someone

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Jacob stated before Rebbi Jeremiah: One recites a benediction over spices of Gentiles. How can he disagree? Uphold it for someone who burns spices in front of his store.

Rebbi Judan said in his own name: Flesh and blood has a protector. If someone is in trouble, he does not enter the protector’s place suddenly but rather stands at his door and calls his slave or familiar and that one will say: the man X is standing at the door of your courtyard. Maybe he will make him enter, maybe he will let him stand. But the Holy One, praise to Him, is not like this: If a human is in trouble, he should cry neither to Michael nor to Gabriel, rather he should cry to Me and I shall answer him immediately; that is what is written (Joel 3:5): “Every one who calls on the name of the Eternal will escape.”

Rebbi Phineas said: It happened to Rav that he was ascending from the hot springs of Tiberias that he met Romans. They asked him, of whose party are you? He said, of Sophianus; they let him go. The next morning, they came to him and asked him, how long did you carry on with these Jews? He asked them, why? They said to him, we met a Jew and asked him, of whose party are you? He said, of Sophianus. He asked them, what did you do to him? They said to him, it was enough, we let him go. He said to them, you did well. And if a person who attaches himself on to the party of a human is saved, someone who attaches himself to the Holy One, praise to Him, so much more. That is what is written (Joel 3:5): “Every one who calls on the name of the Eternal will escape.”

Rebbi Alexandri said, it happened that a prefect by the name of Alexander sat and judged a robber. He asked him, what is your name? Alexander! He said, Alexander, go to Alexandria. And if a person whose name is the name of a human is saved, someone whose name is that of the Holy One, praise to Him, so much more. That is what is written (Joel 3:5): “Every one who is called by the name of the Eternal will escape.”

Rebbi Phineas gave on this subject two sermons, one in the name of Rebbi Zeïra, the other in the name of Rebbi Tanḥum bar Ḥanilai. Rebbi Phineas said in the name of Rebbi Zeïra, flesh and blood has a protector. If he bothers him too much, he will say: “There is X who will bother me.” But the Holy One, praise to Him, is not like that; He will receive you with all that you might bother him with. That is what is written (Ps. 55:23) “Throw on the Eternal your burden and He will provide for you!” Rebbi Phineas said in the name of Rebbi Tanḥum bar Ḥanilai, flesh and blood has a protector. Enemies come and grab him at the door of his protector’s courtyard. While he is crying and before someone could come out, the sword already passes over his neck and kills him. But the Holy One, praise to Him, saved Jehoshaphat from the sword of the Syrians as it is written (2Chr. 18:34): “Jehoshaphat cried, the Eternal helped him and God turned them away from him.” That shows that only the cutting off of the head was missing, but God deflected them from him.

Some person might serve his father fattened meat and inherit hell. Some person might bind his father to the grindstone and inherit paradise. How does one serve his father fattened meat and inherit hell? A person used to serve his father fattened chickens. One day, his father said to him: My son, from where do you get the money for these? He said to him: Old man, old man, eat and shut up just as dogs eat and are silent. It turns out that he serves his father fattened meat and inherits hell. How does one bind his father to the grindstone and inherits paradise? A person was a miller at a grindstone; there came a requisition for millers. He said: Father, go and grind in my stead. If it should come to pass that someone is degraded, it is better that it should happen to me rather than to you. If it should come to pass that someone is beaten, it is better that it should happen to me rather than to you. It turns out that he binds his father to the grindstone and inherits paradise.

Some person might serve his father fattened meat and inherit hell. Some person might bind his father to the grindstone and inherit paradise. How does one serve his father fattened meat and inherit hell? A person used to serve his father fattened chickens. One day, his father said to him: My son, from where do you get the money for these? He said to him: Old man, old man, eat and shut up just as dogs eat and are silent. It turns out that he serves his father fattened meat and inherits hell. How does one bind his father to the grindstone and inherits paradise? A person was a miller at a grindstone; there came a requisition for millers. He said: Father, go and grind in my stead. If it should come to pass that someone is degraded, it is better that it should happen to me rather than to you. If it should come to pass that someone is beaten, it is better that it should happen to me rather than to you. It turns out that he binds his father to the grindstone and inherits paradise.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Jacob bar Zabdi in the name of Rebbi Abbahu, Rebbi Nehemiaḥ bar Uqban turned it in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If someone separated first fruits from a smoothed heap, it is free from the great terumah. Rebbi Ḥaggai said before Rebbi Yose: Does not the Mishnah say so: “Forever he gives peah and it is free from tithes until he smoothes.” Hence, if he smoothed he is obligated, but this does not apply to terumah? It should say that he also is obligated for first fruits even though he did not smooth yet! But he is the one who said this: “Why are they called firstlings? Because they are first before everything else.” And anything which precedes something else, the latter is obligated for it.

Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina: If someone gave peah from one field for another one, it does not acquire holiness.

Rebbi Zeïra asked before Rebbi Yasa: If he intended to let them acquire from the boundary strip? He avoided answering him. The opinions of Rebbi Yasa are contradictory since we have stated there (Mishnah 3:2): “The sages agree with Rebbi Aqiba about someone who sowed dill or mustard in three places.” (The Mishnah means: dill in three places or mustard in three places.) Samuel said, because the first of them does not wait for the last. Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Because they are usually sown in separate beds. And here he says so? It is obvious for him that it separates. What he could not decide is whether it does become sanctified as peah or maybe it does not become sanctified! Rebbi Hoshaiah stated: If someone gave peah from one field for another one, it does not acquire holiness. One understands that this means even the boundary strip.

Rebbi Zeïra asked before Rebbi Yasa: If he intended to let them acquire from the boundary strip? He avoided answering him. The opinions of Rebbi Yasa are contradictory since we have stated there (Mishnah 3:2): “The sages agree with Rebbi Aqiba about someone who sowed dill or mustard in three places.” (The Mishnah means: dill in three places or mustard in three places.) Samuel said, because the first of them does not wait for the last. Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Because they are usually sown in separate beds. And here he says so? It is obvious for him that it separates. What he could not decide is whether it does become sanctified as peah or maybe it does not become sanctified! Rebbi Hoshaiah stated: If someone gave peah from one field for another one, it does not acquire holiness. One understands that this means even the boundary strip.

MISHNAH: Rectangles of grain between olive trees: The House of Shammai say, peah from each single one, the House of Hillel say, from one for all of them. They agree that one gives one peah for all of them if the edges of the rows are touching. If someone harvests his field in spots and leaves moist stalks, Rebbi Aqiba says, peah from each spot, but the Sages say, from one for all of them. The Sages agree with Rebbi Aqiba that he who sows dill or mustard at three different places gives peah from each spot.

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.

MISHNAH: If someone sells his field, the seller is permitted but the buyer is barred. Nobody should hire a worker on condition that his son may collect gleanings after him. He who does not let the poor collect gleanings, or who lets one person collect but not the other, or helps one of them, robs the poor. On him it was said (Prov. 22:28, 23:10): “Do not displace an eternal boundary.”

HALAKHAH: Our Mishnah is about someone who sold the field with the standing crop. But if someone sold the standing crop and retained the field for himself, for him I read “your field”, for the other one I read “your harvest.”

HALAKHAH: Our Mishnah is about someone who sold the field with the standing crop. But if someone sold the standing crop and retained the field for himself, for him I read “your field”, for the other one I read “your harvest.”

There we have stated: “If someone sets fire to a stack in which were hidden vessels, Rebbi Jehudah says, he pays for all that was in it. But the Sages say, he only pays for a stack of wheat or barley.” The argument of Rebbi Jehudah is inverted; there he says to include the hidden things, but here he says to exclude the hidden things. There (Ex. 22:5) “and a stack or standing grain was consumed.” I understand that since it says “standing grain” it includes a stack. Why does the verse add “a stack?” In order to include the hidden things. But here (Deut. 24:10) “your field,” in the open, to exclude anything hidden. The argument of the rabbis is inverted; there they say to exclude the hidden things, but here they say to include the hidden things. There, “or standing grain or a field,” just as a field is in the open, so all must be in the open. But here, “your field,” in the open, to exclude that which is hidden; “your harvest,” in the open, to exclude that which is hidden. That is a restriction after a restriction and every restriction after a restriction is only to add the hidden things.

Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of Rebbi Avin: Cinnamon was goat feed when the Jews were growing it. Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of Rebbi Abin: The two daily offerings which were sacrificed every day used to be carried by a camel and their legs touched the ground. Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of Rebbi Idi: It happened that someone tied his goat to a fig tree; when he returned, he found honey and milk mixed.

It happened that someone sowed a seah of peas and it produced 300 seah. They said to him, the Holy One, praise to Him, has started to bless you. He answered, get away from here, if bad dew had not descended on it, it would have produced twice as much.

MISHNAH: If someone dedicates his vineyard before gleanings are recognizable, the gleanings do not belong to the poor. But after the gleanings are recognizable, the gleanings belong to the poor. Rebbi Yose said, they should give the value of their growth to the Temple. What are forgotten grapes? On a trellis, anything he cannot stretch out his hands and take. On a single growing vine, once he is done with it.

Who is a trader? Everyone who brought, repeated, and came a third time. Rebbi Jonah asked, if he brought three loads together, is he not a trader; one after the other, is he a trader? Rebbi Jonah asked, does he become a trader retroactively or only for the future? What is the difference? If someone came and brought his things in order, if you say only for the future, can he tithe from one on the other! Rebbi Mana asked: Can he, his son, and his worker combine for three loads? Rebbi Jonah asked, a ship that comes from Rome and carries many kinds, do you count this only as one?

But does it not turn out that he creates an obstacle for those who come after him? Let him make a separate heap. But why can he not fix them in his own produce? Did we not state: “A person may fix his tithes for someone else, even if he creates an obstacle for those who come after him.” Rebbi Ḥinena said, they made that ordinance for the buyer but not for him who returns [produce].

It was stated only for someone acting in error, not intentionally, as we have stated: If he forgot to tithe, if he had made no previous stipulation. But with a stipulation, one eats even on the stipulation by a friend.

HALAKHAH: It was stated: “Rebbi Yose said, even if he specified, from X, he is not trustworthy, unless he said, you buy and I will pay.” What is the reason of Rebbi Yose? I say that he found someone close by and bought from him, as we have stated there: “Receive my bill of divorce at such and such a place; she may eat heave until the bill of divorce reaches that place. Rebbi Eleazar prohibits her immediately.” What is the reason of Rebbi Eleazar? I say that he found it behind the door. It turns out that Rebbi Eleazar is like Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Yose is like Rebbi Eleazar. Rebbi Yose says more than Rebbi Eleazar; does not Rebbi Eleazar agree that if she says to him, do not accept it except at such and such a place, that she continues eating until the bill of divorce reaches that place? But here, even if he says, only from X, he is not trustworthy, except if he said, you buy and I will pay.

MISHNAH: If someone enters a town, does not know anybody there, and asks: Who is trustworthy here, who tithes? If somebody told him, I am not trustworthy, but Mr. X is trustworthy, he may be believed. If he went and bought there and asked, who is selling old produce here? If the seller said, the one who sent you to me, they may be believed even though they act as if they would do reciprocal favors to each other. Donkey drivers who entered a town and one of them said, my produce is new, my colleague’s is old, mine is not in order, my colleague’s is in order, are not to be believed. Rebbi Jehudah says, they are to be believed.

MISHNAH: If someone buys wine from Samaritans he may say: Two log that I shall separate in the future are heave, ten tithe, and nine Second Tithe; then he redeems and drinks.

“ If someone has a basket and wants to tithe it, he takes two ninths and a ninth of a ninth, corresponding to ten tithe and nine Second Tithe.” Why does he not say 19? Rebbi Zeïra said, the words of the Sages and their riddles. He who wants to bring a hundred figs in order into his house takes for ever single fig two ninths and a ninth of a ninth, 23 figs in all, four called ninth of a ninth.

Rebbi Jeremiah said, Cahana asked R. Simeon ben Laqish: What is the rule for someone who mates sea animals? He said to him, it is written about them (Gen. 1:21): “By their kinds.” Rebbi Aḥa did not say so, but Rebbi Aḥa used to say in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, wherever “by their kinds” is written, kilaim applies to it. Rebbi Cahana objected, it is written about the animals of the sea “by their kinds;” kilaim should apply to them! Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, here did Cahana spread his net over Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish and caught him. Rebbi Jonah said, I can explain it, because of one who leads. He brings a string and binds it to the gills of a white fish and a green fish; they rub one another and spawn.

MISHNAH: If someone hides turnips and radishes under a vine and some of the leaves were showing he does not have to worry either because of kilaim, or because of the Sabbatical year, or because of tithes, and they may be removed on the Sabbath. If someone sows wheat and barley together, that is kilaim. Rebbi Jehudah says, it is not kilaim unless there are two wheat kernels and a barley kernel, or a wheat kernel and two barley kernels, or one each of wheat, barley, and spelt.

MISHNAH: If someone hides turnips and radishes under a vine and some of the leaves were showing he does not have to worry either because of kilaim, or because of the Sabbatical year, or because of tithes, and they may be removed on the Sabbath. If someone sows wheat and barley together, that is kilaim. Rebbi Jehudah says, it is not kilaim unless there are two wheat kernels and a barley kernel, or a wheat kernel and two barley kernels, or one each of wheat, barley, and spelt.

One sowed two kinds in a valley, two kinds in a dry spot, or two kinds that he separated by a fence. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he is free from sanction, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he is guilty. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish agrees that one who sows on the sea, on a stone, on a rock, on hard stones cannot be sanctioned. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish agrees that one who sows with the intention of erecting a fence cannot be sanctioned. Rebbi Abba from Carthage said, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish agrees that on the Sabbath it must come to rest. Our Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “If someone sows wheat and barley together, that is kilaim.” He explains it, if they are put inside a six [hand-breadths] by six [hand-breadths] spot, since Rebbi Joḥanan said, he is not guilty unless there is a bare spot of six by six inside a grain field or enclosed by a fence.

MISHNAH: If someone wants to make his field into separate garden beds of different kinds, the House of Shammai say, three furrows of the ploughshare, and the House of Hillel say, the width of a Sharon yoke. Both criteria are close to one another.

MISHNAH: A vertex of wheat coming close to a field of barley is permitted since it visibly is the end of its field. If someone’s field was sown with wheat and that of his neighbor with another kind, he may have of that kind adjacent to it. If both his and his neighbor’s fields were growing wheat, it is permitted that he have one row of flax adjacent to his, but no other kind. Rebbi Simeon says, either flax or any other kind. Rebbi Yose says, even in the middle of his field he may test a row for flax.

MISHNAH: If someone plants two rows of green melons, two rows of pumpkin, two rows of Egyptian beans, this is permitted. One row of melons, one row of pumpkin, one row of Egyptian beans is forbidden. One row each of melons, pumpkin, Egyptian beans, and one row of melons, Rebbi Eliezer permits but the Sages forbid. One may plant melon and pumpkin in the same hole on condition that one of them points to one side, the other to the other side. (One plants so that the hair of one be here, the hair of the other one there, for what the Sages forbade is only because of the misleading impression.)

Why did they not object to him: If someone keeps single fresh stalks growing to produce seeds, must he not clear around them a bet rova‘ or fence them in by a fence of ten hand-breadths? For a row one is more lenient. Since they did not object to him, it follows that Rebbi Yose thinks that row and square are the same. For Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose the Galilean said in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina: He who keeps a single fresh stalk growing to produce seeds must clear around it a bet rova‘ or fence it in by a fence of ten hand-breadths, even if it is the same kind. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya objected before Rebbi Zeïra, did we not state: “If coriander was sown for its seeds, its greens are exempt?” He answered him, coriander is a special case since both the plant and its seeds are eaten.

MISHNAH: If somebody plants two rows, he should not sow there unless there are eight cubits between them. If there were three rows, he should not sow there unless there are sixteen cubits between one row and the next. Rebbi Eliezer said in the name of Ḥananiah ben Ḥakhinai: He should not sow there unless there are sixteen cubits between one row and the next, even if the middle row dried up. But if he planted new [vines], it would be permitted with eight cubits. If somebody plants his vineyard sixteen by sixteen cubits, he may bring seeds there. Rebbi Jehudah said, it happened that somebody in Ṣalmon planted his vineyard sixteen by sixteen cubits. He turned the growth of two rows towards one another and sowed the ploughed area. The next year, he turned the growth to the side that had been sown and sowed what was fallow. This came before the Sages and they permitted it. Rebbi Simeon and Rebbi Meïr say that this is permitted even for someone who plants his vineyard spaced eight cubits.

Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It turns out that the statement of Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob is like that of the House of Shammai. Just as the House of Shammai say that one row constitutes a vineyard, so Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob says that one row constitutes a vineyard. What do you want to say? A large vineyard is forbidden by eight, a small vineyard is forbidden by eight! Rebbi Judan did not say so but taught that eight cubits is forbidden, eight cubits plus any length is permitted. Some want to state: “But if someone newly planted sixteen by sixteen, it would be permitted with eight cubits.” Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It turns out that the statement of Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob is like that of the House of Shammai. Just as the House of Shammai are more restrictive when it is dried up than when it is planted, so Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob is more restrictive when it is dried up than when it is planted.

MISHNAH: If somebody was passing through a vineyard and accidentally dropped some seeds, or that seeds were brought there by manure or water, or someone sowed and the wind carried the seeds behind him, all this is permitted. If the wind carried the seeds before him, Rebbi Aqiba says, if they produce greenery it should be plowed under, if they are green stalks, they should be broken, if they produced grain it must be burned.

MISHNAH: A trellis coming from a terrace. Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob says, if someone standing on the ground can harvest all [vines] then it forbids four cubits in the field; otherwise it only forbids around it. Rebbi Eliezer says, also if one plants one row on the ground and one on a terrace, if the latter is ten hand-breadth. higher they do not combine; otherwise, they do combine.

MISHNAH: If somebody draws his vine over somebody else’s grain it sanctifies and he is responsible for its alienation. Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Simeon say, nobody can sanctify anything that is not his. Rebbi Yose said, it happened that someone sowed in his vineyard in the Sabbatical year. When this came before Rebbi Aqiba, he said nobody can sanctify anything that is not his.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, everybody agrees that the grapes will be forbidden. Rebbi Eleazar said to him, what makes forbidden is not forbidden and what is not forbidden will be forbidden? They disagree if somebody draws his vine over somebody else’s grain. But if somebody draws a neighbor’s vine over his own grain, everybody agrees that what makes forbidden is forbidden. If somebody draws a neighbor’s vine over his neighbor’s grain we can understand from the following: “Rebbi Yose said, it happened that someone sowed in his vineyard in the Sabbatical year. When this came before Rebbi Aqiba, he said nobody can sanctify anything that is not his.” This was given as answer!

What are the rules if somebody improved today? Rebbi Jeremiah wanted to say, it is permitted. Rebbi Yose said, did Rebbi Jeremiah not hear that he would be whipped? Did he not hear that he would be unacceptable for testimony? He turned around and said, certainly he had heard! But he is like someone who hears a statement and questiones it. Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, it was objected before Rebbi Jeremiah, there seems not to have been a court which disestablished! The force of Rebbi Jeremiah is from the following: “An Israel woman who comes to a priestly woman to get fire dips the wick into oil to burn and lights.” Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of the house of Rebbi Yannai: It was a time of wolf packs; there was no court which disestablished. As you say there, there was no court which disestablished, so here there was no court which disestablished!

Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥinena in the name of Rav Cahana: Following the opinion that someone who cannot give heave cannot dedicate to the Temple. Why did he not say: following the opinion that he can give heave, he can dedicate to the Temple? Because of Rebbi Jehudah, for Rebbi Jehudah says he can give heave but cannot dedicate. But Rebbi Joḥanan says, even following the opinion that he cannot give heave, he can dedicate. What can he dedicate? Holocaust and well-being offerings. He cannot bring a sin sacrifice for fat because he is not obligated to a sin sacrifice for fat. He cannot bring a sin sacrifice for blood because he is not obligated to a sin sacrifice for blood. May he bring a sacrifice relating to gonorrhea and skin disease? Since it is obligatory can’t he bring it, or since he becomes impure by these can he bring it? If it is obvious for you that he brings, can he become an agent for these? Since he may become impure by these, may he become an agent, or since he cannot become an agent for anything else, can’t he become an agent for these? Rebbi Yudan objected: His produce is ṭevel from the Torah but he cannot free his ṭevel by Torah law! So here, even though he may become impure by them, he cannot become an agent. May he bring First Fruits following Rebbi Jehudah who says thatFirst Fruits have the status of territorial consecrated things? He may not bring following the rabbis who say they have the status of things consecrated to the Temple. May he bring a sacrifice of pilgrimage? Since it is obligatory can’t he bring it, or since he may change its name to well-being offering, may he bring it? May he bring a Passover sacrifice? Since it is obligatory can’t he bring it, or since Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said in the name of Rebbi Yudan the Prince, a person may bring a Passover sacrifice any day of the year when he changes its name to well-being offering, may he bring it? May he bring tithes of animals? If Rebbi Meїr is of the opinion (Num. 18:28): “From all your tithes,” that all tithes were bracketed together, then since he cannot bring tithes of grain he cannot bring tithes of animals. May he make substitutions? If Rebbi Meїr is of the opinion that all tithes were bracketed together, then since he cannot bring tithes of grain he cannot bring tithes of animals; since he cannot bring tithes of animals he cannot make substitutions. One may hold with Rebbi Simeon, since Rebbi Simeon says that tithes of animals teach you for all sacrifices about substitutions. That means, since he cannot bring tithes of grain he cannot bring tithes of animals; since he cannot bring tithes of animals he cannot make substitutions; since he cannot make substitutions for these he cannot make substitutions for any sacrifices. Is one guilty sacrificing for him outside the Temple? Cahana said, one cannot be guilty sacrificing for him outside the Temple. Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish say, one is guilty. The statement of Cahana disagrees since Rebbi Jehudah frees his ṭevel as biblical law. We can say he [Cahana] is following him who says they accepted tithes voluntarily.

Abba bar Rav Huna said, one who drank [wine] should not pray but if he did pray, his prayer is a supplication. A drunk should not pray but if he did pray, his prayer is blasphemy. What is one who drank [wine]? Someone who drank a quartarius; a drunk is one who drank more. There, it is said if he cannot speak before a king. Rebbi Zeïra asked before Rebbi Assi: May a drunk recite Grace? He said to him (Deut. 11:15): “When you will eat and be satiated, then you must praise”, even if you are sleepy. The question is only, may he recite the Shema‘? Abba bar Avin said, a pious person asked Elijah, may he be remembered for the good, may a naked person recite the Shema‘? He said to him (Deut. 23:15): “He should not see in you a thing of turpitude,” a word of turpitude. Ḥizqiah stated: both for reciting [Grace] and reading [the Shema‘].

Rebbi Abun bar Cahana said: If someone diminished by ten it is heave, and if he added ten it is heave. This does not apply to the profane [produce] since diminution and addition are not equal. How is that? If he used to give heave one in fifty, if he gives heave one in forty he makes him lose six quarters. If he gives heave one in sixty, he earns him four quarters.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Yudan bar Pazi and Rebbi Ayvo bar Naggari were sitting and saying: We did state “after they conceded”; who conceded to whom? The House of Shammai to the House of Hillel or the House of Hillel to the House of Shammai? They said, let us go out and study. The went out and heard Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Jehudah bar Ḥanina: We never find the House of Shammai conceding to the House of Hillel except in this matter. Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Abbai understood it from the following: “If someone pours from vessel to vessel and a ṭevul yom touches it, it should be lifted by 101.” If you say that the House of Hillel conceded to the House of Shammai that it cannot be lifted, who is the Tanna here, neither the House of Shammai nor the House of Hillel! Rebbi Ḥanina the son of Rebbi Hillel said, we might say that the House of Hillel stated that before they conceded. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah said so: “After they conceded, Rebbi Eliezer said it should be lifted and burned”, and is Rebbi Eliezer not a follower of Shammai? Rebbi Ḥinena said, the Mishnah said so, after they conceded one to another, the House of Shammai recused themselves and the others teach us. Rebbi Abin says, there is another answer, following what Rebbi Hoshaia stated: Since pure [heave], which for outsiders is forbidden as deadly sin, can be lifted, certainly also impure [heave] which is [prohibited] as positive commandment for Cohanim.

It was stated: If someone ate impure heave, he has to pay in pure profane food, but if he paid in impure profane, he discharged his obligation. Rebbi Nathan says, Symmachos says, if inadvertently, what he did is done, intentionally, he did not do anything. There, we have stated: “One does not give heave from impure produce for pure.” It was stated in the name of Rebbi Yose, “if he gave heave from impure produce for pure, whether inadvertently or intentionally, what he did is done.” It turns out that the single opinion here is like the anonymous one there, and the single there like the anonymous here.

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

HALAKHAH: “If someone sows heave in error it should be ploughed under;” etc. Would it not be reasonable to switch? They fined him that his field should be worthless under the heave.

MISHNAH: The seeds of heave, as long as they are collected, are forbidden but if they are thrown away they are permitted. And so bones of sacrifices, as long as they are collected, are forbidden but if they are thrown away they are permitted. Coarse bran is permitted; fine bran of new grain is forbidden, of old it is permitted. One treats heave as one treats profane food. If one makes fine flour, one or two qab from a seah, he should not throw away the remainder but put it down in a hidden place. If someone removed heave wheat from a chest, one does not oblige him to sit down and pick out the last grains but he sweeps it as usual and then fills it with profane grain. Similarly, if someone empties an amphora of oil, one does not oblige him to sit down and clean it with his fingers but he treats it as he treats profane vessels. If one pours from pitcher to pitcher one lets drip three drops and then may fill it with profane [wine]. If he turned it and it accumulated, that is heave. How much should heave of the tithe of demay be that he is required to deliver it to a Cohen? An eighth of an eighth.

MISHNAH: The seeds of heave, as long as they are collected, are forbidden but if they are thrown away they are permitted. And so bones of sacrifices, as long as they are collected, are forbidden but if they are thrown away they are permitted. Coarse bran is permitted; fine bran of new grain is forbidden, of old it is permitted. One treats heave as one treats profane food. If one makes fine flour, one or two qab from a seah, he should not throw away the remainder but put it down in a hidden place. If someone removed heave wheat from a chest, one does not oblige him to sit down and pick out the last grains but he sweeps it as usual and then fills it with profane grain. Similarly, if someone empties an amphora of oil, one does not oblige him to sit down and clean it with his fingers but he treats it as he treats profane vessels. If one pours from pitcher to pitcher one lets drip three drops and then may fill it with profane [wine]. If he turned it and it accumulated, that is heave. How much should heave of the tithe of demay be that he is required to deliver it to a Cohen? An eighth of an eighth.

Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai: If someone had two courtyards, one in Magdala and one in Tiberias, and transported it to the one in Magdala intending to eat them in Tiberias; since he transported it in a permitted way it is permitted. It turns out that Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai holds with Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah but is stronger than the latter since Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah speaks about an exempt place but Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai about a place of obligation, but since he transported it in a permitted way it is permitted. Rebbi Eliezer’s statement is stronger than either of them, since Rebbi Eliezer said, since he started in a permitted way it is permitted.

Rebbi Yose used to asked in the name of Cahana: Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Ḥalaphta ben Shaul stated: If someone organized a meal in a circle in the field he created ṭevel. If one did not organize a meal a circle he did not create ṭevel. What organizing in a circle creates ṭevel? Any meal in a circle with wine. If people prepared to eat in a circle but then did not?

Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi Jehudah spoke only about a Sabbath basket. Maybe Rebbi Jehudah spoke about someone who collected a harvesting basket full to send to his friend, that he cared for it as if it were a Sabbath basket?

MISHNAH: If somebody lifts out plants from his own property and replants them in his own property, it is free. If somebody bought standing produce, it is free. If somebody collected in order to send to a friend, it is free. Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah says, if similar [produce] is sold on the market, he is obligated. Someone who uproots turnips or radishes in his own property and replants them in his own property for seeds is obligated because that was their threshing floor. Onions which developed roots in storage became pure and cannot become impure again. If a mudslide fell on them and they are uncovered they are as if planted in the field.

Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: If someone steals someone else’s animal tithe, if it still exists he returns it as is, if he ate it, he ate what he ate. Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Mana: He cannot ask him to give anything; if it is worth less than a peruṭah one cannot say that he should give. Rebbi Ḥinena said, that is, if it was worth less than a peruṭah from the start. But if it was worth a peruṭah from the start, one tells him to pay.

Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: If someone steals someone else’s animal tithe, if it still exists he returns it as is, if he ate it, he ate what he ate. Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Mana: He cannot ask him to give anything; if it is worth less than a peruṭah one cannot say that he should give. Rebbi Ḥinena said, that is, if it was worth less than a peruṭah from the start. But if it was worth a peruṭah from the start, one tells him to pay.

I could think that if someone had money on King’s Mountain or in a castle he might exchange based on it. The verse says (Deut. 14:25): “take the silver in your hand;” what means “in your hand”? In your possession! Rebbi Jonah asked, if his wallet with 1’000’000 [denars] fell into a cistern and he could spend 500’000 to get them out, is that as if 500’000 were in his possession?

“Afterwine before it fermented cannot be bought with tithe money and invalidates a miqweh; after it fermented it may be bought with tithe money and does not invalidate a miqweh.” Our Mishnah follows Rebbi Jehudah as we have stated there: “If someone makes after-wine and pours in a measured amount of water, if he found the same amount he is free. Rebbi Jehudah declares him obligated.” Rebbi Abbahu said, sometimes in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, sometimes in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: Only if it fermented. Rebbi Yose said, it is the opinion of everybody since even salt water may be bought with tithe money.

MISHNAH: If the owner says a tetradrachma and another says a tetradrachma, the owner is preferred since he adds a fifth. The owner says a tetradrachma and someone else says a tetradrachma and an as, the one who offers a tetradrachma and an as is preferred since he adds to the capital. He who redeems his own Second Tithe adds a fifth, whether it is his own or was given to him as a gift.

Even Rebbi Yose agrees; it is more severe if impurity stems from someone’s body.

Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Yose said he is exempt, from the following: “If coriander is sown for its seed, its greenery is free.” Coriander is different since it has a different threshing floor. But he says from the following: “If someone keeps cabbage for seeds, his opinion is inoperative; for single stalks it is not inoperative.” Rebbi Jonah said, only if he collected greens. But if he did not collect greens, do we say that wood is subject to tithes?

Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Roots do not count. Rebbi Zeïra said to Rebbi Assi, did you hear that explicitly from Rebbi Joḥanan or from his argument? As Rebbi Joḥanan said, moreover it was stated: “If someone dedicated and then planted, it is exempt from ‘orlah; planted and then dedicated, it is subject to ‘orlah.” You wanted to say, dedicated is exempt from ‘orlah, old is exempt from ‘orlah. But this is not comparable! Dedicated things can be redeemed and become obligated since he might think about it to obligate; can you [say] about an old tree that one might think about it to obligate?

An ‘orlah walnut which one planted, and similarly, an egg of idol worship which turned into a chick. Rebbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rebbi Josia: Ḥizqiah and Cahana differ. Cahana said it is permitted, Ḥizqiah said it is forbidden. In the opinion of Ḥizqiah it should be impossible for an egg of idol worship to become a chick. What is this about? If someone squashed it, there is no chick. If he brought it inside the lattice enclosure, come and look: If he worshipped it it is not forbidden; because he brought it inside the grating should it be forbidden? Rebbi Yudan the father of Rebbi Mattaniah said, explain it if he used it to fence in the idol.

MISHNAH: Some people bring First Fruits and make the declaration, some bring and do not make the declaration, and some do not bring. The following do not bring: He who plants in his own but provines into a private or a public plot; and so he who provines from a private or a public plot into his own. If someone plants in his own and provines into his own but a private or public road is in the middle he cannot bring; Rebbi Jehudah says he brings.

MISHNAH: The fife beats before them until they arrive at the Temple Mount. Arrived at the Temple Mount, even king Agrippas takes the basket on his own shoulder and enters until he arrives at the Temple courtyard. When they arrived at the Temple courtyard, the Levites sang (Ps. 30:2): “I shall elevate You, Eternal, for You drew me up and You did not make my enemies happy because of me.” The pigeons on the baskets were elevation sacrifices and what was in their hands they gave to the Cohanim. As long as the basket is still on his shoulder he reads from (Deut. 26:3) “I am declaring today before the Eternal, your God” until he finishes the entire paragraph. Rebbi Jehudah says, until (v. 5): “My father was a wandering Aramean.” When he comes to “my father was a wandering Aramean”, he takes the basket down from his shoulder, holds it by its rim, and the Cohen puts his hand under it and weaves it. Then he reads from “my father was a wandering Aramean” until he finishes the entire paragraph, he puts it down next to the altar, prostrates himself, and leaves. In earlier times, everybody who knew how to read, read, and everybody who did not know how to read, had someone read before him. When they refrained from bringing they instituted that one read before him who knew and him who did not know. Rich people bring their First Fruits in bowls of silver and gold but poor people bring them in baskets of stripped willow twigs. Baskets and First Fruits are given to the Cohanim.

It was stated: “If one brings the stone and another one the mortar, he who brings the mortar is liable. Rebbi Yose says, both are liable.” Rebbi Yose is of the opinion that stone without mortar is building. Everybody agrees that if one put up mortar first and someone then brought stone that he is liable. “The builder who set the stone on top of the row is liable.” For whom is this needed? For the rabbis. One who put up planks and one who put up adobe walls is liable because of building.

It was stated: “If one brings the stone and another one the mortar, he who brings the mortar is liable. Rebbi Yose says, both are liable.” Rebbi Yose is of the opinion that stone without mortar is building. Everybody agrees that if one put up mortar first and someone then brought stone he is liable. “The builder who set the stone on top of the row is liable.” For whom is this needed? For the rabbis. One who put up planks or one who put up adobe walls is liable because of building.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody was taken out by Gentiles,” etc. Otherwise what would we say? He should be considered like someone who left with permission and he should have 2’000 cubits in every direction. Therefore [it is necessary] to say that “he only has four cubits.” From where the four cubits? Stay everybody at his spot. And from where 2’000 cubits? A person should not leave his place on the Seventh Day. Or switching, as (we have stated) [it was stated so:] “Issy ben Aqiba says “place, place”. It is said here place, and it is said there, I shall Give you a place. Since the place mentioned there includes 2’000 cubits, so the place mentioned here includes 2’000 cubits.” “The four cubits which they mentioned are his full length and outstretched arms. Rebbi Jehudah says, he and three cubits, so he can take an amphora from above his head and put it below his feet.” If he relieves himself, he relieves himself at the side; if he prays, he prays in the diagonal.

MISHNAH: If someone dwells with a Non-Jew in a courtyard or with one who rejects the notion of eruv, that one makes it forbidden for him. Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob says that he never forbids unless there are two Jews who mutually forbid.

“From where that just as one prepares another Cohen in his stead for maybe a disability will happen to him, so one preliminarily marries to him another wife in case something happen to his wife, as it is said, and he atone for himself and for his house; his house is his wife, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Yose said to him, in that case there is no end to it, maybe not only this wife but also the other wife would die.” Rebbi Mana said, before you question Rebbi Jehudah, question Rebbi Jehudah, question the rabbis! Maybe an emission would happen both to this Cohen and to the other Cohen. Emissions are frequent, death is not frequent. They decided about what is frequent, but did not decide about what is infrequent. We find that Rebbi Jehudah said, death is frequent; that is what we have stated there: “Rebbi Jehudah says, one also prepares for him another wife, maybe his wife would die.” There we have stated: “One who brings a bill of divorce and left him old or sick, delivers to her under the presumption that the man be alive.” There you are saying, death is infrequent, and here you are saying, death is frequent. There it is a private matter, here a public act. Is one more restrictive in public acts, as we have stated: “Rebbi Jehudah says, there was no horn for nests in Jerusalem because of mixing, maybe one of them would die and it would turn out that money of purification sacrifices that must be left to die is mixed up in the offering.” Could he not preliminarily marry her yesterday? And he atone for himself and for his house; but not for two houses. Rebbi Gamliel bar Inyani asked before Rebbi Mana: Is he not like one who acquires something on the Sabbath? He answered him, it is because they permitted Sabbath restriction in the Sanctuary. Rebbi Mana said, this implies that those who marry a widow must take her in when it is still daytime, lest he be like someone who acquires on the Sabbath.

Rebbi Yudan bar Pazi and Rebbi Ayvo bar Naggari were sitting and saying: We did state “after they conceded“; who conceded to whom? The House of Shammai to the House of Hillel or the House of Hillel to the House of Shammai? They said, let us go out and study. The went out and heard Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Jehudah ben Levi. We never find the House of (Hillel) [Shammai] conceding to the House of (Shammai) [Hillel] except in this matter. Rebbi Ḥunah in the name of Rav Abbaia: The Mishnah says so. “If someone pours from vessel to vessel and a ṭevul yom touches it, it should be lifted by 101.” If you say that the House of Hillel conceded to the House of Shammai that it cannot be lifted, who is the Tanna here, neither the House of Shammai nor the House of Hillel! Rebbi Idi said, we might say that the House of Hillel stated this before they conceded. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah said so: “After they conceded, Rebbi Eliezer said it should be lifted and burned,” and is Rebbi Eliezer not a follower of Shammai? Rebbi Ḥinena said, the Mishnah said so, after they conceded one to another that it should be lifted, the House of Shammai recused themselves and the others agree with us. Rebbi Abun says, there is another answer, following what Rebbi Hoshaia stated: Since pure {heave}, which for outsiders is forbidden as deadly sin, can be lifted, certainly also impure {heave} which is {prohibited} as positive commandment for Cohanim.

Rebbi Ze`ira in the name if Rebbi Ḥanina: When someone stood {praying} in the rainy season and mentioned dew one does not make him repeat. In the season of dew and he mentioned rain one makes him repeat. But is it not stated: The Sages did not oblige one to mention dew and winds but if he wants to mention them, he may mention? One cannot compare one who takes it easy to one who does not pray and does not take it easy. “When he stood in the rainy season and mentioned dew one does not make him repeat.” But is it not stated: If he did not ask for it in the benediction “for years”, or he did not mention the power of rains in “resurrection of the dead”, one makes him repeat? That is about one who mentioned neither dew nor rain.

MISHNAH: Someone who did not bring his holiday sacrifice on the first day of the holiday may bring it during the entire festival including the last day of the festival. Once the festival has passed he is not liable for its warranty. On that it was said, the distorted cannot be repaired and the deficient cannot be made whole.

It was stated in the name of Rebbi Jehudah: Shaving is forbidden to someone who comes from overseas. Rebbi Jehudah follows his own opinion since Rebbi Jehudah said, it is forbidden to sail on the ocean. Then a Cohen who left for outside the Land and left against the will of the Sages should be forbidden to shave. A Cohen came to Rebbi Ḥanina. He said to him, may one leave for Tyre for as religious obligation, to give ḥaliṣah or to enter levirate marriage? He answered him, this man’s brother left; praised be the Omnipresent Who smote him. And you want to do what he did. Some want to say, so he spoke to him: This man’s brother disdained his mother’s bosom and embraced another’s bosom, and you want to do what he did. Simeon bar Abba came to Rebbi Ḥanina and asked him to write a letter of recommendation so he could leave for his sustenance outside the Land. He said to him, tomorrow I shall go to your forefathers; they would say to me, one desirable plant we had in the Land of Israel and you permitted it to leave the Land.

Rebbi Joḥanan was leaning on Rebbi Jacob bar Idi when Rebbi Eleazar saw him and hid himself before him. He said, these two things this Babylonian does to me: First, that he does not greet me, and second, that he does not teach the traditions in my name. He said to him, thus they behave among themselves; the younger one does not greet the older since they observe Boys see me and hide themselves, and old people rose and stood. As they were walking, he saw a Bet Midrash. He said to him: Here Rebbi Meïr sat and reported traditions in the name of Rebbi Ismael but he never reported traditions in the name of Rebbi Aqiba. He answered: Everybody knows that Rebbi Meïr was the student of Rebbi Aqiba. He retorted, everybody knows that Rebbi Eleazar is the student of Rebbi Joḥanan. May one pass by the water statue? He said to him, do you want to honor it? Pass it by and blind its eyes! He said to him, Rebbi Eleazar did well that he did not pass before you. He said to him: Rebbi Jacob bar Idi, you know how to pacify. But Rebbi Joḥanan required that traditions should be reported in his name. Also David begged for divine mercy in this respect, may I dwell in Your tent forever! Rebbi Phineas, Rebbi Jeremiah, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan; Could David think of living forever? Rather, David meant: May I have the merit that my words will be mentioned in my name in synagogues and houses of study. What profit does he have from this? The son of Tira said: If someone mentions a tradition in the name of its author, the latter’s lips whisper with him in the grave. What is the reason? Dripping from the lips ofthe sleeping ones. Like that bunch of grapes which drips by itself. Rebbi Ḥinena bar Pappus and Rebbi Simon, one said, like one who drinks spiced wine, the other said, like one who drinks old wine, even though he consumed it, its taste remains in his mouth.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody brings a bill of divorce from overseas and says”, etc. About what is he trustworthy? Samuel says, he is trusted to give a bill of divorce. Assi said, he is trusted to marry. Rav Huna said in the name of Rav: He is trusted to marry. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he is trusted to marry but one does not infer from this ruling anything for another case. What means, one does not infer from this ruling anything for another case? I sold one of my fields but I do not remember to whom I sold it. If someone comes and says, I bought it, he is not trusted in any way. In qiddushin, the same holds. “ I betrothed one of my daughters but I do not remember to whom I betrothed her. If someone comes and says, I gave her qiddushin,” he is not trusted in any way. The Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “If somebody brings a bill of divorce from overseas and says, it was written and signed in my presence, he shall not marry the wife.” There, she is considered by everybody to be a married woman. Here, she is considered to be a married woman only by two persons. One waits until these two come and say, this is the man who gave her qiddushin. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “ This one says, I gave her qiddushin, and that one says, I gave her qiddushin. Both of them give a bill of divorce, but if they agree, one gives a bill of divorce and the other one marries.” He explains this, if [the father] says, I did betroth her to one of these two but I do not remember which one it was. Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rebbi Yasa, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If one of them jumped the gun and married her, one does remove her from him. That is, if this one says, I gave her qiddushin, and that one says. I gave her qiddushin and one of them jumped the gun and married her. But if he said, I gave her qiddushin and married her, and another one comes and says, I gave her qiddushin, he is not trusted in any way. It was stated thus: If after the marriage another man comes and says, I gave her qiddushin, he is not trusted in any way.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody brings a bill of divorce from overseas and says”, etc. About what is he trustworthy? Samuel says, he is trusted to give a bill of divorce. Assi said, he is trusted to marry. Rav Huna said in the name of Rav: He is trusted to marry. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he is trusted to marry but one does not infer from this ruling anything for another case. What means, one does not infer from this ruling anything for another case? I sold one of my fields but I do not remember to whom I sold it. If someone comes and says, I bought it, he is not trusted in any way. In qiddushin, the same holds. “ I betrothed one of my daughters but I do not remember to whom I betrothed her. If someone comes and says, I gave her qiddushin,” he is not trusted in any way. The Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “If somebody brings a bill of divorce from overseas and says, it was written and signed in my presence, he shall not marry the wife.” There, she is considered by everybody to be a married woman. Here, she is considered to be a married woman only by two persons. One waits until these two come and say, this is the man who gave her qiddushin. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “ This one says, I gave her qiddushin, and that one says, I gave her qiddushin. Both of them give a bill of divorce, but if they agree, one gives a bill of divorce and the other one marries.” He explains this, if [the father] says, I did betroth her to one of these two but I do not remember which one it was. Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rebbi Yasa, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If one of them jumped the gun and married her, one does remove her from him. That is, if this one says, I gave her qiddushin, and that one says. I gave her qiddushin and one of them jumped the gun and married her. But if he said, I gave her qiddushin and married her, and another one comes and says, I gave her qiddushin, he is not trusted in any way. It was stated thus: If after the marriage another man comes and says, I gave her qiddushin, he is not trusted in any way.

MISHNAH: The uncircumcised and any impure persons may not eat heave; their wives and slaves may eat. Someone injured in his testicles or with cut-off penis and his slaves may eat, his wives may not eat; but if he did not know her carnally after he was injured in his testicles or his penis was cut off, they may eat.

The elder Rebbi Hoshaia said, the baraita is about someone who takes back his divorcee after she had been married to another. Why after she had been married, not also after she had been betrothed? Because of Rebbi Yose ben Kipper, since Rebbi Yose ben Kipper said, she is permitted after betrothal. Rebbi Eleazar said, the baraita is about a sister-in-law who became eligible before two levirs, when one of them “bespoke” her and then the other copulated with her. Why when one of them “bespoke” her, even if he had not “bespoken” her! Why if he copulated with her, even if he did not copulate with her! Because of the House of Shammai, because of Rebbi Simeon. As it was stated, Rebbi Simeon said, the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel did not disagree that one who copulates with his wife’s sister disables his wife. Where did they disagree? If he copulates with his mother-in-law; where the House of Shammai say, he disabled her, but the House of Hillel say, he did not disable her. The House of Hillel were arguing: A man is permitted all women, a woman is permitted all men. When he becomes betrothed to her, he forbids her and she forbids him. The prohibition through which he forbids her is greater than the prohibition through which she forbids him, since he forbids her to go to marry any other man but she forbids him only her relatives. And is that not an argument de minore ad majus? If she, whose prohibition is greater, transgressed the prohibition in error, is not forbidden even to the one permitted to her, he, whose prohibition is less, if he transgressed the prohibition in error, is it not logical that he should not be forbidden even to the one permitted to him? That works for an error. From where if intentional: The verse says “with her;” her sleeping prohibits her, the sleeping of another woman does not prohibit her.

Rebbi Aḥa bar Ḥinena in the name of Cahana: Following the opinion that someone who cannot give heave cannot dedicate to the Temple. Why did he not say: following the opinion that he can give heave, can he dedicate to the Temple? Because of Rebbi Jehudah, for Rebbi Jehudah says he can give heave but cannot dedicate. Rebbi Joḥanan says, even following the opinion that he cannot give heave, he can dedicate. What can he dedicate? Holocaust and well-being offerings. He cannot bring a sin sacrifice for fat because he is not obligated to a sin sacrifice for fat. He cannot bring a sin sacrifice for blood because he is not obligated to a sin sacrifice for blood. May he bring a sacrifice relating to gonorrhea and skin disease? Since it is obligatory can’t he bring it, or since he becomes impure by these can he bring it? If it is obvious for you that he brings, can he become an agent for these? Since he may become impure by these, may he become an agent, or since he cannot become an agent for anything else, can’t he become an agent for these? Rebbi Yudan objected: His produce is ṭevel from the Torah but he can free his ṭevel by Torah law! But here, even though he may become impure by them, he cannot become an agent. May he bring First Fruits following Rebbi Jehudah, for Rebbi Jehudah says that First Fruits have the status of territorial consecrated things? He may not bring following the rabbis who say they have the status of things consecrated to the Temple. May he bring a sacrifice of pilgrimage? Since it is obligatory can’t he bring it, or since he may change its name to well-being offering, may he bring it? May he bring a Passover sacrifice? Since it is obligatory can’t he bring it, or since Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia, a person may bring a Passover sacrifice any day of the year when he changes its name to well-being offering, may he bring it? May he bring tithes of cereals? If he holds with Rebbi Meïr, since Rebbi Meïr said (Num.18:28): “From all your tithes,” that all tithes were bracketed together, then since he cannot bring tithes of grain he cannot bring tithes of animals. May he make substitutions? If Rebbi Meïr is of the opinion that all tithes were bracketed together, then since he cannot bring tithes of grain he cannot bring tithes of animals; since he cannot bring tithes of animals he cannot make substitutions. One may hold with Rebbi Simeon, since Rebbi Simeon says that tithes of animals teach you for all sacrifices about substitutions. That means, since he cannot bring tithes of grain he cannot bring tithes of animals; since he cannot bring tithes of animals he cannot make substitutions; since he cannot make substitutions for these he cannot make substitutions for any sacrifices. Is one guilty sacrificing for him outside the Temple? Cahana said, one cannot be guilty sacrificing for him outside the Temple. Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both say, one is guilty sacrificing for him outside the Temple. The statement of Cahana disagrees with Rebbi Jehudah, since Rebbi Jehudah frees his ṭevel as biblical law. And you say so? We can say he [Cahana] is following him who says they accepted tithes voluntarily.

“Rebbi Judah ben Baba.” Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rebbi Ḥananel in the name of Rav: Practice follows Rebbi Judah ben Baba. The words of the rabbis disagree, since Rebbi Jeremiah said that it happened that someone fell into the Jordan and surfaced after seventeen days when he was recognized because the cold had shrunk him so that they permitted his wife to remarry.

MISHNAH: If he fell into water, both enclosed and open, his wife is forbidden. Rebbi Meїr said, if happened that someone fell into a large cistern and came up after three days. Rebbi Yose said, it happened with a blind man who went to immerse himself in a cave, and his guide went after him, they stayed there the time to die [from drowning] and they permitted their wives to remarry. It also happened in Assos that one lowered a person into the sea and only his leg was recovered. The Sages said, if from the knee and higher, she can remarry, from lower than the knee she cannot remarry.

HALAKHAH: “If he fell into water, both enclosed and open, his wife is forbidden, the words of Rebbi Meĩr. But the Sages say, in open waters his wife is forbidden, in enclosed waters, his wife is permitted.” Rebbi Meїr said, it happened that someone fell into a large cistern and came up after three days. They said to him, one does not mention wonders. Rebbi said, it happened that two went to put fish nets into the Jordan in the evening. One of them saw a fish cave and entered it. When he wanted to leave, he was unable to find the cave’s entrance. His colleague waited at the entrance of the cave so long that he would be dead; he returned and reported to his house. Next morning when the sun shone, the man recognized the entrance of the cave, left, and found his house in mourning. Rebbi Aqiba said, It happened that I was traveling on the ocean that I saw a ship sinking. I was sorry for a student Sage who was on that ship. When I came to Kappadocian Mazaga he greated me and asked me questions. I said to him, my son, how did you escape? He told me, Rabbi, one wave tore me to another, and another to another, until it vomited me onto dry land. Then I said, how great are the words of the Sages who said, in open waters his wife is forbidden, in enclosed waters, his wife is permitted.

Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Cahana: They were expert in pushings but not expert in slight impurities. “Assume a man carries holy meat,” he asked them whether someone impure by the impurity of the dead imparts impurity by pushing. “The Cohanim answered, and said: No;” they answered him correctly. He asked them whether someone impure by the impurity of the dead imparts slight impurity. “The Cohanim answered and said: It will be impure.” They did not answer correctly, for the impurity of the dead does not impart slight impurity.

Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Cahana: They were expert in pushings but not expert in slight impurities. “Assume a man carries holy meat,” he asked them whether someone impure by the impurity of the dead imparts impurity by pushing. “The Cohanim answered, and said: No;” they answered him correctly. He asked them whether someone impure by the impurity of the dead imparts slight impurity. “The Cohanim answered and said: It will be impure.” They did not answer correctly, for the impurity of the dead does not impart slight impurity.

“And the recitation of the Šema‘.” For it is written: “You shall talk about them.” Rebbi says, I say that the Šema‘ is recited only in the holy language. What is the reason? “The words shall be”. Rebbi Levi bar Ḥaita went to Caesarea. He heard their voices when they were reading the Šema‘ in Hellenistic manner. He wanted to hinder them, but Rebbi Yose heard of it and was offended. He said, do I say that someone who does not know to read Assyrian letters should not recite it at all? But he fulfills his duty in any language he knows. Rebbi Berekhiah objected: But there is the Esther scroll, where somebody who knows to read both Asssyrian script and Greek can fulfill his obligation only from Assyrian script. Rebbi Mana said: About the Esther scroll, somebody who knows to read both Asssyrian script and Greek can fulfill his obligation only from Assyrian script; Greek only, he fulfills his obligation in Greek; and so he can fulfill his obligation in any language he understands.

Because no blessing is written for creatures? Could she have been married on the Sabbath if a blessing were written for creatures? But was it not stated: “A man should not first have sexual relations on the Sabbath, for he makes a wound.” It must follow “others”, for “others permit it.” But “others” permit only when he is already married, for before he was married he had no right to what she finds, what she earns, and to dissolve her vows. After he married her, he has the right to receive what she finds or earns, and to dissolve her vows. If you say so, he is like someone who acquires on the Sabbath. Rebbi Mana said, this means that those who marry a widow must take her in when it is still daytime on Friday, that he should not be like someone who acquires on the Sabbath.

Because no blessing is written for creatures? Could she have been married on the Sabbath if a blessing were written for creatures? But was it not stated: “A man should not first have sexual relations on the Sabbath, for he makes a wound.” It must follow “others”, for “others permit it.” But “others” permit only when he is already married, for before he was married he had no right to what she finds, what she earns, and to dissolve her vows. After he married her, he has the right to receive what she finds or earns, and to dissolve her vows. If you say so, he is like someone who acquires on the Sabbath. Rebbi Mana said, this means that those who marry a widow must take her in when it is still daytime on Friday, that he should not be like someone who acquires on the Sabbath.

Did they disagree that a virgin who had sexual relations with an underage boy or with someone who is not a man is enabled for the priesthood? Rebbi Ḥalaphta ben Shaul said, she is enabled even for the High Priest.

Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rav Ḥuna, in the name of Rav: One witness and someone from the market place cannot together certify the signature of the second witness. How is that? If one identified his own signature and that of his colleague, but that second witness’s signature was not known to anybody except his colleague, may that colleague together with somebody from the market place testify on that signature? That is what Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rav Ḥuna, said in the name of Rav: One witness and someone from the market cannot together certify the signature of the second witness. Another case where there are no two persons: The signature of one is known by everybody, but that second witness’s signature is not known to anybody except his colleague. Can that colleague testify on his signature as if he were someone from the market place? If you say so, the entire testimony is confirmed by one witness. Rebbi Yudan said, that is correct. If two people come from a town that is mostly Gentile, like Hippos. One is known by everybody as a Jew, but the other is not known by anybody except his companion. Can the latter be considered one from the market place to testify about him? If you say so, the entire testimony would be confirmed by one witness! And in the prior case, the entire testimony would be confirmed by one witness.

Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rav Ḥuna, in the name of Rav: One witness and someone from the market place cannot together certify the signature of the second witness. How is that? If one identified his own signature and that of his colleague, but that second witness’s signature was not known to anybody except his colleague, may that colleague together with somebody from the market place testify on that signature? That is what Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rav Ḥuna, said in the name of Rav: One witness and someone from the market cannot together certify the signature of the second witness. Another case where there are no two persons: The signature of one is known by everybody, but that second witness’s signature is not known to anybody except his colleague. Can that colleague testify on his signature as if he were someone from the market place? If you say so, the entire testimony is confirmed by one witness. Rebbi Yudan said, that is correct. If two people come from a town that is mostly Gentile, like Hippos. One is known by everybody as a Jew, but the other is not known by anybody except his companion. Can the latter be considered one from the market place to testify about him? If you say so, the entire testimony would be confirmed by one witness! And in the prior case, the entire testimony would be confirmed by one witness.

Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rav Ḥuna, in the name of Rav: One witness and someone from the market place cannot together certify the signature of the second witness. How is that? If one identified his own signature and that of his colleague, but that second witness’s signature was not known to anybody except his colleague, may that colleague together with somebody from the market place testify on that signature? That is what Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rav Ḥuna, said in the name of Rav: One witness and someone from the market cannot together certify the signature of the second witness. Another case where there are no two persons: The signature of one is known by everybody, but that second witness’s signature is not known to anybody except his colleague. Can that colleague testify on his signature as if he were someone from the market place? If you say so, the entire testimony is confirmed by one witness. Rebbi Yudan said, that is correct. If two people come from a town that is mostly Gentile, like Hippos. One is known by everybody as a Jew, but the other is not known by anybody except his companion. Can the latter be considered one from the market place to testify about him? If you say so, the entire testimony would be confirmed by one witness! And in the prior case, the entire testimony would be confirmed by one witness.

MISHNAH: The following adolescent girls can claim a fine: From someone who has intercourse with a bastard girl, or a Gibeonite or a Samaritan girl, and one who comes to a female proselyte, a kidnap victim, or a slave girl who was redeemed, converted, or freed, at less than three years and one day of age. Also from one who has intercourse with his sister, or his father’s sister, or his mother’s sister, or his wife’s sister, or his brother’s wife, or his paternal uncle’s wife, or a menstruating girl; he has to pay the fine since it is not a capital crime even though he is subject to extirpation.

HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Meïr says, there are things like changed circumstances”. Samuel says, because of an erroneous vow; the dog was already dead, the snake had already been killed. Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, because he is like someone who makes his vow dependent on something: A qônām that I shall have no benefit from this man as long as he wears black garments. If he wore white, he would be permitted to him. Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: That one does not need the permission of a Sage.

There, we have stated: “If someone buys wine from Samaritans.” It was stated: “Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Simeon prohibit to do so, for the wine bag might spring a leak and it may turn out retroactively that he drank ṭevel.” Does the Mishnah here not follow Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Simeon? Rebbi Ze‘ira said, there it was not in order from the start. But here it is not in order from now to the future.

MISHNAH: If someone causes impurity, or dema‘, or libation wine, if it was unintentional he is free, intentional he is obligated. If Cohanim in the Temple intentionally made [a sacrifice] piggul, they have to pay.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Yudan did not go to the assembly. He was standing with Rebbi Mana and asked him, what new was said? He said: So says Rebbi Yose, a person causing impurity does not have the status of a perpetrator, fromthe following: “Heave which became impure.” He answered: Explain it, if it became impure by itself; then you cannot infer anything, because of a Mishnah: “If somebody judged, absolved the guilty and obligated the innocent, declared the pure impure and the impure pure.” For Rav Jeremiah said in the name of Rav: If he touched it with his hand. Samuel said: If he touched it with his hand. Rebbi Jehudah ben Rebbi says, it should have been logical that even intentionally he should have been free. Why did they say that he is obligated? That he should tell. And Rebbi Joḥanan said, it should have been logical that even unintentionally he should have been obligated. Why did they say that he is free? Because of a fine. The strength of Rebbi Joḥanan comes from this: “If someone causes anything to become impure, or dema‘, or libation wine, if it was unintentional he is free, intentional he is obligated,” and Rebbi Joḥanan said, he pays a fine. A baraita supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “A person who puts a yoke on another’s cow is free in human law but guilty in Heaven’s law.”

Rav Huna in the name of Rav: If he mixed. If he made a libation and then mixed it, at the start he committed a capital crime and at the end he has to pay? Rebbi Abba objected: Think of it, if he killed somebody and broke the flask, at the start he committed a capital crime and in the end he has to pay? Rebbi Yose objected: Think of it, if he set fire to somebody’s grain stack on the Day of Atonement, at the start he committed a capital crime and in the end he has to pay? “If someone causes anything to become impure, or turn into dema‘, or libation wine, if it was unintentional he is free, intentional he is obligated,” and Rebbi Joḥanan said, he pays a fine.

HALAKHAH: : “If a woman says, accept my bill of divorce,” etc. What is the reason of Rebbi Eleazar? I say that he found it behind the door. There, we have stated: “If someone tells a person who is not trustworthy, buy for me from somebody who is trustworthy, or from somebody who tithes, he is not trustworthy. It was stated: “Rebbi Yose said, even if he specified, from X, he is not trustworthy unless he said, you buy and I will pay.” What is the reason of Rebbi Yose? I say that he found someone close by and bought from him. It turns out that Rebbi Eleazar is like Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Yose is like Rebbi Eleazar (ben Rebbi Yose.) [Rebbi Yose says more than Rebbi Eleazar;] does not Rebbi Eleazar agree that if she says to him, do not accept it except at such and such a place, she continues eating until the bill of divorce reaches that place? But here, even if he says, only from X, he is not trustworthy, except if he said, you buy and I will pay. What is the reason of Rebbi Yose? I say that he found someone close by and bought from him.