simultaneously

SOME say that that star appeared to the Magi simultaneously with the birth of our Lord. As for Herod’s commanding that all children from two years old and downwards should be slain, it is not as if they required all that length of time for their journey, but they had some accidental delay either in their own country or on the road. Again, Herod did not command that the children should be slain immediately after his having met the Magi, but much time passed in the interval, because he was waiting to hear from them.

To where are they banished? To the cities of refuge, to the three cities situated on the far side of the Jordan and the three cities situated in Canaan, as it says, “Three cities shall be designated beyond the Jordan, and the other three shall be designated in the land of Canaan” (Numbers 35:14). Not until three cities were selected in the land of Israel did the [first] three cities beyond the jordan receive fugitives, as it says, “Six cities of refuge in all” (Numbers 35:13), until all six could simultaneously receive fugitives.

If one slaughtered two animals simultaneously, the slaughtering is valid. If two persons held the knife and slaughtered, even if one cut higher up and the other cut lower down [in the neck], the slaughtering is valid.

If a ewe which never before had given birth bore two males and both heads came forth simultaneously: Rabbi Yose the Galilean says: both belong to the priest for scripture says: “The males shall be the Lord’s” (Exodus 13:12). But the sages say: it is impossible, therefore one remains [with the Israelite] and the other is for the priest. Rabbi Tarfon says: the priest chooses the better one. Rabbi Akiva says: we compromise between them. The second one [in the Israelite's possession] is left to pasture until it becomes blemished and the owner is liable for the [priest's] gifts. Rabbi Yose exempts him. If one of them died: Rabbi Tarfon says: they divide [the living one]. Rabbi Akiva says: the burden of proof is upon the claimant. If it gave birth to a male and a female, the priest receives nothing [in such circumstances].

If one says: “The offspring of this [pregnant animal] shall be an olah and it [the animal itself] shall be a shelamim,” his words stand. But if he says [first]: “It [the animal] shall be a shelamim” [and then], “and its offspring shall be an olah,” [its offspring] is regarded as the offspring of an shelamim, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yose says: if he intended [to say] this at first, since it is impossible to mention both kinds [of sacrifices] simultaneously, his words stand; but if after he already said [intentionally]: this shall be a shelamim, and then he changed his mind and says: its offspring shall be an olah, [its offspring] is regarded as the offspring of a shelamim.

[If one says:] “Behold, this animal shall be the substitute of an olah and the substitute of a shelamim,” it is the substitute of an olah, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yose says: if he originally intended this, since it is impossible to mention both names [of sacrifices] simultaneously, his words stand. But if after he had already said: “This shall be the substitute of an olah,” he changed his mind and then said: “The substitute of a shelamim,” it is the substitute of an olah.

Everyone can become impure from negaim, except for a non-Jew and a resident alien. All are qualified to inspect negaim, but only a priest may declare them unclean or clean. He is told, "Say: 'unclean,'" and he repeats "unclean," or "Say: 'clean,'" and he repeats "clean." Two negaim may not be inspected simultaneously whether in one man or in two men; rather he inspects one first and isolates him, certifies him as unclean or pronounces him clean, and then he inspects the second. One who is isolated may not be isolated again nor may one who is certified unclean be certified unclean again. One who is certified unclean may not be isolated nor may one who is isolated be certified unclean. But in the beginning, or at the end of a week, he may isolate on account of the one nega and isolate him on account of another one; he may certify him unclean on account of one sign and also certify him unclean on account of another sign; he may isolated the one sign and declare the other clean, or certify the one unclean and declare the other clean.

One who prepared the mixture with one hand and did some other work with the other hand, the mixture is invalid if he prepared it for himself, but if he prepared it for another man, it is valid. If he prepared a mixture both for himself and for another man, his is invalid and that of the other man is valid. If he prepares mixtures for two men simultaneously, both are valid.

Two men were guarding a trough: If one of them became unclean, the water remains valid, since it is in the domain of the other. If the first became clean and the other became unclean the water is still valid since it is in the domain of the first. If both became unclean simultaneously the water becomes invalid. If one of them did some work, the water remains valid since it is in the domain of the second. If the first stopped doing work and the other did some work, the water still remains valid since it is in the domain of the first. If both did some work at the same time the water becomes invalid.

If there were two paths, the one unclean and the other clean, and a man walked by one of them and then prepared clean food, and subsequently another man came and walked by the second path and then prepared clean foods: Rabbi Judah rules: if each by himself asked for a ruling they are both to be declared clean. But if they asked for a ruling simultaneously, both are to be declared unclean. Rabbi Yose ruled: in either case they are both unclean.

If there were two loaves, the one unclean and the other clean, and a man ate one of them and then prepared clean food, and afterwards another man came and ate the second loaf and then prepared clean food: Rabbi Judah ruled: if each by himself asked for a ruling they are both to be declared clean, but if they asked simultaneously both are to be declared unclean. Rabbi Yose ruled: in either case they are both unclean.

What is meant by tasteless spittle? From one who had eaten nothing [that day]. The liquid of crushed beans? The chewing of split beans, ready to be swallowed. Urine? That has fermented. One must scour the stain three times with each of the substances. If he applied them out of the prescribed order, or if he applied the seven substances simultaneously, he has done nothing.

MISHNAH: Rebbi Aqiba says: Any real estate is subject to peah and first fruits, to write a prozbol based on it, and to acquire simultaneously non-guaranteed property with money or contract or possession. If someone signs over his properties when bedridden and reserved for himself any real estate, his gift is permanent; if he did not reserve any real estate for himself, his gift is not permanent. If he signs over his properties to his sons and signs over some real estate for his wife, she lost her ketubah. Rebbi Yose says, if she accepted it, even if it was not in a written document, she lost her ketubah.

Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina said, for the first basket he transgresses a commandment, for the second a commandment and a prohibition. For the first basket he transgresses a commandment since he gave both names simultaneously, and for the second a commandment and a prohibition since he gave both names simultaneously and he put the Second Tithe of the first basket before the First Tithe of the second basket.

Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina said, for the first basket he transgresses a commandment, for the second a commandment and a prohibition. For the first basket he transgresses a commandment since he gave both names simultaneously, and for the second a commandment and a prohibition since he gave both names simultaneously and he put the Second Tithe of the first basket before the First Tithe of the second basket.

Rebbi Yannai said, it is a controversy whether two kinds join together to save but do not join together to prohibit. Rav said, it is everybody’s opinion that just as two kinds join together to save so they do join together to prohibit. Our Mishnah supports Rebbi Yannai, as we have stated: “Rebbi Eliezer permits it.” Our Mishnah differs with Rav: “One row of melons, one row of pumpkin, one row of Egyptian beans, and one row of melons.” Before he started the fourth one, was it not already forbidden? Explain it that he planted the four rows simultaneously.

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

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi stated from Bar Delaiah: “Unsalted pure fish preserved with salted impure fish is forbidden”. But did we not state: “He washes it and it is permitted”? Rebbi Mana said, he who said it is permitted, when he preserved them simultaneously; he who said it is prohibited when he preserved them one after the other. You can understand that this is so, since we have stated “in heave fluid it is forbidden;” [is that] not when he preserved one after the other?

It is obvious that “one makes eruv for courtyards and participates in alleys. If one makes eruv for courtyards, if they want to participate in the alley they may not participate. But if they participated in an alley, if they want to make it eruv they may do so.” And it was stated: “One makes eruv and participates simultaneously, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, one makes eruv for courtyards or participates in alleys.” If they made eruv for the courtyards, they are permitted in the courtyards and forbidden in the alley. But if they participated in the alley they are permitted here and there. He told them, also you will cause the rules of eruv to be forgotten among us, for the relationship of alley to courtyards is like the one of courtyards to houses.

MISHNAH: Rabban Gamliel says, three women knead dough simultaneously and bake in one oven one after the other, but the Sages say, three women are occupied with dough; one is kneading, one is forming, and one is baking. Rebbi Aqiba says, neither all women nor all wood nor all ovens are equal. This is the principle, she shall beat it and wet it with cold water.

“Rabban Gamliel says, three women knead dough simultaneously and bake in one oven one after the other, but the Sages say, three women are occupied with dough; one is kneading, one is forming, and one is baking.” Rebbi Hoshaia stated: And another one comes and kneads in their stead. There are Tannaim who state: Three qab wheat or four qab barley. There are Tannaim who state: Four qab wheat or three qab barley. He who said, three qab wheat, if they have fat, or four qab barley, if they have no fat. He who said, four qab wheat, if they are soft, or three qab barley, if they are hard.

Could not both be brought simultaneously? Rebbi Yose said, the sheep is second, the Pesaḥ is not second. It was stated: Rebbi Nathan says, every day the daily sacrifice was slaughtered at eight and a half, and brought at nine and a half. What means “every day”? Every Passover Eve. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, the reason of this Tanna is to allow half an hour between one group and the next.

“A slave of two owners may not eat from either of them.” Rebbi Yose said, his master has no right to say, it is impossible that you should be counted for a Pesaḥ, but he may say to him, you may not be counted for this one, only for that one. Sometimes he is counted for three Pesaḥim simultaneously. How is this? A slave of two owners must subscribe to a Pesaḥ. If one of them freed his part, he has to subscribe to another Pesaḥ. If both of them freed, he has to subscribe to yet another Pesaḥ. Samuel bar Abba asked, may the slave eat from all three of them? If you are saying that the slave may not eat from all three of them, then he should not be able to subscribe to a Pesaḥ, since perhaps his master might want to free him and it turns out that an invalid dedication is mixed up in the offering. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said that Rebbi Zeˋira asked, may the owner fulfill his obligation by the slave’s dedication? Is that not a Mishnah: “One says to his slave, go and slaughter the Pesaḥ for me.” The Mishnah on the instruction of his master, what is problematic for him not on the instruction of his master.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: One who simultaneously subscribed to two Pesaḥim eats from the one which was slaughtered first. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah implies this; “if he slaughtered kid goat and lamb, one eats from the first.” Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Joḥanan both are saying, this is Rebbi Nathan’s since Rebbi Nathan said, one fulfills his obligation by pouring without eating. Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: Explain it that the master forgot between slaughter and pouring. Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, one of the rabbis objected; some say that it was himself: Did we not state, “If he forgot what his master had told him, he shall slaughter a kid goat and a lamb”?

Rav Huna said, if somebody dedicated his Pesaḥ and said, on condition that nobody else subscribe with me, nobody else can subscribe with him. If he dedicated it without specification, any who join are its subscribers. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira: Does the Mishnah say so? “If thehouse be less, this teaches that they may continuously diminish, on condition that there always be one of the first group and one of the second group, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Yose says, either from the first or from the second, if only the Pesaḥ not be left alone.” If you are saying that any who join are its subscribers, then the members of the first group are the members of the second group. What is the difference between them? If he dedicated his Pesaḥ, withdrew from it but another person subscribed to it. In the opinion of Rav Ḥuna it is qualified, in the opinion of Rebbi Zeˋira disqualified. In the opinion of Rav Ḥuna it is dedication by an individual and subject to the laws of substitution; in the opinion of Rebbi Zeˋira it is dedication by partners and dedication of partners is not subject to the laws of substitution. If a hundred people subscribed to it simultaneously, Rav Ḥuna said, if there is the volume [of an olive for each of them], it is qualified, otherwise disqualified. Rebbi Zeˋira said, as long as there is the volume of an olive for each of them, it is qualified, otherwise disqualified. And it was stated thus: “If they subscribed and added subscribers, as long as there is the volume of an olive for each of them, it is qualified, otherwise disqualified.”

MISHNAH: A group whose Pesaḥ was lost and they said to one of them go, and search for it, and slaughter for us. He went, found, and slaughtered, and they bought and slaughtered. If his was slaughtered first, he eats of his, and they eat with him; but if theirs was slaughtered first, they eat of theirs, and he eats of his. If it is not known which one was slaughtered first, or they slaughtered simultaneously, they eat of theirs, but he does not eat with them. His is brought to be burned, and he is not liable for a Second Pesaḥ. If he told them, if I would tarry, slaughter for me; he went, found, and slaughtered, and they bought and slaughtered. If theirs was slaughtered first, they eat of theirs, and he eats with them; but if his was slaughtered first, he eats of his and they eat of theirs. If it is not known which one was slaughtered first, or they slaughtered simultaneously, he eats of his, but they he may not eat with him; and theirs is brought to be burned, but they are not liable for a Second Pesaḥ. If he told them, if I would tarry, go and slaughter for me; he went, found, and slaughtered, and they bought and slaughtered. If theirs was slaughtered first, they eat of theirs, and he eats with them; but if his was slaughtered first, he eats of his and they eat of theirs. If it is not known which one was slaughtered first, or they slaughtered simultaneously, they eat of theirs, and he may not eat with them; and his is brought to be burned, but he is not liable for a Second Pesaḥ. If he said to them and they said to him, all of them eat of the first. If he did not talk to them nor did they talk to him, they are not responsible for one another. Two groups whose Pesaḥim were commingled, each of them draws one for them. One of each group joins the other and they declare: If this Pesaḥ is ours, your hand is removed from yours and you are subscribing to ours, and if this Pesaḥ is yours, our hand is removed from ours and we are subscribing to yours. The same holds for five groups of five members each, or ten of ten, one exchanges members of each group and so they declare.

MISHNAH: A group whose Pesaḥ was lost and they said to one of them go, and search for it, and slaughter for us. He went, found, and slaughtered, and they bought and slaughtered. If his was slaughtered first, he eats of his, and they eat with him; but if theirs was slaughtered first, they eat of theirs, and he eats of his. If it is not known which one was slaughtered first, or they slaughtered simultaneously, they eat of theirs, but he does not eat with them. His is brought to be burned, and he is not liable for a Second Pesaḥ. If he told them, if I would tarry, slaughter for me; he went, found, and slaughtered, and they bought and slaughtered. If theirs was slaughtered first, they eat of theirs, and he eats with them; but if his was slaughtered first, he eats of his and they eat of theirs. If it is not known which one was slaughtered first, or they slaughtered simultaneously, he eats of his, but they he may not eat with him; and theirs is brought to be burned, but they are not liable for a Second Pesaḥ. If he told them, if I would tarry, go and slaughter for me; he went, found, and slaughtered, and they bought and slaughtered. If theirs was slaughtered first, they eat of theirs, and he eats with them; but if his was slaughtered first, he eats of his and they eat of theirs. If it is not known which one was slaughtered first, or they slaughtered simultaneously, they eat of theirs, and he may not eat with them; and his is brought to be burned, but he is not liable for a Second Pesaḥ. If he said to them and they said to him, all of them eat of the first. If he did not talk to them nor did they talk to him, they are not responsible for one another. Two groups whose Pesaḥim were commingled, each of them draws one for them. One of each group joins the other and they declare: If this Pesaḥ is ours, your hand is removed from yours and you are subscribing to ours, and if this Pesaḥ is yours, our hand is removed from ours and we are subscribing to yours. The same holds for five groups of five members each, or ten of ten, one exchanges members of each group and so they declare.

MISHNAH: A group whose Pesaḥ was lost and they said to one of them go, and search for it, and slaughter for us. He went, found, and slaughtered, and they bought and slaughtered. If his was slaughtered first, he eats of his, and they eat with him; but if theirs was slaughtered first, they eat of theirs, and he eats of his. If it is not known which one was slaughtered first, or they slaughtered simultaneously, they eat of theirs, but he does not eat with them. His is brought to be burned, and he is not liable for a Second Pesaḥ. If he told them, if I would tarry, slaughter for me; he went, found, and slaughtered, and they bought and slaughtered. If theirs was slaughtered first, they eat of theirs, and he eats with them; but if his was slaughtered first, he eats of his and they eat of theirs. If it is not known which one was slaughtered first, or they slaughtered simultaneously, he eats of his, but they he may not eat with him; and theirs is brought to be burned, but they are not liable for a Second Pesaḥ. If he told them, if I would tarry, go and slaughter for me; he went, found, and slaughtered, and they bought and slaughtered. If theirs was slaughtered first, they eat of theirs, and he eats with them; but if his was slaughtered first, he eats of his and they eat of theirs. If it is not known which one was slaughtered first, or they slaughtered simultaneously, they eat of theirs, and he may not eat with them; and his is brought to be burned, but he is not liable for a Second Pesaḥ. If he said to them and they said to him, all of them eat of the first. If he did not talk to them nor did they talk to him, they are not responsible for one another. Two groups whose Pesaḥim were commingled, each of them draws one for them. One of each group joins the other and they declare: If this Pesaḥ is ours, your hand is removed from yours and you are subscribing to ours, and if this Pesaḥ is yours, our hand is removed from ours and we are subscribing to yours. The same holds for five groups of five members each, or ten of ten, one exchanges members of each group and so they declare.

From which moment on are vessels of Temple service holy? Immediately or at the moment of use? If you are saying immediately, it is understandable. If you are saying at the moment of use, simultaneously they become holy {and make holy}. One can understand for those of Moses which became holy by the anointing oil. But those of Solomon simultaneously became holy and made holy. When they entered the Land they transferred from Moses’s to Solomon’s. If none of Moses was available, they simultaneously became holy and made holy. When they returned from the Diaspora, they transferred from Solomon’s to theirs. If none of Solomon was available, they simultaneously became holy and made holy.

From which moment on are vessels of Temple service holy? Immediately or at the moment of use? If you are saying immediately, it is understandable. If you are saying at the moment of use, simultaneously they become holy {and make holy}. One can understand for those of Moses which became holy by the anointing oil. But those of Solomon simultaneously became holy and made holy. When they entered the Land they transferred from Moses’s to Solomon’s. If none of Moses was available, they simultaneously became holy and made holy. When they returned from the Diaspora, they transferred from Solomon’s to theirs. If none of Solomon was available, they simultaneously became holy and made holy.

From which moment on are vessels of Temple service holy? Immediately or at the moment of use? If you are saying immediately, it is understandable. If you are saying at the moment of use, simultaneously they become holy {and make holy}. One can understand for those of Moses which became holy by the anointing oil. But those of Solomon simultaneously became holy and made holy. When they entered the Land they transferred from Moses’s to Solomon’s. If none of Moses was available, they simultaneously became holy and made holy. When they returned from the Diaspora, they transferred from Solomon’s to theirs. If none of Solomon was available, they simultaneously became holy and made holy.

From which moment on are vessels of Temple service holy? Immediately or at the moment of use? If you are saying immediately, it is understandable. If you are saying at the moment of use, simultaneously they become holy {and make holy}. One can understand for those of Moses which became holy by the anointing oil. But those of Solomon simultaneously became holy and made holy. When they entered the Land they transferred from Moses’s to Solomon’s. If none of Moses was available, they simultaneously became holy and made holy. When they returned from the Diaspora, they transferred from Solomon’s to theirs. If none of Solomon was available, they simultaneously became holy and made holy.

MISHNAH: The commandment for the two he-goats of the Day of Atonement is that they be equal in looks, in height, and in value, and be bought simultaneously. Even if they are not equal they are qualified; if one was bought one day and the other the next day they are qualified. If one of them dies, if it died before he drew lots he should take a match for the second one; if it dies after he drew lots one brings two and he draws new lots for them. Then he shall say if the one for Hashem dies, “the one for which the lot for Hashem is drawn shall be taken in its stead.” And if the one for Azazel died, “the one for which the lot for Azazel is drawn shall be taken in its stead.” The second one shall graze until it becomes unfit, then be sold, and its proceeds used for voluntary sacrifices since no public purification sacrifice is allowed to die. Rebbi Jehudah says, it shall die. In addition, Rebbi Jehudah says, if the blood is spilled the one to be sent away shall die, if the one to be sent away dies the blood shall be spilled.

MISHNAH: The High Priest comes to read. If he wants to read in the byssus garments he may read; otherwise in his own while stole. The beadle of the synagogue takes the Torah scroll and hands it to the president of the synagogue, the president of the synagogue hands it to the executive officer of the Temple, the executive officer of the Temple hands it to the High Priest. The High Priest receives it standing, and reads standing. He reads after the death and but on the tenth day, rolls up the Torah, keeps it in his bosom, and says: More than what I read before you is written here. On the tenth day in Numbers he recites by heart, and pronounces eight benedictions: For the Torah, for the Service, for thanksgiving, for the remission of sin, for the Temple, for Israel, for the priests, and general prayer. He who sees the High Priest reading does not see the burning of the bull and the ram; he who sees the burning of the bull and the ram does not see the High Priest reading. Not because he would not be entitled to it but because the distance was large and the actions happened simultaneously.

One does not ask two questions simultaneously. If they were asked, there are Tannaim who state, He answers the first but does not answer the second; and there are Tannaim who state, He answers the second but does not answer the first; and there are Tannaim who state, He answers neither the first nor the second. He who says, He answers the first but does not answer the second; from the following: David said, Eternal, God of Israel, etc., would the people of Qeˋilah surrender me into his hand, etc.? ]Would Saul descend, David asked incorrectly. Was it not necessary, would Saul descend, and if he descended, would the people of Qeˋilah surrender me into his hand?] He who said, He answers the second but does not answer the first; from the following: David said, would the people of Qeˋilah surrender me, etc. He who said, He answers neither the first nor the last, David asked the Eternal as follows, shall I pursue this troop, shall I reach it? David asked for mercy in this case, Eternal, God of Israel, please tell Your servant. You should know, since he asked two [questions] and He answered three [answers]: He said, pursue, for catching you will catch and saving you will save. There are Tannaim who state, he was hearing the voice; there are Tannaim who state, the writing was protruding. He who said, he was hearing the voice is understandable since it is written, he heard the voice. He who said, the writing was protruding, but there is no ח for the tribes, and there is no צ [and no ק] for the tribes! Abraham, Isaac, Jacob was written on them. But there is no ט for the tribes! All these are the tribes of Israel was engraved on them.

“Nor dance.” Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Rav Ḥuna: Jumping: one lifts both legs simultaneously. Dancing: one lifts one and keeps the other down. Rebbi Eleazar said, all sound making is forbidden on the Sabbath. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac was of the opinion to knock for a new synagogue. Rebbi Hillel son of Rabbi Vales would knock on a cup. Rabbi Ila stayed late at the great assembly. When he went home, he found them sleeping. He lay down on the stairs so as not to knock on the gate on the Sabbath. Rebbi Jeremiah explained Scripture with Rebbi Immi’s son. He went and wanted to wake him up in the morning of the Sabbath. He started knocking on the door. His father told him, who did permit this to you? Rebbi Abba bar Cahana asked before Rebbi Yasa, may one knock on a belly on the Sabbath? He said to him, who permitted that on a weekday? Rebbi Samuel ben Eudaimon said, the rabbis are accustomed on a weekday from the navel upwards, through his clothing from the navel downwards.

It was stated: The people of the watch are fasting every day. On Monday they were fasting for travellers at sea; God commanded, there shall be a spread in midst of the water. On Tuesday they are fasting for road travellers; God commanded, the waters under the sky shall congregate. On Wednesday they are fasting for children that diphteria should not develop in their mouths; God commanded, there shall be lights. “Curses” is written. On Thursday they are fasting that pregnant women should not miscarry and that the children of nursing women should not die; God commanded, let the waters teem with living creepers. They fasted neither on Friday nor on Sunday in order to honor the Sabbath. It was stated: The Great Synhedrion was fasting with them. Can the Synhedrion fast every day? They split themselves into clans. “One does not fast for two reasons simultaneously, from the following: we rose and asked of our God for this.” Rebbi Tanḥuma said, not because of this but because of the following, to ask for mercy from the God of Heaven for this secret. For if there were two reasons, such as a drought and locusts, one blows the shofar about them. When Rebbi Ḥaggai went for a fast, he said before them: Our brothers, even though in our hearts are many worries, this is for what we came.

From which moment on are vessels of Temple service holy? Immediately or at the moment of use? If you are saying immediately, it is understandable. If you are saying at the moment of use, simultaneously they become holy and make holy. One can understand for those of Moses which became holy by the anointing oil and the blood. But those of Solomon simultaneously became holy and made holy. When they entered the Land they transferred from Moses’s to Solomon’s. If none of Moses’s was available, they simultaneously became holy and made holy. When they returned from the Diaspora, they transferred from Solomon’s to theirs. If none of Solomon was available, they simultaneously became holy and made holy.

From which moment on are vessels of Temple service holy? Immediately or at the moment of use? If you are saying immediately, it is understandable. If you are saying at the moment of use, simultaneously they become holy and make holy. One can understand for those of Moses which became holy by the anointing oil and the blood. But those of Solomon simultaneously became holy and made holy. When they entered the Land they transferred from Moses’s to Solomon’s. If none of Moses’s was available, they simultaneously became holy and made holy. When they returned from the Diaspora, they transferred from Solomon’s to theirs. If none of Solomon was available, they simultaneously became holy and made holy.

From which moment on are vessels of Temple service holy? Immediately or at the moment of use? If you are saying immediately, it is understandable. If you are saying at the moment of use, simultaneously they become holy and make holy. One can understand for those of Moses which became holy by the anointing oil and the blood. But those of Solomon simultaneously became holy and made holy. When they entered the Land they transferred from Moses’s to Solomon’s. If none of Moses’s was available, they simultaneously became holy and made holy. When they returned from the Diaspora, they transferred from Solomon’s to theirs. If none of Solomon was available, they simultaneously became holy and made holy.

From which moment on are vessels of Temple service holy? Immediately or at the moment of use? If you are saying immediately, it is understandable. If you are saying at the moment of use, simultaneously they become holy and make holy. One can understand for those of Moses which became holy by the anointing oil and the blood. But those of Solomon simultaneously became holy and made holy. When they entered the Land they transferred from Moses’s to Solomon’s. If none of Moses’s was available, they simultaneously became holy and made holy. When they returned from the Diaspora, they transferred from Solomon’s to theirs. If none of Solomon was available, they simultaneously became holy and made holy.

How do we hold? If he came to her immediately after her husband’s death, and the fetus was recognized after two months, one should have stated: A nine-month child of either one of them or a seven-month of either one of them! But it may be that he came to her after two months and the fetus was recognized after three months, one should have stated: The sister-in-law should not perform ḥalîṣah or be married in levirate until after five months! But it must be that he came to her after 40 days and the fetus was recognized after 50 days. That would be complete months for [a child of] the first [brother] and incomplete ones for the second. This implies that a woman may give birth after full months. This implies that there are two creations. This implies that a woman may give birth after incomplete months. This implies that a woman may become pregnant repeatedly. This implies that a woman cannot become pregnant simultaneously from two men. And it disagrees with the sermonizing rabbis, since the sermonizing rabbis say “the middleman” “from the orders of the Philistines”, from 100 prepuces of Philistines, that 100 prepuces of Philistines touched her. Rebbi Mattaniah said, there is no disagreement. As long as the semen is not spoiled, a woman can become pregnant from several men simultaneously. After the semen is spoiled, a woman cannot become pregnant from several men simultaneously.

How do we hold? If he came to her immediately after her husband’s death, and the fetus was recognized after two months, one should have stated: A nine-month child of either one of them or a seven-month of either one of them! But it may be that he came to her after two months and the fetus was recognized after three months, one should have stated: The sister-in-law should not perform ḥalîṣah or be married in levirate until after five months! But it must be that he came to her after 40 days and the fetus was recognized after 50 days. That would be complete months for [a child of] the first [brother] and incomplete ones for the second. This implies that a woman may give birth after full months. This implies that there are two creations. This implies that a woman may give birth after incomplete months. This implies that a woman may become pregnant repeatedly. This implies that a woman cannot become pregnant simultaneously from two men. And it disagrees with the sermonizing rabbis, since the sermonizing rabbis say “the middleman” “from the orders of the Philistines”, from 100 prepuces of Philistines, that 100 prepuces of Philistines touched her. Rebbi Mattaniah said, there is no disagreement. As long as the semen is not spoiled, a woman can become pregnant from several men simultaneously. After the semen is spoiled, a woman cannot become pregnant from several men simultaneously.

How do we hold? If he came to her immediately after her husband’s death, and the fetus was recognized after two months, one should have stated: A nine-month child of either one of them or a seven-month of either one of them! But it may be that he came to her after two months and the fetus was recognized after three months, one should have stated: The sister-in-law should not perform ḥalîṣah or be married in levirate until after five months! But it must be that he came to her after 40 days and the fetus was recognized after 50 days. That would be complete months for [a child of] the first [brother] and incomplete ones for the second. This implies that a woman may give birth after full months. This implies that there are two creations. This implies that a woman may give birth after incomplete months. This implies that a woman may become pregnant repeatedly. This implies that a woman cannot become pregnant simultaneously from two men. And it disagrees with the sermonizing rabbis, since the sermonizing rabbis say “the middleman” “from the orders of the Philistines”, from 100 prepuces of Philistines, that 100 prepuces of Philistines touched her. Rebbi Mattaniah said, there is no disagreement. As long as the semen is not spoiled, a woman can become pregnant from several men simultaneously. After the semen is spoiled, a woman cannot become pregnant from several men simultaneously.

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

If [the master] blinded [the slave’s] two eyes simultaneously, or broke two of his teeth simultaneously, the slave thereby obtains his freedom. One after the other, he obtains his freedom from the first [injury] and [the master] has to pay for the second. Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Following the opinion that [the master] does not have to write a bill of manumission for him. But following the opinion that [the master] has to write a bill of manumission for him, can you say that he has to pay him? Not only does this apply to one who gains his freedom for a tooth or an eye, from where also that he may gain his freedom by a cap, or הרנירק טיאונוס, or the king’s freedom? The verse says, “he shall send him to freedom”, in any way. What is the status of his children? The children of him who leaves for a tooth or an eye are slaves, the children of him who leaves by the loss of hope are free. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, that is unreasonable; it is the other way around. The children of one who leaves for a tooth or an eye are free because the Torah freed him. The children of one who leaves by the loss of hope are slaves because the Torah did not free him.

If [the master] blinded [the slave’s] two eyes simultaneously, or broke two of his teeth simultaneously, the slave thereby obtains his freedom. One after the other, he obtains his freedom from the first [injury] and [the master] has to pay for the second. Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Following the opinion that [the master] does not have to write a bill of manumission for him. But following the opinion that [the master] has to write a bill of manumission for him, can you say that he has to pay him? Not only does this apply to one who gains his freedom for a tooth or an eye, from where also that he may gain his freedom by a cap, or הרנירק טיאונוס, or the king’s freedom? The verse says, “he shall send him to freedom”, in any way. What is the status of his children? The children of him who leaves for a tooth or an eye are slaves, the children of him who leaves by the loss of hope are free. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, that is unreasonable; it is the other way around. The children of one who leaves for a tooth or an eye are free because the Torah freed him. The children of one who leaves by the loss of hope are slaves because the Torah did not free him.

“For my slave girl X I want a document that she should not be enslaved.” Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Simeon ben Yaqim brought a case before Rebbi Joḥanan. He said, he has no power to enslave. What are her children? Slaves. What did he retain for her? Her earnings. Rebbi Abba and Rebbi Yose both said, this follows Rebbi who said that a person frees half of his slave. If he wrote all his possessions jointly to two of his slaves, both are free and both have to free one another. Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: This follows Rebbi who said that a person frees half of his slave. Rebbi Ze‘ira said to Rebbi Abba: Does this not imply that one slave accepts from his master for another one? He answered, what do you think? Since they acquired the properties they went free? No, simultaneously slaves and properties went free.

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

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

MISHNAH: If somebody preliminarily marries a woman and her daughter or two sisters simultaneously, they are not preliminarily married. It happened to five women, among them two sisters, that a man collected a bag of figs from their own property in the Sabbatical year and said: All of you are preliminarily married to me by this bag, and one of them accepted for all of them. Then the Sages said, the sisters are not preliminarily married.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody preliminarily marries a woman and her daughter,” etc. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, one understands from this five rules: One understands that five women can be preliminarily married simultaneously. That a woman may receive her own wedding gift and that of her companion. And one may use the spoils of robbery for a preliminary marriage. And one may preliminarily marry using produce acquired by a prohibited act. And preliminary marriage is impossible in incest situations.

“On condition that my father agree; if the father agreed, she is preliminarily married; if the father does not agree, she is not preliminarily married;” silently he does not agree. “If the father died, she is preliminarily married;” silently he agreed. “If the son died, one instructs the father to say that he does not agree;” silently he agreed. Rebbi Joḥanan asked Rebbi Yannai, can the Mishnah say so? He answered him, do you ask wretched Yannai to explain Qiddušin? Rebbi Yannai returned and explained the Mishnah: “On condition that my father agree; if the father agreed, she is preliminarily married; otherwise she is not preliminarily married,” he said on condition that [the father] express his opinion but he did not. “If the father died, she is preliminarily married;” as if he had given his opinion. “If the son died, one instructs the father to say that he does not agree;” as if he had given his opinion. Rebbi Ze‘ira said [before Rebbi Yasa]: Can Rebbi Yannai explain the Mishnah as he wishes? He answered him, so says Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, Rebbi does not refrain from stating generality and detail simultaneously. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah states thus: “On condition that I have a bet kor of arable land”, a generality; “at place X”, a detail.

Rebbi Aḥa said, would that not be obvious from the reasoning of the rabbis? Is the rebellious son liable for double restitution for his first theft? Or since he is warned of a capital offense should he be freed? Let us hear from the following: If somebody steals another’s wallet and removes it on the Sabbath he is liable since he already is liable for the theft of the wallet before he comes in conflict with the holiness of the Sabbath. Is he not forewarned of a capital offense and you say, he is liable! Here also, even though he is forewarned of a capital offense, you say that he has to be liable. Rebbi Yannai bar Ismael said, Rebbi Hoshaia follows his own opinion, as we have stated: He who takes out is guilty even if he did not put down. Similarly, he who takes out is guilty even if he did not take up with the intent to take out, for warning is possible only at the moment of his taking out. It was stated: If he was dragging it until he left, he is free since the obligations of capital crime and restitution falls on him simultaneously. Therefore, if both obligations do not fall on him simultaneously, he is liable. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, explain it with large pouches which usually are dragged; one cannot infer anything from this.

Rebbi Aḥa said, would that not be obvious from the reasoning of the rabbis? Is the rebellious son liable for double restitution for his first theft? Or since he is warned of a capital offense should he be freed? Let us hear from the following: If somebody steals another’s wallet and removes it on the Sabbath he is liable since he already is liable for the theft of the wallet before he comes in conflict with the holiness of the Sabbath. Is he not forewarned of a capital offense and you say, he is liable! Here also, even though he is forewarned of a capital offense, you say that he has to be liable. Rebbi Yannai bar Ismael said, Rebbi Hoshaia follows his own opinion, as we have stated: He who takes out is guilty even if he did not put down. Similarly, he who takes out is guilty even if he did not take up with the intent to take out, for warning is possible only at the moment of his taking out. It was stated: If he was dragging it until he left, he is free since the obligations of capital crime and restitution falls on him simultaneously. Therefore, if both obligations do not fall on him simultaneously, he is liable. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, explain it with large pouches which usually are dragged; one cannot infer anything from this.

HALAKHAH: “This is more severe regarding a human than an ox,” etc. “A person who hits his father or mother,” etc. It was stated: If the witnesses said, we testify that X blinded both of his eyes simultanously, or that he knocked out two of his teeth simultaneously, he does not have to pay anything. One after the other, he gains his freedom by the first and he pays him damages for the second. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: This implies that one estimates embarrassment for slaves. Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If a person dedicates his earnings, he dedicates everything. If he dedicates the earnings of his slave, he can take from there his upkeep and the remainder is dedicated. Here you say, the remainder is dedicated, but there you say, everything is holy. Rebbi Aḥa said, Jews are more obligated to support free people than slaves. But did not Rebbi Joḥanan say: If somebody cuts off the hands of somebody else’s slave, his master collects damages, suffering, medical costs, loss of earnings, and embarrassment, and that one should be supported by welfare. Rebbi Aḥa said, Jews are more obligated to support amputated slaves than unimpaired ones. But did not Rebbi Joḥanan also give to his slave when he ate meat? Give also to his slave when he drank wine? And recited for himself the verse: “Did not His maker make me in the womb”? They said, there a rule of law, here a rule of mercy.

HALAKHAH: “If they found him innocent, they free him,” etc. It was stated: If one of the witnesses said, I have an argument for his acquittal, and another came to support him, (and another came to support him,) whom do you co-opt? Let us hear from the following of Rebbi Joḥanan: If somebody was acquitted following his own pleading, one does not place him with the judges. Therefore, if he was acquitted following (his own) pleading, then one person would be simultaneously witness and judge. We do not find that anybody can be both witness and judge.

HALAKHAH: “Somebody who was found guilty of two death penalties,” etc. There it was stated that one states: “Rebbi Yose says, he shall be convicted for the first connection.” How is this? His mother-in-law who then became a married woman is [executed] by burning. As a married woman who later became his mother-in-law it is by strangulation, if he copulated with his mother-in-law. How with his mother-in-law and daughter-in-law? How can this be? A man married a woman, and her brother’s daughter, and the woman’s daughter. If he copulated with the old woman he is liable for her because of his mother-in-law, the mother of his mother-in-law, and the mother of his father-in-law. If his mother-in-law is simultaneously his daughter-in-law, how does Rebbi Yose treat this? The more severe and the lesser, how does Rebbi Yose treat this? Two simultaneous prohibitions, how does Rebbi Yose treat this?

They said, what was asked of Rebbi Yose also can be asked of Rebbi Ismael since it was stated in the name of Rebbi Ismael: If she became widowed, divorced, desecrated, and a whore in this order: when afterwards he copulated with her, he is liable only once. If she whored, was desecrated, and after that he copulated with her, he is liable for every single [transgression]. If she became widowed and divorced simultaneously, how does Rebbi Ismael treat this? The more severe and the lesser, how does Rebbi Ismael treat this? Two simultaneous prohibitions, how does Rebbi Ismael treat this?

The Torah said, four compartments for four paragraphs. If he made five compartments for four paragraphs, he is punishable. Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: He is punishable only if he instructs in a matter whose root is from the Torah but whose explanation is from the words of the Sopherim; for example, the carcass; for example, the crawling animal, whose root is from the words of the Torah but whose explanation is from the words of the Sopherim. Rebbi Zeˋira said, he never is punishable unless he deny and instruct in a matter whose root is from the Torah but whose explanation is from the words of the Sopherim; for example, the carcass; for example, the crawling animal, whose root is from the words of the Torah but whose explanation is from the words of the Sopherim, on condition that he simultaneously deduct in a matter which permits subtraction and addition. The face of Rav Hoshaia lit up. He told him, do I need you that you enjoy it? I do not need you, I am adding to your statement. Thirteen years he went and came before his teacher even though he did not need him. Rebbi Samuel in the name of Rebbi Zeˋura: Was it not enough for him to have paid his respects to his teacher since anybody who pays his respects to his teacher is as if he paid his respects to the Divine Presence. Rebbi Berekhiah objected, did we not state, “the body of baheret is the square area of a split cilician bean”? Rebbi Abba Mari said, one who said it is pure. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal objected, did we not state, “two paragraphs in the mezuzzah”? He told him, phylacteries and mezuzah are the same. Rav Hamnuna objected, was it not stated: The ṣiṣit must be four finger lengths for four threads? He told him, in that he diminished but did not add. Rebbi Ḥaggai objected before Rebbi Yose, was it not stated, one third for the scalded, one third for round cakes, one third for flat cakes. If he used it in thirds, one third for the scalded, one third for round cakes, one third for flat cakes? He told him, he subtracts from the scalded and adds for round cakes and flat cakes.

Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Yasa: The one who stands before the Ark on New Year’s holiday does not have to mention the New Moon. Rebbi Aḥa bar Pappus said, it was stated thus: “The one who stands before the Ark on New Year’s holiday in the morning, the House of Shammai say, he prays eight [benedictions], but the House of Hillel say seven. For musaf, the House of Shammai say ten, but the House of Hillel say nine.” Should he not say eleven? Rebbi Yose said, where do they disagree? In a matter which needs a separate benediction. But here even on a weekday he simply includes it. So he should mention it in “Service”. Rebbi Yose asked, since the two he-goats of New Year’s day come because of the New Moon, why do you say that he does not have to mention the New Moon? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun said, does Rebbi Abba bar Mamal not ask correctly? As it was stated: “The two lambs of Pentecost and the two he-goats of New Year’s Day.” If the first atoned, what does the second atone for? For impurity that happened between them. Is that not Rebbi Simeon’s? And Rebbi Simeon splits atoning. But if both of them were for the New Moon? Rebbi Abba Mari said, you cannot do that, since it is written, in addition to the elevation offering of the month. In addition, from what we have stated, “twelve for the twelve months of the year.” A patrician stood before the Ark and did not mention the New Moon; they praised him. Rav Hoshaia asked: think of it, if they slaughtered both of them simultaneously? What impurity happened between them? Rebbi Bun said, if all of Israel are proper, would they not bring what the Torah prescribed for them?

An androgynus who saw whitish [effluent] and entered the Sanctuary is not liable. If he saw red [effluent] and entered the Sanctuary, he is not liable. If he saw simultaneously whitish and red and entered the Sanctuary, he is liable. There is a Tanna who states: he is not liable. Rebbi Joḥanan said, this is Rebbi Simeon, as it was stated: “Two paths, one pure and one impure. He walked on one of them, entered the Sanctuary on the first one, sprinkled repeatedly, immersed himself, on the second one and entered; he is liable. Rebbi Simeon declares him not liable in this case. Rebbi Simeon ben Jehudah in the name of Rebbi Simeon declares him not liable in all cases.” One understands the androgynus, for whitish [effluent] you declare him to be a woman, for red [effluent] you declare him to be a man. But here there is no known impurity. Rebbi Samuel bar Sosartai said, explain it if he forgot the first. Rebbi Yose asked, where do we hold? If he forgot it forever, it is one path. If he forgot repeatedly, there are two paths. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rebbi Simeon parallels Rebbi Eliezer in the interpretation of Ḥizqiah. Just as Rebbi Eliezer said there, until he knows whether he did become impure by a crawling animal or a corpse, so Rebbi Simeon says here, until he knows whether he did become impure by red [effluent] or by whitish. One understands there since he said, a doubt of awareness is awareness. But here, since he saw whitish and red together, it is certain knowledge.

MISHNAH: If both of them disavowed simultaneously, both of them are liable; one after the other, the first is liable but the second is not liable. If one reneged but one confessed, the one who disavowed is liable. If there were two groups of witnesses, if the first group disavowed and after this the second, both are liable since testimony could be upheld by either one of them.

HALAKHAH: “If both of them disavowed simultaneously,” etc. If they dedicated a sacrifice and said, we are going to disavowe in court. This is what Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, his sacrifice for the Eternal for his vow of nazir; that his vow of nazir precede his sacrifice, not that his sacrifice precede his vow of nazir. If they were sworn to out of court, dedicated a sacrifice and said, we are going to renege in court, how do you treat this? As if his sin did precede his sacrifice or since the are liable only in court as if their sacrifice did precede their sin?

[Just as the city grants asylum, so does its domain grants asylum.] “Three cities did Moses designate in Transjordan. When they came to the Land they designated another three. In the future there will be another three, as it is said three, three, three. This makes nine. Abba Shaul says, three. Three of three times three makes nine. Additional makes twelve. Rebbi Nehorai says, three, three, three make nine. Additional makes twelve. To these three makes fifteen.” It is written: Six cities of refuge there shall be for you, that all six of them give asylum simultaneously. And you say so? It follows what Rebbi Samuel [ben Aina] said in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: Five things was the last Temple missing which were in the first Temple, as it is written: Go to the mountain, bring wood, etc., up to I may be honored. It is written I shall be honored, without the letter he. These are the five things which the last Temple was missing which were in the first Temple. They are: The fire, the Ark, Urim and Tummim, anointing oil, and the Holy Spirit.

MISHNAH: If the Court ruled to violate one of the commandments spelled out in the Torah and a single person went and acted inadvertently following their pronouncement, whether they acted and he acted simultaneously with them, or they acted and he followed their example, or they did not act but he did, he is not liable since he depended on the Court. If the Court ruled but one of them knew that they erred, or a student worthy of ordination went and acted following their pronouncement, whether they acted and he acted simultaneously with them, or they acted and he followed their example, or they did not act but he did, he is liable since he did not depend on the Court. This is the principle: The person depending on himself is liable, but one depending on the Court is not liable.

MISHNAH: If the Court ruled to violate one of the commandments spelled out in the Torah and a single person went and acted inadvertently following their pronouncement, whether they acted and he acted simultaneously with them, or they acted and he followed their example, or they did not act but he did, he is not liable since he depended on the Court. If the Court ruled but one of them knew that they erred, or a student worthy of ordination went and acted following their pronouncement, whether they acted and he acted simultaneously with them, or they acted and he followed their example, or they did not act but he did, he is liable since he did not depend on the Court. This is the principle: The person depending on himself is liable, but one depending on the Court is not liable.

Amemar, Mar Zotra and Rab Ashe were sitting together; they said: Let each one of us relate something which the others have not heard. One of them commenced and said : He who has seen a dream and knows not what he has seen, let him stand before the Kohanim at the time that they spread their hands [to pronounce the priestly benediction] and utter the following : "Lord of the universe ! I am Thine and my dreams are Thine ; a dream have I dreamed and I know not what it is. Whether I dreamed concerning myself, or my fellows dreamed concerning me, or I dreamed concerning others, if they be good dreams, strengthen and fortify them [and may they be fulfilled] like the dreams of Joseph ; but if they require to be remedied, heal them as the waters of Marah [were healed] by the hands of Moses our teacher, as Miriam [was healed] from her leprosy, as Hezekiah from his illness, and like the waters of Jericho [sweetened] by the hands of Elisha. And as Thou didst turn the curse of the wicked Balaam into a blessing, so do Thou turn all my dreams for me into good." He should conclude [his prayer] simultaneously with the Kohanim, so that the Congregation responds "Amen." But if not, let him say the following: "Thou majestic One in the heights, Who abidest in might, Thou art peace and Thy name is peace. May it be Thy will to grant us peace."

But is it of any avail to pray [during the first forty days that it should be a male child]? For lo, R. Isaac b. R. Ammi has said : If it is the man who first emits seed his wife bears a daughter ; but if the woman first emits seed she gives birth to a son ; as it is said, "If a woman emits seed and bare a male child" (Lev. xii. 2)! With what are we here dealing ? For instance, if they both emit seed simultaneously.

the lungs absorb all kinds of liquids, the liver arouses anger, the gall lets a drop fall upon it and stills it, the milt produces laughter, the large intestine grinds [food], the maw induces sleep and the nose awakens. Should the organ which induces sleep arouse from sleep, or should the organ which arouses from sleep induce sleep, the person pines away. It has been taught : Should both of them induce sleep or arouse from sleep simultaneously, one immediately dies.

Our rabbis taught: One who has to perform many commandments [simultaneously] shall say, “Blessed . . . who has sanctified us by His commandments and commanded us concerning the commandments.” R. Judah said: One must recite a blessing over each one separately. R. Zera or, as some say, R. Hanina b. Papa said: The halakhah is according to R. Judah. R. Zera or, as some say, R. Hanina b. Papa further stated: What is the reason of R. Judah? Because it is written, “Blessed be the Lord day by day” (Psalms 68:20). Now do we bless Him by day and not by night? Rather this comes to teach you: Give Him every day His appropriate blessings. So too here: Give Him for every single thing, its appropriate blessings.

he holds like the other opinion of Rebbi Yehudah's views, that it was taught in a baraisa If one hit this [person who might have been his father] and then hit the other [person who might have been his father], or if he cursed this one and then that one, or if he hit them both simultaneously, or cursed them both simultaneously, Rebbi Yehudah says, If it was simultaneously he is liable, if not he is exempt [because it would be only an questionable warning.]

he holds like the other opinion of Rebbi Yehudah's views, that it was taught in a baraisa If one hit this [person who might have been his father] and then hit the other [person who might have been his father], or if he cursed this one and then that one, or if he hit them both simultaneously, or cursed them both simultaneously, Rebbi Yehudah says, If it was simultaneously he is liable, if not he is exempt [because it would be only an questionable warning.]

he holds like the other opinion of Rebbi Yehudah's views, that it was taught in a baraisa If one hit this [person who might have been his father] and then hit the other [person who might have been his father], or if he cursed this one and then that one, or if he hit them both simultaneously, or cursed them both simultaneously, Rebbi Yehudah says, If it was simultaneously he is liable, if not he is exempt [because it would be only an questionable warning.]

For [shaving the entire] head, one would be liable twice, once on this side and once on that side. For [shaving the entire] beard, one would be liable twice on this side, twice on that side, and once below. Rebbi Eliezer says, If he removed all [of the five spots] simultaneously, he would only be liable once.

Rather there was only one warning. But then would he be liable [five times]? Bit it was taught in a mishna, A Nazir who was drinking wine all day is only liable once. If they said to him, "Don't drink. Don't drink.", and he drank, than he would be liable for each individual time. Rather [the ruling] was necessary where one dipped his five fingers into a cream and placed them [on his beard] simultaneously, that it constitutes as a warning for each one.

Rebbi Eliezer says if one removes them all simultaneously. etc.: He holds that they are all one prohibition.: