somebody

MISHNAH: If somebody sells his wine to a Non-Jew, in case he fixed the price before that one measured, the proceeds are permitted; if that one measured before he fixed the price, the proceeds are forbidden. If he took the funnel and measured into a Non-Jew’s vessel, then took it and measured into the vessel of a Jew, if it is contaminated with wine it is forbidden. If somebody pours from a vessel to another, what is poured from is permitted, what is poured into is forbidden.

MISHNAH: If somebody sells his wine to a Non-Jew, in case he fixed the price before that one measured, the proceeds are permitted; if that one measured before he fixed the price, the proceeds are forbidden. If he took the funnel and measured into a Non-Jew’s vessel, then took it and measured into the vessel of a Jew, if it is contaminated with wine it is forbidden. If somebody pours from a vessel to another, what is poured from is permitted, what is poured into is forbidden.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody sold his wine to a Non-Jew,” etc. Rebbi Abba, Rav Huna in the name of Rav: One who handles a wine-skin and it splits in his hand is not responsible for it. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, it is necessary even if he takes it in the store when he has no other intention than that no other person should take it. Can he take possession at a minimal rate? Rebbi Ḥaggai said before Rebbi Yose, a Mishnah says that it cannot become his possession at a minimal rate, as we have stated there: “If somebody sells his wine to a Non-Jew, in case he fixed the price before that one measured, the proceeds are permitted; if that one measured before he fixed the price, the proceeds are forbidden.” If you say that it can come into his possession at a minimal price, even if he measured before he fixed the price should be as if he fixed the price before he measured and the proceeds would be permitted.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody sold his wine to a Non-Jew,” etc. Rebbi Abba, Rav Huna in the name of Rav: One who handles a wine-skin and it splits in his hand is not responsible for it. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, it is necessary even if he takes it in the store when he has no other intention than that no other person should take it. Can he take possession at a minimal rate? Rebbi Ḥaggai said before Rebbi Yose, a Mishnah says that it cannot become his possession at a minimal rate, as we have stated there: “If somebody sells his wine to a Non-Jew, in case he fixed the price before that one measured, the proceeds are permitted; if that one measured before he fixed the price, the proceeds are forbidden.” If you say that it can come into his possession at a minimal price, even if he measured before he fixed the price should be as if he fixed the price before he measured and the proceeds would be permitted.

The following is obvious: If the Jew holds the funnel and the Gentile pours, everybody agrees that is it forbidden. If the Gentile holds the funnel and the Jew pours, Rebbi Assi forbids and Rebbi Immi permits. If the Gentile holds the opening of the wineskin and the Jew pours, Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira: this is the disagreement. Rebbi Mana asked before Rebbi Yose, which disagreement? He told him, the disasgreement between Rebbi Assi and Rebbi Immi. If the Jew holds the wineskin and the Gentile pours, they wanted to say that according to everybody it is permitted. Rebbi Samuel: In itself it implies that it is forbidden. For sometimes the Jew will loosen his grip and then the entire pouring is done by the Gentile. If somebody lets down a wineskin from top to bottom this is not pouring from vessel to vessel.

Ḥizqiah said, if somebody mixed a cup from forbidden and from permitted [wine], if the forbidden fell in [last] it makes it forbidden, permitted [last] makes it permitted. Rebbi Samuel [bar Rav Isaac] said, this follows Rebbi Eliezer, as Rebbi Eliezer said, I am going after the last one. Rebbi Jeremiah said, this is a stringency about libation wine. Rebbi Yose asked, if it were a stringency about libation wine, even if the permitted fell in last it should be forbidden! Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: if somebody mixed a cup from forbidden and from permitted [wine], one considers the permitted as nonexistent; if the forbidden does impart taste it is forbidden, otherwise permitted. Rebbi Hoshaia said, only if the permitted fell in last. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, it does not make any difference whether the forbidden fell in first and the permitted last or the permitted first and the forbidden last, even water and wine, even if it was mixed perfectly from permitted, one considers the permitted as nonexistent; if the forbidden does impart taste it is forbidden, otherwise permitted. Rebbi Ze`ira said, this has been said about the preceding; how can it be? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if a flask of libation wine fell into an amphora of (water) and then it fell into a water cistern, one considers the permitted as nonexistent; if the forbidden does impart taste it is forbidden, otherwise permitted.

Ḥizqiah said, if somebody mixed a cup from forbidden and from permitted [wine], if the forbidden fell in [last] it makes it forbidden, permitted [last] makes it permitted. Rebbi Samuel [bar Rav Isaac] said, this follows Rebbi Eliezer, as Rebbi Eliezer said, I am going after the last one. Rebbi Jeremiah said, this is a stringency about libation wine. Rebbi Yose asked, if it were a stringency about libation wine, even if the permitted fell in last it should be forbidden! Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: if somebody mixed a cup from forbidden and from permitted [wine], one considers the permitted as nonexistent; if the forbidden does impart taste it is forbidden, otherwise permitted. Rebbi Hoshaia said, only if the permitted fell in last. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, it does not make any difference whether the forbidden fell in first and the permitted last or the permitted first and the forbidden last, even water and wine, even if it was mixed perfectly from permitted, one considers the permitted as nonexistent; if the forbidden does impart taste it is forbidden, otherwise permitted. Rebbi Ze`ira said, this has been said about the preceding; how can it be? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if a flask of libation wine fell into an amphora of (water) and then it fell into a water cistern, one considers the permitted as nonexistent; if the forbidden does impart taste it is forbidden, otherwise permitted.

Rebbi Yose asked in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: May prohibitions of usufruct become insignificant in (combination) [by being shredded]? But did we not state “the ox which was stoned”? Explain it in pieces. But did we not state “the birds of the sufferer from skin disease”? Explain it as a bird among birds. But did we not state “the nazir’s hair”? Can you say a bird among birds? When they came to study `Orlah did Rebbi Jacob object before Rebbi Yose, did we not state, “if somebody weaves the length of a sīt of firstling’s wool, the cloth must be burned. Of nazir’s hair or firstling donkey in sackcloth, the sackcloth must be burned.” He told him, (if the Tanna had said before us, you would have given) correctly.

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: If somebody buys crockery from a Gentile, what usually is immersed one immerses, cleansed in boiling water one cleanses in boiling water, making glowing white in fire one makes glowing white. The spit and the grill one makes glowing white in fire but a knife one rubs clean and it is pure.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody buys crockery from a Gentile,” etc. “ If somebody buys crockery from a Gentile, something of which he knows that it is used for human food, he washes them clean and they are pure. But pots and boiling kettles one cleanses in boiling water. All of these, if he used them even if he did not immerse them, or cleansed them in boiling water, or rubbed them clean, or made them glowing white in fire, they are pure.” Rebbi Hoshaia said, one has to immerse them, as by the following. Rebbi Immi and Rebbi Jehudah the Prince went down to the hot springs of Gadara and borrowed silverware from the family Osinos. They asked Rebbi Jeremiah who said, one must immerse them because they left the impurity of Gentiles and entered the holiness of Israel. He went out and we want to learn. They left and heard Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: they said only “who buys”, but the borrower is permitted. Then even vessels. Rebbi Hoshaia bought vessels and immersed them.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody buys crockery from a Gentile,” etc. “ If somebody buys crockery from a Gentile, something of which he knows that it is used for human food, he washes them clean and they are pure. But pots and boiling kettles one cleanses in boiling water. All of these, if he used them even if he did not immerse them, or cleansed them in boiling water, or rubbed them clean, or made them glowing white in fire, they are pure.” Rebbi Hoshaia said, one has to immerse them, as by the following. Rebbi Immi and Rebbi Jehudah the Prince went down to the hot springs of Gadara and borrowed silverware from the family Osinos. They asked Rebbi Jeremiah who said, one must immerse them because they left the impurity of Gentiles and entered the holiness of Israel. He went out and we want to learn. They left and heard Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: they said only “who buys”, but the borrower is permitted. Then even vessels. Rebbi Hoshaia bought vessels and immersed them.

It is written: He shall not desecrate his issue in his people. Not only his issue will be desecrated; from where also she? Is this not a logical inference? Since the issue, which did not sin, is desecrated, should she, who committed a sin, not logically be desecrated? He himself is a counter example, since he committed a sin but was not desecrated. No. If you argue about a man who is not desecrated in any circumstance, what can you say about a woman who is desecrated in many circumstances? Since she is desecrated in many circumstances, it is logical that she should be desecrated. If you wish you can say “not to desecrate”, not to desecrate, about somebody who was qualified and became desecrated.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Abba bar Mamal, Rav Amram, Rab Mattanah in the name of Rav: If somebody makes a loan to another person stipulating that he won’t press for repayment, the Sabbatical will remit it. Did we not state: “If somebody slaughters a cow and divides it up on New Year’s Day”? And Rebbi Eleazar said, this follows Rebbi Jehudah. But can he require payment on New Year’s Day? As Rebbi Abba said in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira: Since he could not ask him for payment, it is as if he could not believe him. And since he could not believe him, it is as if he could not pay him. And here, because he could have given him but did not give, the first [debt] is turned into a loan.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Abba bar Mamal, Rav Amram, Rab Mattanah in the name of Rav: If somebody makes a loan to another person stipulating that he won’t press for repayment, the Sabbatical will remit it. Did we not state: “If somebody slaughters a cow and divides it up on New Year’s Day”? And Rebbi Eleazar said, this follows Rebbi Jehudah. But can he require payment on New Year’s Day? As Rebbi Abba said in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira: Since he could not ask him for payment, it is as if he could not believe him. And since he could not believe him, it is as if he could not pay him. And here, because he could have given him but did not give, the first [debt] is turned into a loan.

Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav: If somebody gives a loan to a person on condition that the Sabbatical not remit it, the Sabbatical does not remit it, as we have stated: “to return them after ten years instead of returning them after thirty days”. Are there ten years without a Sabbatical? Rebbi Huna said, Rav Naḥman and Rav Sheshet disagreed. One of them said, if the loan was given on a pledge; but the other said, if he writes him a prozbul.

It was stated: “For thirty days he will not come.” What means “for thirty days he will not come”? Samuel said, if somebody gives a loan to a person without specifying details, he has no right to ask for payment until after 30 days. Rebbi Jehudah came and explained: The Sabbatical year, the remitting year, is close. Is not the Sabbatical year the remitting year? Why does the verse say, the Sabbatical year, the remitting year, is close? Lest you say, I am not permitted to ask for payment until after 30 days; after 30 days the debt will be remitted and I will not collect. Therefore, it must say, the Sabbatical year, the remitting year, is close. Did not Rebbi Abba bar Mamal, Rav Amram, Rav Mattanah say in the name of Rav: If somebody makes a loan to another person stipulating that he will not press for repayment, the Sabbatical will remit it? It was found stated by Rebbi Ismael: The Sabbatical year, the remitting year, is close. Is not the Sabbatical year the remitting year? Why does the verse say, the Sabbatical year, the remitting year, is close? Lest you say, the entire six years his vineyard is available, his field is available but after six years the debt is remitted and I cannot collect. Therefore, it must say, the Sabbatical year, the remitting year, is close.

It was stated: “For thirty days he will not come.” What means “for thirty days he will not come”? Samuel said, if somebody gives a loan to a person without specifying details, he has no right to ask for payment until after 30 days. Rebbi Jehudah came and explained: The Sabbatical year, the remitting year, is close. Is not the Sabbatical year the remitting year? Why does the verse say, the Sabbatical year, the remitting year, is close? Lest you say, I am not permitted to ask for payment until after 30 days; after 30 days the debt will be remitted and I will not collect. Therefore, it must say, the Sabbatical year, the remitting year, is close. Did not Rebbi Abba bar Mamal, Rav Amram, Rav Mattanah say in the name of Rav: If somebody makes a loan to another person stipulating that he will not press for repayment, the Sabbatical will remit it? It was found stated by Rebbi Ismael: The Sabbatical year, the remitting year, is close. Is not the Sabbatical year the remitting year? Why does the verse say, the Sabbatical year, the remitting year, is close? Lest you say, the entire six years his vineyard is available, his field is available but after six years the debt is remitted and I cannot collect. Therefore, it must say, the Sabbatical year, the remitting year, is close.

“Whose sentence was passed,” etc. If somebody wrote all his property over to two persons in one document and the testimony of the witnesses was valid for one but invalid for the other. Rebbi Hila said, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagreed; one said, since it is invalid for one it is invalid for the other, but the other said, it is valid for one and invalid for the other. Rebbi Mana did not specify; Rebbi Abun specified: Rebbi Joḥanan said, since it is invalid for one it is invalid for the other; but Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it is valid for one and invalid for the other. Rebbi Eleazar said, the Mishnah supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “Since the testimony of two [witnesses] is invalid if one of them is found to be a relative or a disqualified person, the same holds for three if one of them is found to be a relative or a disqualified person. From where even for a hundred? The verse says, witnesses.” Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Rebbi Ḥanina the colleague of the rabbis and the rabbis disagree. One says, the argument of Rebbi Eleazar is correct, but the other says, the argument of Rebbi Eleazar is not correct. For him who says, the argument of Rebbi Eleazar is correct, it is a single testimony and a single warning, and any testimony which is partially disqualified is totally disqualified. For him who says, the argument of Rebbi Eleazar is not correct, it is as if two groups of witnesses came, valid for one and invalid for the other.

MISHNAH: If somebody escaped after sentence was passed, if he is returned to the same court, his case is not reopened. Anywhere two [people] will come forward and say, we testify against this man that he was condemned in court X on the testimony of Y and Z, he shall be executed. Criminal courts apply in the Land and outside the Land. A criminal court which hands out a death sentence once in a Sabbatical period is called terrorist. Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah said, once in seventy years. Rebbi Tarphon and Rebbi Aqiba say, if we had been members of a criminal court, nobody ever would have been condemned to death there. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, they would have increased the number of murderers in Israel.

MISHNAH: The following are exiled: the unintentional homicide. If he was rolling with the roller when it fell on somebody and killed him, or lowering an amphora when it fell on somebody and killed him, or was descending on a ladder when he fell on somebody and killed him, he is exiled. But if he was drawing the roller when it fell on somebody and killed him, or lifting an amphora when it fell on somebody and killed him, or was climbing a ladder when he fell on somebody and killed him, he is not exiled. This is the principle, by anything lowered, he is exiled, if it is not lowered, he is not exiled.

MISHNAH: The following are exiled: the unintentional homicide. If he was rolling with the roller when it fell on somebody and killed him, or lowering an amphora when it fell on somebody and killed him, or was descending on a ladder when he fell on somebody and killed him, he is exiled. But if he was drawing the roller when it fell on somebody and killed him, or lifting an amphora when it fell on somebody and killed him, or was climbing a ladder when he fell on somebody and killed him, he is not exiled. This is the principle, by anything lowered, he is exiled, if it is not lowered, he is not exiled.

MISHNAH: The following are exiled: the unintentional homicide. If he was rolling with the roller when it fell on somebody and killed him, or lowering an amphora when it fell on somebody and killed him, or was descending on a ladder when he fell on somebody and killed him, he is exiled. But if he was drawing the roller when it fell on somebody and killed him, or lifting an amphora when it fell on somebody and killed him, or was climbing a ladder when he fell on somebody and killed him, he is not exiled. This is the principle, by anything lowered, he is exiled, if it is not lowered, he is not exiled.

MISHNAH: The following are exiled: the unintentional homicide. If he was rolling with the roller when it fell on somebody and killed him, or lowering an amphora when it fell on somebody and killed him, or was descending on a ladder when he fell on somebody and killed him, he is exiled. But if he was drawing the roller when it fell on somebody and killed him, or lifting an amphora when it fell on somebody and killed him, or was climbing a ladder when he fell on somebody and killed him, he is not exiled. This is the principle, by anything lowered, he is exiled, if it is not lowered, he is not exiled.

MISHNAH: The following are exiled: the unintentional homicide. If he was rolling with the roller when it fell on somebody and killed him, or lowering an amphora when it fell on somebody and killed him, or was descending on a ladder when he fell on somebody and killed him, he is exiled. But if he was drawing the roller when it fell on somebody and killed him, or lifting an amphora when it fell on somebody and killed him, or was climbing a ladder when he fell on somebody and killed him, he is not exiled. This is the principle, by anything lowered, he is exiled, if it is not lowered, he is not exiled.

MISHNAH: The following are exiled: the unintentional homicide. If he was rolling with the roller when it fell on somebody and killed him, or lowering an amphora when it fell on somebody and killed him, or was descending on a ladder when he fell on somebody and killed him, he is exiled. But if he was drawing the roller when it fell on somebody and killed him, or lifting an amphora when it fell on somebody and killed him, or was climbing a ladder when he fell on somebody and killed him, he is not exiled. This is the principle, by anything lowered, he is exiled, if it is not lowered, he is not exiled.

MISHNAH: If he threw the stone into his own courtyard and it killed, if the person damaged had the right to enter there, he is exiled, but if not, he is not exiled, as it is said, if somebody goes with another to a forest. Since the forest is a place where the person injured and the one causing the injury both may enter, this excludes a private courtyard where the person injured and the one causing the injury may not enter together. Abba Shaul says, since cutting down trees is a voluntary act, this excludes a father who hits his son, a teacher who disciplines his student, and the court bailiff.

HALAKHAH: If he threw the stone into his (comrade),” etc. Rebbi Yannai said, a butcher who was cutting up [a carcass] and hit somebody whether raising or descending has to go into exile. This follows what Rebbi Huna said: A butcher who was cutting up [a carcass] and hit somebody in front of him in a descending motion goes into exile, in an ascending motion does not go into exile. In his back, in an ascending motion he goes into exile, in a descending motion he does not go into exile. Rebbi Isaac said, each case goes by its circumstances. If somebody sat on a bed during the day, and it is not usual to find a baby in a bed during the day, he goes into exile. During the night, when it is usual to find a baby in a bed during the night, he does not go into exile. If somebody sat on a crib during the day, and it is usual to find a baby in a crib during the day, he does not go into exile. During the night, when it is not usual to find a baby in a crib during the night, he goes into exile.

HALAKHAH: If he threw the stone into his (comrade),” etc. Rebbi Yannai said, a butcher who was cutting up [a carcass] and hit somebody whether raising or descending has to go into exile. This follows what Rebbi Huna said: A butcher who was cutting up [a carcass] and hit somebody in front of him in a descending motion goes into exile, in an ascending motion does not go into exile. In his back, in an ascending motion he goes into exile, in a descending motion he does not go into exile. Rebbi Isaac said, each case goes by its circumstances. If somebody sat on a bed during the day, and it is not usual to find a baby in a bed during the day, he goes into exile. During the night, when it is usual to find a baby in a bed during the night, he does not go into exile. If somebody sat on a crib during the day, and it is usual to find a baby in a crib during the day, he does not go into exile. During the night, when it is not usual to find a baby in a crib during the night, he goes into exile.

HALAKHAH: If he threw the stone into his (comrade),” etc. Rebbi Yannai said, a butcher who was cutting up [a carcass] and hit somebody whether raising or descending has to go into exile. This follows what Rebbi Huna said: A butcher who was cutting up [a carcass] and hit somebody in front of him in a descending motion goes into exile, in an ascending motion does not go into exile. In his back, in an ascending motion he goes into exile, in a descending motion he does not go into exile. Rebbi Isaac said, each case goes by its circumstances. If somebody sat on a bed during the day, and it is not usual to find a baby in a bed during the day, he goes into exile. During the night, when it is usual to find a baby in a bed during the night, he does not go into exile. If somebody sat on a crib during the day, and it is usual to find a baby in a crib during the day, he does not go into exile. During the night, when it is not usual to find a baby in a crib during the night, he goes into exile.

HALAKHAH: If he threw the stone into his (comrade),” etc. Rebbi Yannai said, a butcher who was cutting up [a carcass] and hit somebody whether raising or descending has to go into exile. This follows what Rebbi Huna said: A butcher who was cutting up [a carcass] and hit somebody in front of him in a descending motion goes into exile, in an ascending motion does not go into exile. In his back, in an ascending motion he goes into exile, in a descending motion he does not go into exile. Rebbi Isaac said, each case goes by its circumstances. If somebody sat on a bed during the day, and it is not usual to find a baby in a bed during the day, he goes into exile. During the night, when it is usual to find a baby in a bed during the night, he does not go into exile. If somebody sat on a crib during the day, and it is usual to find a baby in a crib during the day, he does not go into exile. During the night, when it is not usual to find a baby in a crib during the night, he goes into exile.

HALAKHAH: “The father is exiled for the son,” etc. Rebbi Zeˋira said that Rebbi Shila bar Binah stated: Even though it be written, the redeemer of the blood himself shall kill the murderer, nevertheless if somebody smote his son, his second son does not become the redeemer of the blood to kill his father. But if a brother smote his brother, the second brother becomes the redeemer of the blood to kill his brother. Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob stated: Even though it be written, the redeemer of the blood himself shall kill the murderer, nevertheless if somebody smote his son, his second son becomes the redeemer of the blood to kill his father. But if a brother smote his brother, the second brother does not become the redeemer of the blood to kill his brother. And from where even if he said, I cannot face him, the verse says, when he comes upon him he shall kill him.

HALAKHAH: “The father is exiled for the son,” etc. Rebbi Zeˋira said that Rebbi Shila bar Binah stated: Even though it be written, the redeemer of the blood himself shall kill the murderer, nevertheless if somebody smote his son, his second son does not become the redeemer of the blood to kill his father. But if a brother smote his brother, the second brother becomes the redeemer of the blood to kill his brother. Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob stated: Even though it be written, the redeemer of the blood himself shall kill the murderer, nevertheless if somebody smote his son, his second son becomes the redeemer of the blood to kill his father. But if a brother smote his brother, the second brother does not become the redeemer of the blood to kill his brother. And from where even if he said, I cannot face him, the verse says, when he comes upon him he shall kill him.

MISHNAH: Where are they exiled to? To the cities of refuge. To the three in Transjordan and the three in the Land of Canaan, as it is said: Three cities you shall designate in Transjordan, etc. As long as those in the Land of Israel had not been selected, those in Transjordan were not receiving, as it is said, there shall be six cities of refuge, not until all six were receiving together. Roads were maintained from one to the other, as it is said: Maintain the road for yourselves, and divide the domain of your Land into three parts. One sends with them two scholars lest he kill him on the road, to argue with him. Rebbi Meïr says, he may argue for himself as it is said, this is the word of the homicide. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah says, at the start both the involuntary and the voluntary [homicide] go to the city of refuge; the court sends and brings them back from there. If one is found guilty by a death sentence, they execute him. If he is found not guilty in a capital case, he is freed. If he is found guilty to be exiled they return him to his place as it is said, the community shall return him to his city of refuge. Not only a [High Priest] anointed with the anointing oil, but also one wearing the many vestments, and one deposed from his office. Rebbi Jehudah says, also the one anointed for war returns the homicide. Therefore, the mothers of the [High] Priests support them with food and clothing, so they should not pray for the death of their sons. If sentence had been passed when the High Priest died, he is not exiled. If sentence had not yet been passed when the High Priest died, and sentence was passed after a successor had been appointed, he returns after the death of the second. If sentence was passed when there was no High Priest, or one who killed a High Priest, or a High Priest who killed, can never leave from there. He cannot leave from there, neither for a testimony of obligation, nor a testimony in a civil suit, nor a testimony in a criminal suit, not even if Israel needs him like Joab ben Ṣeruya, he cannot ever leave from there, as it is said there. There shall be his dwelling, there he shall die, there he shall be buried. Just as the city grants asylum, so does its domain grant asylum. If a murderer left the domain and was found by the avenger of the blood, Rebbi Yose the Galilean says, it is the obligation of the avenger of the blood and the right of everybody. Rebbi Aqiba says, it is the right of the avenger of the blood and nobody would be liable because of him. If a tree stands inside the domain but its crown is outside the domain, or the tree stands outside the domain but its crown is inside the domain, everything follows the crown. If somebody killed in one of these cities, he is exiled from quarter to quarter; but a Levite who killed is exiled from one city to another. Similarly, a homicide exiled to a city of refuge whom the citizens of the town wanted to honor, should say to them, I am a homicide. If they tell him, anyway, he should accept, for it is said, this is the word of a homicide.

MISHNAH: All those subject to extirpation are no longer liable to extirpation once they were flogged, as it is said, your brother would be despicable in your eyes. After he was flogged, he is your brother, the words of Rebbi Ḥanania ben Gamliel. And since one who commits a transgression may lose his soul because of it, if one fulfills a commandment certainly his soul shall be given to him. Rebbi Simeon says, from its place it can be inferred as it is written, the souls of the perpetrators will be extirpated, and it says, that a human shall do and live in them. Therefore, to anybody who quietly does not transgress a prohibition is given reward like somebody keeping the Commandments. Rebbi Simeon ben Rebbi says, does it not say, only be strong not to eat blood, for blood is the life? Since one who desists from blood, from which a person recoils, receives reward, if one desists of robbery and sexual offenses, which a person desires and cherishes, certainly he should acquire the merit for himself, his descendants, and his descendants’ descendants to the end of all generations.

If somebody had selected his purification sacrifice when he became a deaf-mute, or insane, or an apostate, or the Court rules that fat may be eaten, Rebbi Joḥanan said, his sacrifice of purification is pushed aside, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, his sacrifice of purification is not pushed aside. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rebbi Aḥa switches traditions, to avoid that a word of Rebbi Joḥanan contradict his own word. For Rebbi Simeon bar Abba said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One sprinkles the blood of a purification sacrifice or a reparation sacrifice for a person [terminally ill]. The Rebbi of Caesarea said, Rebbi Ḥiyya and [Rebbi] Immi, [one] switches and one says like [this] Tanna.

HALAKHAH: “They are not liable for hearing the sound of an imprecation,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the reason of Rebbi Yose the Galilean is, if he is poor and cannot afford it. Somebody who is apt to fall into poverty; this excludes the Anointed who is not apt to fall into poverty. [ They objected: There is the prince who is not apt to fall into poverty.] Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it shall be if he becomes guilty of any of these. He who can be liable for all of them is liable for part of them; but one who cannot be liable for all of them is not liable for part of them. Rebbi Isaac asked: Then he should not become impure by skin disease since he is not apt (easily and then) [to fall] into poverty or the deepest of poverty. Rav Hoshaia asked: Then a woman should not be liable for entering the Temple. Does the woman not bring? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The reason of Rebbi Aqiba, this is the offering of Aaron and his sons. This one he brings; he does not bring another tenth of an ephah. Rebbi Zeˋira asked before Rebbi Yasa may he not bring a voluntary offering? He told him, yes. He does not bring an obligatory one; he may bring a voluntary one.

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.

R. Abbahu said in the name of R. Johanan: He must repeat the word "true." Rabbah said : He does not repeat it. Somebody descended in the presence of Rabbah ; and when the latter heard him say emit "true" twice, He [Rabbah] exclaimed, "Every emet has seized hold of this fellow !"

Rab Joseph retorted : [Samuel mentions] his wife, but is it not the more necessary to mention [the case when he is with] somebody else? For on the contrary, his wife is like part of himself, whereas another is not like part of himself!

This is quite right according to Rab Joseph and there is no contradiction [between the two teachings], the first referring to his wife, the second to somebody else. But with Samuel's view there is a contradiction.

If he is riding upon an ass, he should alight and say the Tefillah. Our Rabbis have taught : If a man is riding upon an ass and the time of the Tefillah arrives, should he have somebody to hold his ass, he must alight and pray ; but if not, he sits in his place and prays. Rabbi says : In either case, he should sit in his place and pray, because his mind is unsettled.

The same one says the benediction over the perfume, etc. Since he teaches, The same one says the benediction over the perfume, it is to be inferred that there may be somebody more worthy than he ; why, then, [is it his privilege] ?

King Jannaeus and his Queen were dining together, and since he had put the Rabbis to death, he had nobody to say Grace for them. He said to his wife, "Would that we had somebody to say Grace for us." She said to him, "Swear to me that if I bring thee such a man, thou wilt not harm him." He swore to her ; and she brought him her brother, Simeon b. Shetah. The king gave him a seat between himself and her, and said to him, "See how much honour I pay thee." He replied, "It is not thou that honourest me, but it is the Torah that brings me honour ; for it is written, 'Extol her, and she will exalt thee ; she will bring thee honour when thou dost embrace her' (Prov. iv. 8)." The king said to him, "Thou seest they do not accept any lordship!"

Bar Kappara said to Rabbi: I dreamt that my nose fell off. He replied : The divine wrath has departed from thee. He said to him : I dreamt that both my hands were cutoff. He replied : Thou wilt not be dependent upon the work of thy hands. He said to him : I dreamt that both my legs were amputated. He replied : Thou wilt ride upon a horse. He said to him : I dreamt that somebody told me, "Thou wilt die in Adar and not behold Nisan." He replied : Thou wilt die in honour [idruta] and not fall into the power of temptation [nissayon].

Rab Safra entered a privy. R. Abba came and emitted a sound at the door. Rab Safra said to him, "Let the master enter." After leaving, R. Abba said to him, "So far thou hast not brought in the demon ; but thou hast received the tradition about the demon. Have we not learnt thus in the Mishnah : There was an open fire-place there [in the Temple-court], and a splendid privy ; and this was its splendid feature : if it was found locked, it was known that somebody was in there, but if it was found open, it was known that it was vacant. Hence infer that it is not proper [to speak in a privy]!