or quintuple; the unpaid trustee does not swear, the paid trustee does not pay. Rebbi Simeon says, one swears about things for which he is responsible if they be alienated, but does not swear if he is not responsible if they be alienated. Rebbi Meїr says, there are things which are like real estate and they are not like real estate but the Sages do not agree with him. How is this? “Ten bearing vines did I hand over to you,” but the other says, “they are only five.” Rebbi Meїr declares liable for an oath but the Sages say, anything connected to the ground is like ground.

MISHNAH: About the following one does not swear: slaves, and documents, and real estate, and gifts to the Temple. Not about double restitution, nor quadruple or quintuple; the unpaid trustee does not swear, the paid trustee does not pay. Rebbi Simeon says, one swears about things for which he is responsible if they be alienated, but does not swear if he is not responsible if they be alienated. Rebbi Meїr says, there are things which are like real estate and they are not like real estate but the Sages do not agree with him. How is this? “Ten bearing vines did I hand over to you,” but the other says, “they are only five.” Rebbi Meїr declares liable for an oath but the Sages say, anything connected to the ground is like ground.

MISHNAH: Within three days before Gentile holidays one is forbidden to trade with them, to lend them and to borrow from them, to give them loans and to ask them for loans, to pay debts to them and to accept payment from them. Rebbi Jehudah says, one may accept payment from them because this hurts him. They told him, even though it hurts him now he will enjoy it later. Rebbi Ismael says, three days before and three days afterwards are forbidden but the Sages say, before their holidays it is forbidden, after their holidays it is permitted.

MISHNAH: The following are the holidays of the Gentiles: Calendae, Saturnalia, and Cratesis, and the king’s birthday, and birthday, and the day of death, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, any death for which there is burning is idolatrous; if there is no burning it is not idolatrous.

MISHNAH: Outside a town with pagan worship it is permitted. If the pagan worship was outside, inside is permitted. May one go there? If the road was dedicated to this place it is forbidden, but if one could go there also to another place it is permitted. If a town has pagan worship and there were stores decorated and not decorated; there was a case in Bet Shean and the Sages said that the decorated ones are forbidden, the not decorated ones are permitted.

If he transgressed and sold one fines him. Just as one fines for practice so one fines for custom. From where that one fines for custom? A person sold his camel to an Aramean. The case came before Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish who fined him double to make him take back the camel. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, they fined the broker and called him son who brokers to Arameans. Does Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish follow Rebbi Jehudah? As it was stated in the name of Rebbi Jehuda: “If somebody buys an animal from a Gentile and it gave birth to a firstling, he buys it up to its worth and gives half of its worth to a Cohen. If it was given to him as contractor, he has to pay for up to ten times its worth and gives all of its worth to the Cohen. But the Sages say, since the finger of the Gentile in involved it is no longer liable as firstling.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is more than Rebbi Jehudah. What Rebbi Jehudah said because of the practice of firstlings; but what Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said because of practice regarding a large animal.

“Ben Bathyra permits horses.” Ben Bathyra said this only about a male horse because it kills its owner in war. Some say, because it runs after females, and some say, because it stands still to urinate. What is between them? A gelding. He who says because it runs after females, it does not run. He who says because it stands still to urinate, this one also stands still to urinate. [Rebbi Aḥa in the name of] Rebbi Tanḥum bar Ḥiyya: If it gets old he binds it to the grindstone. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Huna: Ben Bathyra and Rebbi Nathan both said the same, as it was stated: “If he carried out domestic animals, wild animals, or birds, whether alive or dead, he is liable. Rebbi Nathan says, dead he is liable, alive he is not liable.” The rabbis hold that he is liable for a purification sacrifice and they answer him so? They answer following his own argument. Following your argument, since you are saying because of rabbinic Sabbath prohibition, also we hold that if it gets old he binds it to the grindstone. Rebbi says, I am saying that it is forbidden for two reasons, as a weapon and as a large animal. It was stated so: A large wild animal is like a (small) [large] domestic animal. Who stated this? Rebbi. The words of the Sages: Rebbi Bisna, Rebbi Ḥanan bar Abba in the name of Rav: A wild animal is like a (large) [small] domestic animal.

HALAKHAH: “One does not sell them bears and lions,” etc. Therefore something which does not present a danger to the public one may sell to them. Our Mishnah follows Rebbi. As it was stated: “One who sees snake charmers and conjurers, muqion, mupion, mulion, milarin, milaria, sigillarin, sigillaria, this is forbidden because of ‘seat of the scoffers,’ as it is said, in the seat of scoffers he did not sit. All this leads to neglect of the Torah, as it is said, but in the teachings of the Eternal is his desire. Going to the theater is forbidden as pagan worship, the words of Rebbi Meïr, but the Sages say, when they present offerings it is forbidden because of pagan worship, otherwise it only is forbidden because of ‘seat of scoffers.’ One who goes to the theater to shout; if it is for a public need it is permitted, if to ingratiate himself it is forbidden. One who sits in the stadium is a spiller of blood. Rebbi Nathan permits because of two reasons, because he can shout and save lives, and he can testify for a woman that she can remarry.”

“When he was leaving Akzib there came a person to ask about his vow. He asked his travel companion, would you say that we drank a quartarius of Italian wine? He said to him, yes. He told the person who asked, walk with us until we dissipate our wine. When they came to the Tyrian Ladder Rabban Gamliel dismounted, covered himself, sat down, and dissolved his vow. From his words we learned that a quartarius of wine intoxicates and that travelling dissipates the wine. Also that one does not ask about vows and gives no instruction after drinking wine. Also one does not dissolve vows while walking but covered and sitting.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, so he opened for him: Some blurt out unthinkingly like sword piercing etc. For example, one who made a vow not [to eat] a loaf. Woe if he eats, woe if he does not eat. If he eats he violates his vow. If he does not eat he sins against himself. What should he do? He should go to the Sages who will dissolve his vow as is written, but the sayings of the Sages are healing.

“When he was leaving Akzib there came a person to ask about his vow. He asked his travel companion, would you say that we drank a quartarius of Italian wine? He said to him, yes. He told the person who asked, walk with us until we dissipate our wine. When they came to the Tyrian Ladder Rabban Gamliel dismounted, covered himself, sat down, and dissolved his vow. From his words we learned that a quartarius of wine intoxicates and that travelling dissipates the wine. Also that one does not ask about vows and gives no instruction after drinking wine. Also one does not dissolve vows while walking but covered and sitting.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, so he opened for him: Some blurt out unthinkingly like sword piercing etc. For example, one who made a vow not [to eat] a loaf. Woe if he eats, woe if he does not eat. If he eats he violates his vow. If he does not eat he sins against himself. What should he do? He should go to the Sages who will dissolve his vow as is written, but the sayings of the Sages are healing.

MISHNAH: One may be healed from the healing of property but not healing of persons. One may not be shaved from them anywhere, the words of Rebbi Meïr; but the Sages say it is permitted in the public domain but not in private.

It happened that Eleazar ben Dama was bitten by a snake and Jacob from Kefar-Sama came to heal him (,and told him, I shall speak to you) in the name of Jesus ben Pandera. Rebbi Ismael said to him, Ben Dama you are not allowed. He told him, I shall bring a proof that he can heal me. He could not bring proof before he died. Rebbi Ismael said to him, you are blessed, ben Dama, that you left this world in peace and did not tear down the fences of the Sages, (to confirm) as it is written, he who tears down a fence will be bitten by a snake. But did not a snake bite him? But that it will not bite him in the Future World. What could he have said? Which a person should do and live by them.

It was stated: One does not buy from a Gentile who sells Torah scrolls, phylacteries, and mezuzzot. “It happened that a Gentile in Sidon was selling phylacteries, Torah scrolls, and mezuzzot. The case came before the Sages who ruled that one might buy from him.” Rebbi Samuel ben Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina: This was a convert who returned to his origin.

“And Hadrianic pottery.” Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah: does practice follow Rebbi Meïr? As it was stated, “Hadrianic pottery is prohibited and its prohibition is of usufruct, the words of Rebbi Meïr, but the Sages say, its prohibition is not of usufruct.” Rebbi Jeremiah asked before Rebbi Ze‘ira: what is the status of the cloth about which we stated here? He was offended by this and told him, even for him who permits there, here it is forbidden. There, the prohibition is not visible, here the prohibition is visible. May one use it to support the legs of a couch? Rebbi Eleazar says it is permitted, Rebbi Joḥanan says it is forbidden.

MISHNAH: Gentiles’ wine skins and jugs containing an Israel’s wine are forbidden and their prohibition is one of usufruct, the words of Rebbi Meïr; but the Sages say that their prohibition is not one of usufruct.

MISHNAH: Gentiles’ grape kernels and skins are forbidden and the prohibition is of usufruct, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, moist they are forbidden, dry permitted.

MISHNAH: Fish sauce, cheese, and theriac of Gentiles are forbidden and the prohibition is of usufruct, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, theitr prohibition is not of usufruct.

Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: At first they were saying, one curdles neither with the stomach content of the carcass nor with the stomach contents of the Gentile. They changed to say, one curdles with the stomach content of the carcass but not with the stomach contents of the Gentile. Rebbi Abba bar Zavda, Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac asked: Does this negate the declaration of Rebbi Eliezer, since Rebbi Eliezer said, the thoughts of the Non-Jew are about pagan worship? Rebbi (Assi) [Yasa] came in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Originally, they said, one does curdle [neither] with carcass stomach contents nor with Gentile’s stomach contents. They changed to say, one does curdle with carcass stomach contents and with Gentile’s stomach contents. The language of a baraita supports Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: Stomach contents of a Gentile or a carcass is forbidden following the original teaching. (The stomach contents of a torn animal which suckled from a qualified one are permitted following the later teaching; the stomach contents of a qualified animal which suckled from a torn one are forbidden following the later teaching.) [The stomach contents of a qualified animal which suckled from a torn one are forbidden following the former teaching, and the stomach contents of a torn animal which suckled from a qualified one are permitted following the later teaching.] And even if the House of Shammai would argue like the House of Hillel in the first teaching, an egg is a growth of its body; the contents of the stomach come from the outside. It parallels what Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It happened to the son[s] of (Rebbi) Jehudah ben Shamua that wolves tore more than 300 of their flock. The case came before the Sages who permitted their stomach contents. They said, an egg is a growth of its body; the contents of the stomach come from the outside.

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, 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 Ḥanina in the name of Rebbi Idi 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 seals to a province. About one of them he wrote, if he does not show you my seal and σημαντήριον, do not believe him. About the other he wrote, 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.

MISHNAH: All statues are prohibited because they are worshipped once a year, the words of Rebbi Meïr, but the Sages say, prohibited are only those in whose hand is a rod, or a bird, or a globe. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, any in whose hand is anything.

“But the Sages say, prohibited are only those in whose hand is a rod, or a bird, or a globe.” A rod by which he rules the world. A bird, my hand reaches to the riches of people as to a bird’s nest. A globe, for the world is globe-shaped.

HALAKHAH: “If one’s house was connected to a house of pagan worship,” etc. There is written abomination about the menstruating women, abomination about vermin, abomination about idolatry. About the menstruating woman, for anybody who would commit any of these abominations. About vermin, do not eat any abomination. About idolatry, and do not bring any abomination into your house. But I do not know for which purpose it was compared. Rebbi Aqiba says, it was compared to abomination regarding the menstruating woman. As the menstruating woman imparts impurity by load, also idolatry imparts impurity by load. Or since the menstruating woman imparts impurity through a cover stone, does idolatry impart impurity through a cover stone? Rebbi Zeriqa in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina, but some say in the name of Rav Ḥisda: Rebbi Aqiba agrees with the Sages that idolatry does not impart impurity through a cover stone. But the rabbis say it was compared to abominations of vermin. As vermin imparts impurity by motion, so also idolatry imparts impurity by motion. Or as vermin in the size of a lentil imparts impurity does also idolatry in the size of a lentil impart impurity? Rebbi Zeˋira, Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman, Rebbi Eleazar, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They were yoked to Baal Peor and ate sacrifices to the dead. As the dead in the size of an olive impart impurity so idolatry in the size of an olive imparts impurity. Or since a corpse imparts impurity once a person puts his finger tips in, could I think that idolatry imparts once a person puts his finger tips in? Tearing down, tearing down one infers from the leprous house. Since in a leprous house when he entered with his head and most of his body, so idolatry when he entered with his head and most of his body. Rebbi Ḥanina said, this means that the impurity of idolatry is not consistent. For otherwise, why does one compare if for the facile [impurity] and does not compare for the strict? Rebbi Mana said, it is consistent. Why was it compared to a corpse and to vermin? To inform in both cases about the facile [impurity] attached to it. This is for a broken idol. But an entire one even in the most minute size, as Rebbi Yose hen Rebbi Abun said, Rav Ḥama bar Gorion in the name of Rav: Baal was the penis gland in the form of a bean. What is the reason? They selected the Baal of circumcision as god.

HALAKHAH: What is an Ashera? Rav Ḥisda said, They disagree in the indeterminate case. Where do we hold? If it is certain that they worship both idol and tree, everybody agrees that it is forbidden. But if it is certain that they worship the idol and do not worship the tree, everybody agrees that it is permitted. But where do we hold? If it is indeterminate. Rebbi Simeon says, normally they worship both idol and tree; but the rabbis say, normally they worship the idol but do not worship the tree. And it is difficult. Rebbi Simeon disagrees with the Sages and acts in their sense!

MISHNAH: Rebbi Ismael said, three stones next to one another and next to a Mercury are forbidden, but two are permitted. But the Sages say, what is seen with it is forbidden, what is not seen with it is permitted.

“But the Sages say, what is seen with it is forbidden, what is not seen with it is permitted.” (What is seen with it, its body, is forbidden; what is not seen with it is permitted.) What is seen with it is its body, what is not seen with it is not its body. Does this not disagree with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish since Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, an idol which was broken is permitted? And so we are thinking to say if in the future he can restore it whole it is permitted according to everybody. Does this not disagree with Rebbi Joḥanan, as Rebbi Joḥanan said, an idol which was broken is forbidden? And so we are thinking to say if in the future he cannot restore it whole it is permitted according to everybody.

MISHNAH: How does one annul it? If he cut off the top of its earlobe, the tip of its nose, the tip of its finger. If he disfigured it even though nothing is missing, he annulled it. If he spat in its face, urinated before it, dragged it, threw excrement on it, this is not annulled. If he sold or mortgaged it, Rebbi says it is annulled, but the Sages say it is not annulled.

MISHNAH: One who makes a Non-Jew’s wine in purity and leaves it in his domain, in a house open to the public domain in a city where there are Gentiles and Jews it is permitted, in a city where all are Gentiles it is forbidden unless he install there a watchman. But the watchman does not have to sit there and watch; even if he leaves and reenters it is permitted. Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says, all Gentiles’ domains are the same. One who makes a Non-Jew’s wine in purity and leaves it in his domain, if this one writes to him that I received the money, it is permitted. But if the Jew wants to remove it and he does not let him do it before he paid him his money, this was a case in Bet Shean and the Sages forbade.

MISHNAH: If libation wine fell on grapes, one should wash it off and they are permitted; but if they were split they are forbidden. If happened that Boetius ben Zenon brought dried figs in a boat when amphoras of libation wine broke over them. The case came before the Sages and they permitted. This is the principle: Anything where the taste improves the use is forbidden; anything where the taste does not improve its use is permitted, such as vinegar on broken beans.

How do you treat them? Like wine in wine or wine in a dish? If you treat it like wine in a dish, according to everybody it is forbidden. If you treat it like wine in wine, there is the disagreement between Rebbi Meїr and the Sages.

As we have stated. “Everything that can be smelled is forbidden, whether it improves or spoils, the words of Rebbi Meїr. But the Sages say, if it improves it is forbidden, if it spoils it is permitted,” as for example vinegar which fell into broken beans. Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It is Rebbi Meïr’s, as we have stated there: “If barley grains fell into a cistern of water, even though they made it stink, [the water] is permitted.” About this Mishnah, Rebbi Meïr says it is in dispute, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: everybody’s opinion. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said this tradition so: In the opinion of Rebbi Meïr it is in dispute, in the opinions of Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish it is everybody’s opinion.

HALAKHAH: “If libation wine fell into a cistern,” etc. Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of ben Bathyra: If libation wine fell into a cistern, all of it shall be sold to a Gentile except for the value of libation wine. Rebbi Samuel bar Nathan in the name of Rebbi Ḥama: practice follows Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. Rebbi Yasa said, one of the rabbis came out from the house of assembly and said, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagree. One said, practice follows Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel, and one said, practice does not follow Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel, but Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel agrees that as wine for cooking it is forbidden. Rebbi Bun in the name of Rav: The Sages agree with Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel if it was an amphora among amphoras that all of it shall be sold to a Gentile except for the value of libation wine. Rebbi Ze`ira said before Rebbi Immi: Before this was said did we not know that it was so? Was it said that the Sages agree with Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel, or perhaps was only said that Rabban Gamliel agrees with the Sages? Rebbi Yudan said, Rebbi Ze`ira knew that it was so, but he is like a person who hears something and objects to it.

HALAKHAH: “If libation wine fell into a cistern,” etc. Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of ben Bathyra: If libation wine fell into a cistern, all of it shall be sold to a Gentile except for the value of libation wine. Rebbi Samuel bar Nathan in the name of Rebbi Ḥama: practice follows Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. Rebbi Yasa said, one of the rabbis came out from the house of assembly and said, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagree. One said, practice follows Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel, and one said, practice does not follow Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel, but Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel agrees that as wine for cooking it is forbidden. Rebbi Bun in the name of Rav: The Sages agree with Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel if it was an amphora among amphoras that all of it shall be sold to a Gentile except for the value of libation wine. Rebbi Ze`ira said before Rebbi Immi: Before this was said did we not know that it was so? Was it said that the Sages agree with Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel, or perhaps was only said that Rabban Gamliel agrees with the Sages? Rebbi Yudan said, Rebbi Ze`ira knew that it was so, but he is like a person who hears something and objects to it.

HALAKHAH: “If libation wine fell into a cistern,” etc. Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of ben Bathyra: If libation wine fell into a cistern, all of it shall be sold to a Gentile except for the value of libation wine. Rebbi Samuel bar Nathan in the name of Rebbi Ḥama: practice follows Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. Rebbi Yasa said, one of the rabbis came out from the house of assembly and said, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagree. One said, practice follows Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel, and one said, practice does not follow Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel, but Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel agrees that as wine for cooking it is forbidden. Rebbi Bun in the name of Rav: The Sages agree with Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel if it was an amphora among amphoras that all of it shall be sold to a Gentile except for the value of libation wine. Rebbi Ze`ira said before Rebbi Immi: Before this was said did we not know that it was so? Was it said that the Sages agree with Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel, or perhaps was only said that Rabban Gamliel agrees with the Sages? Rebbi Yudan said, Rebbi Ze`ira knew that it was so, but he is like a person who hears something and objects to it.

MISHNAH: A wine press of stone which a Gentile had pitched one has to wipe dry and it is pure. But one of wood, Rebbi said he shall wipe it dry but the Sages say he must remove the pitch. And one of pottery, even if he removed the pitch, remains forbidden.

HALAKHAH: “A wine press of stone which a Gentile had pitched,” etc. Our Mishnah is Rebbi’s. “One of wood, Rebbi said he shall wipe it dry but the Sages say he must remove the pitch.” For pottery it is not following Rebbi, as it was stated: A Gentile’s wine-press, bucket, and funnel, Rebbi permits but the Sa (say). Rebbi agrees that pitchers are forbidden. Why are these forbidden and those permitted? These one fills with it, the others one does not fill with it. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: practice follows Rebbi. If a Gentile pitched a papyrus vessel. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Samuel, practice follows Rebbi. It is the disagreement of Rebbi and the Sages, as we have stated: “If somebody’s wine-press was impure and he wants to purify it, the brooms, the planks, and the lentil one rubs dry and they are pure. The wicker-work of wood splinters, or of hemp, or of wood, or of bark, of threads, of bast, one lets age a full twelve months; Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, from one olive pressing to the next, from one wine pressing to the next. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, if he wants to purify it immediately, he puts it for a period in a pipe where water streams, or in a brook whose water flows. Just as one wipes dry for purity so one wipes dry for libation wine.” How much is a period? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, half a day or half a night. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, either a day or a night. Do they disagree? But one when day and night are equal, the other when day and night are unequal.

HALAKHAH: “A wine press of stone which a Gentile had pitched,” etc. Our Mishnah is Rebbi’s. “One of wood, Rebbi said he shall wipe it dry but the Sages say he must remove the pitch.” For pottery it is not following Rebbi, as it was stated: A Gentile’s wine-press, bucket, and funnel, Rebbi permits but the Sa (say). Rebbi agrees that pitchers are forbidden. Why are these forbidden and those permitted? These one fills with it, the others one does not fill with it. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: practice follows Rebbi. If a Gentile pitched a papyrus vessel. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Samuel, practice follows Rebbi. It is the disagreement of Rebbi and the Sages, as we have stated: “If somebody’s wine-press was impure and he wants to purify it, the brooms, the planks, and the lentil one rubs dry and they are pure. The wicker-work of wood splinters, or of hemp, or of wood, or of bark, of threads, of bast, one lets age a full twelve months; Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, from one olive pressing to the next, from one wine pressing to the next. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, if he wants to purify it immediately, he puts it for a period in a pipe where water streams, or in a brook whose water flows. Just as one wipes dry for purity so one wipes dry for libation wine.” How much is a period? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, half a day or half a night. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, either a day or a night. Do they disagree? But one when day and night are equal, the other when day and night are unequal.

MISHNAH: “We testify against this man that he owes another 1’000 denars payable within 30 days” but he says, within ten years. One estimates how much a person would be willing to pay to have 1’000 denars at his disposal to return them after ten years instead of returning them after thirty days. “We testify against this man that he owes another 200 denars” and they are found to be plotting, they are flogged and have to pay since the title which brings him to flogging is not the one which brings him to restitution, the words of Rebbi Ṃeïr. But the Sages say, anybody who pays is not flogged. “We testify against this man that he is liable to be flogged 40 lashes” and they are found plotting, they are whipped 80 because of do not testify against your neighbor as a false witness and because of do to him as he plotted to do to his neighbor, the words of Rebbi Ṃeïr. But the Sages say, they only are flogged 40 times. One distributes money but one does not distribute floggings. How? If they testified that he owes another person 200 denars and were found plotting, one distributes between them. If they testified that he is liable to be flogged 40 lashes and were found plotting, each one of them is flogged 40 lashes.

MISHNAH: “We testify against this man that he owes another 1’000 denars payable within 30 days” but he says, within ten years. One estimates how much a person would be willing to pay to have 1’000 denars at his disposal to return them after ten years instead of returning them after thirty days. “We testify against this man that he owes another 200 denars” and they are found to be plotting, they are flogged and have to pay since the title which brings him to flogging is not the one which brings him to restitution, the words of Rebbi Ṃeïr. But the Sages say, anybody who pays is not flogged. “We testify against this man that he is liable to be flogged 40 lashes” and they are found plotting, they are whipped 80 because of do not testify against your neighbor as a false witness and because of do to him as he plotted to do to his neighbor, the words of Rebbi Ṃeïr. But the Sages say, they only are flogged 40 times. One distributes money but one does not distribute floggings. How? If they testified that he owes another person 200 denars and were found plotting, one distributes between them. If they testified that he is liable to be flogged 40 lashes and were found plotting, each one of them is flogged 40 lashes.

MISHNAH: Plotting witnesses cannot be executed unless judgment was rendered, for the Sadducees say, unless he was executed, for it says, a life for a life. The Sages told them, was it not already said, do to him as he plotted to do to his brother, does this not imply that his brother is alive? Then why does it say, a life for a life? I could think that they would be executed once they had testified, but the verse says, a life for a life; i. e., they cannot be executed unless judgment was passed.

MISHNAH: If the iron slipped off the handle and killed, Rebbi said he does not go into exile, but the Sages say he does go. From the wood to split, Rebbi says he goes into exile, but the Sages say, he does not go.

MISHNAH: If the iron slipped off the handle and killed, Rebbi said he does not go into exile, but the Sages say he does go. From the wood to split, Rebbi says he goes into exile, but the Sages say, he does not go.

“One builds in them neither an olive press nor a wine press, the words of Rebbi Nehemiah, but the Sages permit it. One does not braid ropes there, nor does one manufacture glass, in order not to attract visitors.”

Also you say that Joab was of the opinion that the horns of an altar give asylum but only its top gives asylum; in fact only the top of the one in Shilo gives asylum, but that of the Temple does not give asylum. But I am saying that neither the altar gives asylum, nor does its top give asylum, nor the one in Shilo gives asylum, nor that of the Temple gives asylum. Nothing except the six cities of refuge give asylum. Is it possible that Joab, about whom it is written, the most wise, head of the third should err in this matter? Rebbi Tanḥuma said, he fled to the Sanhedrin, because it is stated: The property of people executed by the court goes to their heirs; the property of people executed by the government goes to the government. Joab said, it is better that I should be executed by the court and my sons will inherit from me than that the king should execute me and inherit from me. When Solomon heard this he said, do I need his money? Immediately, I shall remove the blood for free, but his money is not free. He sent through Benaiahu who smote him and killed him; they buried him in his house in the wilderness. Was his house a wilderness? But to tell you that when Joab the commander of Israel’s army died, Israel was turned into a wilderness. If you say that he collected booty to build public baths and baths, this is worthy of praise. But if you say that he collected booty to support Sages and their students, it is worthy of the highest praise. And from where that the Supreme Sanhedrin is near the altar? Do not ascend on my altar by stairs. What is written next? These are the rules of law you shall put before them.

MISHNAH: An impure person who ate holy food, or who came into the Temple when impure. One who eats fat, or blood, or leftover, or piggul, or impure [sacrificial meat]. One who sacrifices outside, or one who eats leavened matter on Passover. One who eats or does work on the Day of Atonement, and one who compounds the oil, or compounds the incense, and who rubs with the anointing oil, and one who eats carcass or torn meat, abominations and crawling things. If one ate ṭevel or first tithe from which heave was not taken, or second tithe or dedicated food which was not redeemed. 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 (carcass meat) [an ant] is liable? They told him, because it is a creature. He answered them, also a grain of wheat is a creature.

MISHNAH: He who takes the mother with the young, Rebbi Jehudah says he is flogged but does not have to send away. But the Sages say, he sends away and is not flogged. This is the principle: One is not liable for any prohibition coupled with a positive commandment.

HALAKHAH: “If the Court ruled and all the public acted,” etc. Who stated “a majority”? Rebbi Meïr, as it was stated: Either half of the tribes or half of each tribe, if only it be a majority. Rebbi Jehudah says, half of each tribe, but only a majority of entire tribes. One tribe drags all tribes. Rebbi Meïr says, all tribes are called “the public”. Rebbi Jehudah says, each single tribe is called “public”. And Rebbi Simeon follows Rebbi Jehudah. Just as Rebbi Jehudah said, each single tribe is called “public”, so Rebbi Simeon says, each single tribe is called “public”. What is between them? Dragging. Rebbi Jehudah says, one tribe drags all tribes. Rebbi Simeon says, one tribe does not drag all tribes. [Even though Rebbi Jehudah says, one tribe drags all tribes,] he agrees that only if the ruling came from the ashlar hall. Rebbi Yose said, the reason of that Tanna: From this place which the Eternal will choose. Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Bejamin ben Levi: The verse supports him who said that each tribe is called “public”, as it is written: A people and a public of peoples will come from you, and Benjamin was not yet born. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, just as they differ here, so they differ about impurity, as we have stated: If the public was half pure and half impure; pure [people] celebrate the first [Passover] and impure the second. Rebbi Jehudah said, the pure ones celebrate for themselves, and the impure ones celebrate for themselves. They told him, there is no split Passover; either all celebrate in impurity or all celebrate in purity. Who is “they told him”? Following Rebbi Jehudah? As it was stated: “If one of the loaves or one of the (leftovers) [orders] became impure, Rebbi Jehudah said, both have to be brought to be burned for a public offering cannot be split. But the Sages say, the impure in its impurity, and the pure shall be eaten.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, who is “they told him”? The Sages who argue like Rebbi Jehudah.

HALAKHAH: “If the Court ruled and all the public acted,” etc. Who stated “a majority”? Rebbi Meïr, as it was stated: Either half of the tribes or half of each tribe, if only it be a majority. Rebbi Jehudah says, half of each tribe, but only a majority of entire tribes. One tribe drags all tribes. Rebbi Meïr says, all tribes are called “the public”. Rebbi Jehudah says, each single tribe is called “public”. And Rebbi Simeon follows Rebbi Jehudah. Just as Rebbi Jehudah said, each single tribe is called “public”, so Rebbi Simeon says, each single tribe is called “public”. What is between them? Dragging. Rebbi Jehudah says, one tribe drags all tribes. Rebbi Simeon says, one tribe does not drag all tribes. [Even though Rebbi Jehudah says, one tribe drags all tribes,] he agrees that only if the ruling came from the ashlar hall. Rebbi Yose said, the reason of that Tanna: From this place which the Eternal will choose. Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Bejamin ben Levi: The verse supports him who said that each tribe is called “public”, as it is written: A people and a public of peoples will come from you, and Benjamin was not yet born. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, just as they differ here, so they differ about impurity, as we have stated: If the public was half pure and half impure; pure [people] celebrate the first [Passover] and impure the second. Rebbi Jehudah said, the pure ones celebrate for themselves, and the impure ones celebrate for themselves. They told him, there is no split Passover; either all celebrate in impurity or all celebrate in purity. Who is “they told him”? Following Rebbi Jehudah? As it was stated: “If one of the loaves or one of the (leftovers) [orders] became impure, Rebbi Jehudah said, both have to be brought to be burned for a public offering cannot be split. But the Sages say, the impure in its impurity, and the pure shall be eaten.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, who is “they told him”? The Sages who argue like Rebbi Jehudah.

MISHNAH: If the Court of one of the tribes ruled and that tribe acted on their pronouncement, that tribe is liable but any other tribes are not liable, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. But the Sages say, they are only liable for a ruling by the High Court, as it is said, if the entire congregation of Israel be in error, and something was hidden from the eyes of the congregation, not the congregation of that tribe.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Eliezer said this only because of his extirpation. Rebbi Hoshaia asked: If so, then even for a fixed [sacrifice]? Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Hoshaia is of the opinion that he is uprooted from the entire paragraph; but Rebbi Eliezer treats him like a rich commoner. Rebbi Mana said, if Rebbi Eliezer treats him like a rich commoner, then also for hearing a sound, or expression of the lips, as it was stated: Rebbi (Eleazar) [Eliezer] and the Sages did not differ about hearing a sound, or expression of the lips, that he does not bring a male goat but a she-goat. About what did they differ? About impurity of the Sanctuary and its sancta, where Rebbi Eliezer says since he is subject to extirpation why should he not bring a male goat instead of a she-goat? They objected: Is there not the Anointed in the case of idolatry where he does not bring a male goat but a she-goat.

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. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada objected: Is it not written: the fishermen are in deep sorrow,mourning are all who throw a fish-hook into the Nile? 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 someone 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 the person 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 the person 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. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada objected: Is it not written: the fishermen are in deep sorrow,mourning are all who throw a fish-hook into the Nile? 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 someone 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 the person 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 the person was buried close to sundown and one cannot infer anything.

MISHNAH: Shammai says, every woman’s timing is exact; Hillel says, from checking to checking, even if that is a long time. But the Sages say following neither of them but for checking to checking to be reduced by 24 hours, and from 24 hours to be reduced by checking. Every woman with a regular period follows her exact timing; and if one has intercourse with cloths, this counts as checking and is reduced by 24 hours and by checking.

HALAKHAH: “Shammai says, every woman’s timing is exact,” etc. What means, “their timing is exact”? They do not retroactively impart impurity to food prepared in purity. “But the Sages say following neither of them,” not following Shammai who imposed no restriction, and not like Hillel who went overboard. “But for checking to checking it is reduced by 24 hours, and from 24 hours is reduced by checking.” How is checking to checking reduced by 24 hours? If she checked herself on Tuesday and saw blood on Thursday, [her food] is impure only from the same time on Wednesday. How is 24 hours reduced by checking? If she checked herself out in the morning and saw in the afternoon, it is impure only starting from the morning.

Huna bar Ḥiyya said, the 24 hours which were quoted refer to sacrifices but not to pure food. Rav Ḥisda objected, was it not stated: “It happened with a girl in Aitlo that she missed for three periods and then had a period. When the case came before the Sages, they said that her timing is exact.” Are there sacrifices in Aitlo? But it must be food prepared in the purity of sacrifices! Is that not really profane food? Explain it if it was prepared in the purity of purifying water, since purifying water has more restrictive rules than sacrifices.

HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Joshua said, I heard only about the virgin, but practice follows Rebbi Eliezer.” One does not say, somebody who did not see the new moon should come and testify, but one says, if somebody saw the new moon, he should come and testify. You did not hear, I heard. All during Rebbi Eliezer’s lifetime, practice followed Rebbi Joshua. After Rebbi Eliezer’s death, Rebbi Joshua introduced practice following Rebbi Eliezer. Where do we hold? If Rebbi Eliezer heard from one [authority] but Rebbi Joshua from two, practice should follow Rebbi Joshua whether [Rebbi Eliezer] was alive or dead. But if Rebbi Joshua heard from one [authority] but Rebbi Eliezer from two, practice should follow Rebbi Eliezer whether he was alive or dead. As it was stated: One says, I heard from two [authorities] and two say, we heard from one, the power of the one who heard from two is greater than that of two who heard from one. But we must hold either that either one heard from one or that either one heard from two. During his lifetime he was not convinced of his opinion, after he died he became convinced of his opinion. What did he see to say that he became convinced of his opinion? As it was stated: The stains of all four categories of women, about whom the Sages said that their timings are exact, cause retroactive impurity except for a girl who is too young to menstruate, for that one has no stains, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, for all four categories of women about whom the Sages said that their timings are exact, their stains cause retroactive impurity except for a girl about to start to menstruate, for her stains start with her menstruation. Since if she sees blood her timing is exact, so also for her stain her timing. Rebbi Yannai said, because her sap is frequent. If the timing of one whose sap is frequent is exact, the others whose sap is not so frequent so much more! By this reason he became convinced of his opinion.

HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Joshua said, I heard only about the virgin, but practice follows Rebbi Eliezer.” One does not say, somebody who did not see the new moon should come and testify, but one says, if somebody saw the new moon, he should come and testify. You did not hear, I heard. All during Rebbi Eliezer’s lifetime, practice followed Rebbi Joshua. After Rebbi Eliezer’s death, Rebbi Joshua introduced practice following Rebbi Eliezer. Where do we hold? If Rebbi Eliezer heard from one [authority] but Rebbi Joshua from two, practice should follow Rebbi Joshua whether [Rebbi Eliezer] was alive or dead. But if Rebbi Joshua heard from one [authority] but Rebbi Eliezer from two, practice should follow Rebbi Eliezer whether he was alive or dead. As it was stated: One says, I heard from two [authorities] and two say, we heard from one, the power of the one who heard from two is greater than that of two who heard from one. But we must hold either that either one heard from one or that either one heard from two. During his lifetime he was not convinced of his opinion, after he died he became convinced of his opinion. What did he see to say that he became convinced of his opinion? As it was stated: The stains of all four categories of women, about whom the Sages said that their timings are exact, cause retroactive impurity except for a girl who is too young to menstruate, for that one has no stains, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, for all four categories of women about whom the Sages said that their timings are exact, their stains cause retroactive impurity except for a girl about to start to menstruate, for her stains start with her menstruation. Since if she sees blood her timing is exact, so also for her stain her timing. Rebbi Yannai said, because her sap is frequent. If the timing of one whose sap is frequent is exact, the others whose sap is not so frequent so much more! By this reason he became convinced of his opinion.

HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Joshua said, I heard only about the virgin, but practice follows Rebbi Eliezer.” One does not say, somebody who did not see the new moon should come and testify, but one says, if somebody saw the new moon, he should come and testify. You did not hear, I heard. All during Rebbi Eliezer’s lifetime, practice followed Rebbi Joshua. After Rebbi Eliezer’s death, Rebbi Joshua introduced practice following Rebbi Eliezer. Where do we hold? If Rebbi Eliezer heard from one [authority] but Rebbi Joshua from two, practice should follow Rebbi Joshua whether [Rebbi Eliezer] was alive or dead. But if Rebbi Joshua heard from one [authority] but Rebbi Eliezer from two, practice should follow Rebbi Eliezer whether he was alive or dead. As it was stated: One says, I heard from two [authorities] and two say, we heard from one, the power of the one who heard from two is greater than that of two who heard from one. But we must hold either that either one heard from one or that either one heard from two. During his lifetime he was not convinced of his opinion, after he died he became convinced of his opinion. What did he see to say that he became convinced of his opinion? As it was stated: The stains of all four categories of women, about whom the Sages said that their timings are exact, cause retroactive impurity except for a girl who is too young to menstruate, for that one has no stains, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, for all four categories of women about whom the Sages said that their timings are exact, their stains cause retroactive impurity except for a girl about to start to menstruate, for her stains start with her menstruation. Since if she sees blood her timing is exact, so also for her stain her timing. Rebbi Yannai said, because her sap is frequent. If the timing of one whose sap is frequent is exact, the others whose sap is not so frequent so much more! By this reason he became convinced of his opinion.

MISHNAH: What is a virgin? Any female who never saw blood, even if she was married. Pregnant, once the fetus is recognizable. Nursing, until she weans her child. If she gave her child to a wet-nurse or weaned him, Rebbi Meïr says she causes retroactive impurity for 24 hours but the Sages say, her timing is exact.

“Even if she was married,” even if pregnant, even if nursing, and even if she was bleeding all seven [days] for a boy or all fourteen for a girl. Does she have a charm in her hand? After [the birth of] a boy seven [days], after a girl fourteen, but only if she stopped during her period of purity. As it was stated: If she stopped during her period of purity and had no discharge, but later she had a discharge; this case came before the Sages who said that her timing was exact. In Rav’s opinion, who says that all is one source but the Torah purified it, it is understandable. In Rebbi Yannai’s opinion, who says that all is one source but it changes, it is in order. In Levi’s opinion, who says that there are two sources, should not her timing be exact even if she does not stop during her period of purity? Rebbi Mana said, the reason of Levi is that since she became used to pure blood, she might become used to impure blood. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Levi can explain what we have stated: “Rebbi Yose said, the timing of a pregnant or a nursing woman who had stopped for three periods is exact.” On that it was stated: The days of her pregnancy and her nursing add up to three periods. Can he think that there is only one source?

“Rebbi Eliezer says, the timing of any woman who misses three periods is exact.” But we stated on this: They said to him, the Sages said this only for the old woman. But did we not state: “Rebbi Eliezer said, it happened with a girl in Aitlo that she missed for three periods and then had a period. When the case came before the Sages, they said that her timing was exact.” They said to him, you were underage, and an underage boy cannot testify. Once did Rebbi decide to follow Rebbi Eliezer and he regretted it. Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose: Come and see, when he instructed following the leniencies of Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Yose, he did not regret it, but in this case he regretted? He said to him, there we deal with isolated opinions. You can say, we add his opinion to that of Rebbi Meïr to form a plurality against Rebbi Yose, and we add his opinion to that of Rebbi Yose to form a plurality against Rebbi Meïr; can you say here that we add his opinion to that of Rebbi Eliezer to form a plurality against the Sages? And in addition, it was stated on this: “It was an emergency decision.”

“Rebbi Eliezer says, the timing of any woman who misses three periods is exact.” But we stated on this: They said to him, the Sages said this only for the old woman. But did we not state: “Rebbi Eliezer said, it happened with a girl in Aitlo that she missed for three periods and then had a period. When the case came before the Sages, they said that her timing was exact.” They said to him, you were underage, and an underage boy cannot testify. Once did Rebbi decide to follow Rebbi Eliezer and he regretted it. Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose: Come and see, when he instructed following the leniencies of Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Yose, he did not regret it, but in this case he regretted? He said to him, there we deal with isolated opinions. You can say, we add his opinion to that of Rebbi Meïr to form a plurality against Rebbi Yose, and we add his opinion to that of Rebbi Yose to form a plurality against Rebbi Meïr; can you say here that we add his opinion to that of Rebbi Eliezer to form a plurality against the Sages? And in addition, it was stated on this: “It was an emergency decision.”

“Rebbi Eliezer says, the timing of any woman who misses three periods is exact.” But we stated on this: They said to him, the Sages said this only for the old woman. But did we not state: “Rebbi Eliezer said, it happened with a girl in Aitlo that she missed for three periods and then had a period. When the case came before the Sages, they said that her timing was exact.” They said to him, you were underage, and an underage boy cannot testify. Once did Rebbi decide to follow Rebbi Eliezer and he regretted it. Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose: Come and see, when he instructed following the leniencies of Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Yose, he did not regret it, but in this case he regretted? He said to him, there we deal with isolated opinions. You can say, we add his opinion to that of Rebbi Meïr to form a plurality against Rebbi Yose, and we add his opinion to that of Rebbi Yose to form a plurality against Rebbi Meïr; can you say here that we add his opinion to that of Rebbi Eliezer to form a plurality against the Sages? And in addition, it was stated on this: “It was an emergency decision.”

Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: In every situation in which the Sages said that her husband would be obligated for a sacrifice, pure food became impure; her husband would be exempt from a sacrifice, pure food remains pure; her husband would have to bring a sacrifice for a doubt, pure food is in limbo. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac asked: If an old man and a child walk in a dining room, does the old man not enter first? But the child can come and make a fool of him. Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Yudan: I say, it was here but the intercourse stopped it from leaving; but there, what hindered it to leave? The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Hoshaiah: “If she left [the bed] and saw blood, she is impure but all the food is pure.” The Mishnah disagrees with Bar Pedaiah: “Rebbi Jehudah says, also when they stop eating heave.” Why? Not that if she would bleed, the food should not retroactively become impure? Rebbi Ezra said before Rebbi Mana: Explain it for a woman who has no regular period. He said to him, so says my teacher Rebbi Yose: All that is described here is about a woman who has a regular period. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, the Mishnah rises: Up to this point [it speaks] about a woman who has a regular period; from there on about a woman who has no regular period. But even if you say that the Mishnah does not rise, and we deal only with a woman who has a regular period, where does Bar Pedaiah hold? One differs with Rebbi Jehudah.

MISHNAH: What is “later”? That she should leave her bed and wipe her face. After that time she would retroactively make impure for 24 hours but does not make her sex partner impure; Rebbi Aqiba says, she makes her sex partner impure. The sages agree with Rebbi Aqiba that one who finds a stain makes her sex partner impure.

Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rav: The words of those Sages who follow the method of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Joḥanan said, really the Sages. How is that? The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: We shall infer the point of view of the Sages from that of Rebbi Aqiba. Just as Rebbi Aqiba says, she makes her sex partner impure retroactively but her count is not in disorder, so the Sages say, she makes her sex partner impure retroactively but her count is not in disorder.

Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rav: The words of those Sages who follow the method of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Joḥanan said, really the Sages. How is that? The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: We shall infer the point of view of the Sages from that of Rebbi Aqiba. Just as Rebbi Aqiba says, she makes her sex partner impure retroactively but her count is not in disorder, so the Sages say, she makes her sex partner impure retroactively but her count is not in disorder.

Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rav: The words of those Sages who follow the method of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Joḥanan said, really the Sages. How is that? The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: We shall infer the point of view of the Sages from that of Rebbi Aqiba. Just as Rebbi Aqiba says, she makes her sex partner impure retroactively but her count is not in disorder, so the Sages say, she makes her sex partner impure retroactively but her count is not in disorder.

Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rav: The words of those Sages who follow the method of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Joḥanan said, really the Sages. How is that? The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: We shall infer the point of view of the Sages from that of Rebbi Aqiba. Just as Rebbi Aqiba says, she makes her sex partner impure retroactively but her count is not in disorder, so the Sages say, she makes her sex partner impure retroactively but her count is not in disorder.

MISHNAH: The Sages gave a simile about a woman’s anatomy: The room, the anteroom, and the upper floor. The blood from the room is impure. If it is found in the anteroom it is impure even in the case of a doubt since it is presumed to come from the source.

HALAKHAH: “The Sages gave a simile about a woman’s anatomy,” etc. So is the Mishnah: The blood from the room is impure but the blood from the upper floor is pure. Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: The room is inwards from the anteroom; the upper floor is over the room up to the middle of the anteroom, the door of the upper floor opens to the anteroom. Rav Naḥman bar Rav Isaac asked Rav Huna: Does the Mishnah [deal with the case that blood was found] inwards of the door of the upper floor? He said to him, if it was found inwards of the door of the upper floor it is certainly [impure]. But we deal with the case that it was found outwards from the door of the upper floor. The words of the rabbis disagree, since Rebbi Joḥanan said, three are like a doubt but they treated them as certain, viz., the following: A woman who has a miscarriage in the form of a cut-off hand or cut-off foot, or a placenta, and blood found in the anteroom. What are we speaking of? If it was found inwards of the door of the upper floor it is certainly [impure]. But we must deal with the case that it was found outwards from the door of the upper floor. Rebbi Abba the son of Rebbi Pappaios asked before Rebbi Yose: We have stated many doubts and you say so? He said to him, Rebbi Joḥanan spoke only of a woman.

MISHNAH: Five kinds of blood are impure from a woman: Red, black, like saffron stigma, and like earth water, and like mixed wine. The Hause of Shammai say, also like fenugreek water and like roast beef juice, but the House of Hillel declare these pure. The green Aqabia ben Mahalalel declares impure but the Sages declare it pure. Rebbi Meïr said, if it does not cause impurity as a stain, it causes impurity as a body fluid. Rebbi Yose says, neither one nor the other.

May one review stains at night? Rebbi reviewed at night and declared impure. He said, let it stay until morning. He reviewed at daylight and declared pure. He said, great are the words of the Sages who said, one does not review stains at night. He said, let it stay until the evening. He reviewed at night and found pure. He said, I did not make a mistake; that one faded!

HALAKHAH: “If a woman has a miscarriage in the form of a lump,” etc. The Sages say, the uterus grows the lump. Rebbi Jehudah says, blood congealed and was formed into a lump.

MISHNAH: If a woman miscarried the form of a membrane, a hair, dust, or red mosquitoes, it should be soaked in water; if it dissolves she is impure. If a woman miscarried the form of fishes, grasshoppers, abominable or crawling things; if this was accompanied by bleeding she is impure, otherwise pure. If a woman miscarried the form of a domestic or wild animal, or bird, whether pure or impure, if it is a male she should observe the days of a male birth, if a female of female births, if it cannot be determined then of both males and females, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, anything which has no human form is no child.

If a woman miscarried dry blood, Rebbi Eleazar says, she is impure; Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, she is pure. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: “Menstrual blood and flesh from a corpse make impure moist and dry.” He explains it that it was moist and then became dry. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Eleazar: “If a woman had a miscarriage in the form of a lump, a hair, dust, or red mosquitoes, it should be soaked in water; if it dissolves she is impure.” He explains it, because of a creature. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, even there you can object about dust. Is dust a creature? Rebbi Abba said, You even may mention dust. The dust from a pregnant woman exists as a creature. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: “It happened that a woman miscarried with a kind of red membranes. The case came before the Sages who sent and called the doctors who told them, she has an internal wound. Also it happened that a woman miscarried with a kind of red hairs. The case came before the Sages who sent and called the doctors who told them, she has an internal wart.” Only because of a wart and a wound. Therefore, if there is no wart or no wound, it does not apply. This disagrees with him and [his opinion] cannot be upheld.

If a woman miscarried dry blood, Rebbi Eleazar says, she is impure; Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, she is pure. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: “Menstrual blood and flesh from a corpse make impure moist and dry.” He explains it that it was moist and then became dry. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Eleazar: “If a woman had a miscarriage in the form of a lump, a hair, dust, or red mosquitoes, it should be soaked in water; if it dissolves she is impure.” He explains it, because of a creature. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, even there you can object about dust. Is dust a creature? Rebbi Abba said, You even may mention dust. The dust from a pregnant woman exists as a creature. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: “It happened that a woman miscarried with a kind of red membranes. The case came before the Sages who sent and called the doctors who told them, she has an internal wound. Also it happened that a woman miscarried with a kind of red hairs. The case came before the Sages who sent and called the doctors who told them, she has an internal wart.” Only because of a wart and a wound. Therefore, if there is no wart or no wound, it does not apply. This disagrees with him and [his opinion] cannot be upheld.

“If it cannot be determined then she shall observe for both male and female, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, anything which has no human form is no child.” Everywhere we stated “she shall observe for male and female, fourteen [days] impure and 26 pure; one puts upon her the restrictions of the male and of the female. That means, for her house. But for pure food, she shall observe for a female [birth].

Rebbi Joḥanan said, this follows Rebbi Simeon, since Rebbi Simeon said, the child was dissolved before it came out. Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Simeon agrees that he causes his mother the days of birth. Then the house should be impure? Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, explain it if it came out partially dissolved. Rebbi Simeon said to the Sages: Do you not agree with me that if the basin is carried from the inner to an outer room it is pure? They said to him, because it becomes scrambled. He said to them, this one is already scrambled. What is the rule about vessels which were there at the time of delivery? Let us hear from the following which we stated there: “Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob says, if a cow brought forth a cake of blood, that should be buried and she is freed from the rule of firstlings.” It was stated on this: It does not bring impurity by being carried. Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Simeon and Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob said the same thing. This implies that vessels which were there at the time of delivery are pure.

MISHNAH: If a woman miscarries a sexless, or a hermaphrodite, and a male, she shall observe for a male and a female. If it was a sexless and a male, or a hermaphrodite and a male, she shall observe for a male and a female. A sexless and a female, or a hermaphrodite and a female, she shall observe for a female exclusively. If it came out in pieces or defective, it is born as soon as most of its body came out. If it was a regular birth, when most of its head came out. When is it most of its head? If the forehead came out. If a woman miscarries and it is not known what it was, she shall observe for a male and a female. If it is not known whether there was a fetus, she shall observe for a male, a female, and menstruation. If she miscarries on the 40 day, she gives no thought to a child. On the 41 day, she shall observe for a male, a female, and menstruation. Rebbi Ismael says, on the 41st day, she shall observe for a male and menstruation, on the 81st day, she shall observe for a male, a female, and menstruation for the male is fully formed by the 41st day and the female by the 81st. But the Sages say, the creation of males and females is identical, both on the 41st.

but the Sages say: Until midnight.

It once happened that his sons returned from a feast [after midnight] and said to him, "We have not read the Shema' !" He told them, "If the dawn has not yet risen, you are still under the obligation of reading it. And not only in this connection do they so decide; but wherever the Sages use the expression 'Until midnight,' the obligation continues until the rise of dawn."

The duty of burning the fat and parts of the animal continues until the rise of dawn. Likewise with all offerings which have to be eaten the same day [they are sacrificed], the duty continues until the rise of dawn. If so, why do the Sages say "Until midnight"? In order to keep a man far from transgression.

I quote the following against our Mishnah : From what time may we begin to read the Shema' in the evening? From the time that people go home to eat their bread on the Sabbath-eve. These are the words of R. Meir ; but the Sages say : From the time the priests are entitled to partake of their Terumah. A sign for the matter is the appearance of the stars, and although there is no proof of this, yet is there some indication ; as it is said, "So we wrought in the work : and half of them held the spears from the rising of the morning till the stars appeared" (Neh. iv. 15), and it continues "That in the night they may be a guard to us, and may labour in the day" (ibid. v. 16).

The thought has occurred to thee that the poor man and people generally have the same standard of time. Shouldest thou, however, maintain that the poor man and the priest have the same standard of time, then the opinion of the Sages and R. Meir would be identical !

— "Till Thy people pass over, O Lord" refers to the first entry [into Canaan]; "till the people pass over that Thou hast gotten" refers to the second entry. Hence the Sages said : The Israelites were worthy that a miracle should be performed for them in the days of Ezra in the same way that it was performed for them in the days of Joshua, the son of Nun; but sin caused [the miracle to be withheld].

But the Sages say: Until midnight. With whose opinion do the Sages agree? If with R. Eliezer's, let them express themselves like R. Eliezer;

But the Sages say: Until midnight. With whose opinion do the Sages agree? If with R. Eliezer's, let them express themselves like R. Eliezer;

They certainly agree with Rabban Gamaliel, and the reason they say Until midnight is to keep a man far from transgression. This is like the teaching: The Sages made a "fence" to their words, so that a man shall not come from the field in the evening and say, "I will go home, eat a little, drink a little, sleep a little, and after that I will read the Shema' and say the Tefillah"; for slumber may overcome him and as a result he may sleep through all the night. Rather should a man come from the field in the evening and enter a Synagogue ; if he is accustomed to read [the Scriptures], let him read; if he is accustomed to study, let him study. Then let him read the Shema' and say the Tefillah; after that he should eat his meal and say Grace.

Whosoever transgresses the words of the Sages [in this matter] is worthy of death.