split

There, we have stated: “Similarly, if three who invested together lost or gained they would split in this manner.” Rebbi Abun said, the statement looks reasonable if they bought a precious stone because he can say to him, without my ten denars you could not have bought anything. But anything that usually is split {smaller units that can be bought with less capital} one adds together and splits {proportionally to the capital invested}. Rebbi Eleazar says, even things that usually are split [are divided evenly], because he can say to him, you have a lot of merchandise and you have difficulty selling it. I have little merchandise and turn it over rapidly and make as much as you do. So far if his merchandise was here. What if his merchandise was in Rome? He can say to him, by the time you went to Rome, I turn mine over rapidly here and make as much as you do.

There, we have stated: “Similarly, if three who invested together lost or gained they would split in this manner.” Rebbi Abun said, the statement looks reasonable if they bought a precious stone because he can say to him, without my ten denars you could not have bought anything. But anything that usually is split {smaller units that can be bought with less capital} one adds together and splits {proportionally to the capital invested}. Rebbi Eleazar says, even things that usually are split [are divided evenly], because he can say to him, you have a lot of merchandise and you have difficulty selling it. I have little merchandise and turn it over rapidly and make as much as you do. So far if his merchandise was here. What if his merchandise was in Rome? He can say to him, by the time you went to Rome, I turn mine over rapidly here and make as much as you do.

There, we have stated: “Similarly, if three who invested together lost or gained they would split in this manner.” Rebbi Abun said, the statement looks reasonable if they bought a precious stone because he can say to him, without my ten denars you could not have bought anything. But anything that usually is split {smaller units that can be bought with less capital} one adds together and splits {proportionally to the capital invested}. Rebbi Eleazar says, even things that usually are split [are divided evenly], because he can say to him, you have a lot of merchandise and you have difficulty selling it. I have little merchandise and turn it over rapidly and make as much as you do. So far if his merchandise was here. What if his merchandise was in Rome? He can say to him, by the time you went to Rome, I turn mine over rapidly here and make as much as you do.

There, we have stated: “If [the ox] gored an ox worth 200, the last one takes 100, the one before him 50, and the two first ones each a gold denar.” Rebbi Samuel in the name of Rebbi Ze‘ira: The same holds for earnings. Rebbi Yose said, the statement of Rebbi Ze‘ira disagrees with Rebbi Eleazar. Rebbi Mani said, I asked this before Rebbi Yudan. He said to me: does Rebbi Eleazar not agree if they contracted between themselves that each can take according to his contribution? Oxen are as if contracted. He turned around and said this before Rebbi Yose, who answered him, they disagree explicitly: Rebbi Eleazar said, if nothing was said, they split evenly; Rebbi Ze‘ira said, if nothing was said, each takes according to his contribution.

MISHNAH: If he robbed a coin and it was split, fruits and they rotted, wine and it spoiled, he pays their value at the time of the robbery. A coin and it was declared invalid, heave and it became impure, leavened matter and Passover passed, an animal which was used for sin, or which became disqualified from the altar, or which was taken out to be stoned, he tells him: Here is your property before you.

HALAKHAH: “If he robbed a coin and it was split,” etc. Rav Huna said, if the government invalidated it. Samuel said, if really it was split. Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: Only if they rotted because of maggots but if they rotted because of worms they are like healthy ones. Rav Huna said, if the government invalidated it, but if the country invalidated it, he may say to him: Here is your property before you. Samuel said, even if the government invalidated it, he may say to him: Here is your property before you.

HALAKHAH: “If he robbed a coin and it was split,” etc. Rav Huna said, if the government invalidated it. Samuel said, if really it was split. Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: Only if they rotted because of maggots but if they rotted because of worms they are like healthy ones. Rav Huna said, if the government invalidated it, but if the country invalidated it, he may say to him: Here is your property before you. Samuel said, even if the government invalidated it, he may say to him: Here is your property before you.

It was stated: One gives money to another to buy wheat for him, but the man bought barley. If it went down in price, it went down in price for him; if it rose in price, it rose for him. We stated otherwise: “If it went down in price, it went down in price for him; if it rose in price, it rose for both of them.” [He who said if it went down in price, it went down in price for him; if it rose in price, it rose for him, is Rebbi Meïr. What is Rebbi Meïr’s reason? Because the seller intended to transfer ownership only to the buyer. But he who said, if it went down in price, it went down in price for him; if it rose in price, it rose for both of them, is Rebbi Jehudah.] What is Rebbi Jehudah’s reason? Because the seller intended to transfer ownership only to the owner of the money. Why does he (not) split with him? Because it is forbidden to take advantage of another person. Then even if one gave him money to buy wheat and he bought wheat? [Rebbi Joḥanan said, if he had given money to buy wheat and he bought wheat,] the seller intended to transfer ownership only to the owner of the money. If he had given money to buy wheat and he bought barley, the seller intended to transfer ownership only to the buyer, who is stuck with what he has on his hands. Rebbi Nasa said, if he was true to his agency, did the seller not intend to transfer ownership to the owner of the money? If he was not true to his agency, he intended to transfer ownership to the buyer. Then why does he split with him? He said, because he realizes a profit by means of the other man’s money, he splits with him.

It was stated: One gives money to another to buy wheat for him, but the man bought barley. If it went down in price, it went down in price for him; if it rose in price, it rose for him. We stated otherwise: “If it went down in price, it went down in price for him; if it rose in price, it rose for both of them.” [He who said if it went down in price, it went down in price for him; if it rose in price, it rose for him, is Rebbi Meïr. What is Rebbi Meïr’s reason? Because the seller intended to transfer ownership only to the buyer. But he who said, if it went down in price, it went down in price for him; if it rose in price, it rose for both of them, is Rebbi Jehudah.] What is Rebbi Jehudah’s reason? Because the seller intended to transfer ownership only to the owner of the money. Why does he (not) split with him? Because it is forbidden to take advantage of another person. Then even if one gave him money to buy wheat and he bought wheat? [Rebbi Joḥanan said, if he had given money to buy wheat and he bought wheat,] the seller intended to transfer ownership only to the owner of the money. If he had given money to buy wheat and he bought barley, the seller intended to transfer ownership only to the buyer, who is stuck with what he has on his hands. Rebbi Nasa said, if he was true to his agency, did the seller not intend to transfer ownership to the owner of the money? If he was not true to his agency, he intended to transfer ownership to the buyer. Then why does he split with him? He said, because he realizes a profit by means of the other man’s money, he splits with him.

It was stated: “If two persons were holding a document and one said, it is mine but I had lost it; the other said, it is mine since I paid you. The document should be validated by its signatories, the words of Rebbi. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, they should split.” Rabbi Eleazar said, it all depends on who is holding the signatures. Rav Ḥisda said, if this is true information, it follows Rabban Simeon.

HALAKHAH: “One who found book-scrolls,” etc. It was stated: “One who found book-scrolls reads in them once every thirty days; if he is illiterate he rolls them up. He should not read a paragraph and repeat it, nor should he read a paragraph and translate it, nor should he open more than three pages, nor should three persons read from the same tome. When has this been said? For new ones. But for old ones twelve months. Silver vessels he may use cold but not hot because it blackens them. Brass vessels he may use hot but not on the fire because it diminishes them. Rakes and axes he may use on soft material but not on hard. With a rake he may receive mortar, wash it, and put it back in its place. With an ax he may split wood, but not stone-palm or olive wood. What has been said about a find is valid equally for deposits. If one deposits a garment with another person, he has to shake it out once every thirty days. If it is much work, he can collect his expenses from it.

Rebbi Ḥanina said, practice follows Rebbi Simeon, but we do not say this in all cases. Rav Jeremiah in the name of Rav: A case came before Rebbi and he instructed following Rebbi Simeon. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph gave a denar for salt. That one reneged. He said, does he not know that already a sickle is put on the thigh of that man, “He Who exacted retribution from the people of the Flood will in the future collect from him who does not keep his word”? A person paid for raw silk. He reneged. The case came before Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph and Rebbi Joḥanan. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph said, either he delivers for the amount of the pledge or one may turn him over to “Him Who exacted retribution.”. Rebbi Joḥanan said, either he delivers the entire contract or one may turn him over to “Him Who exacted retribution.” Rebbi La said, it was a case of a pledge; Rebbi Ze‘ira said, he had given him partial payment. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph agrees with Rebbi Joḥanan in a sale which is not usually split, such as of a cow or a stole.

MISHNAH: Somebody borrowed a cow; he borrowed it for half a day and leased it for half a day, or borrowed it for one day and leased it for the next, or borrowed for one and leased for one. The lessee says, the borrowed one died, or it died on the day it was borrowed, or it died during the time it was borrowed, and the other one says “I do not know”, he is liable. The lessor says, the leased one died, or it died on the day it was leased, or it died during the time it was leased, and the other one says “I do not know”, he is not liable. One says the borrowed and the other one says the leased; let the lessee swear that the leased one died. If both say “I do not know” they shall split.

MISHNAH: Somebody exchanged a cow for a donkey and it gave birth, or he sold his slave girl and she gave birth. If one said, [it happened] before I sold, the other said, after I bought, they shall split. If he had two slaves, one adult and one young, or two fields, one large and one small. The buyer says, I bought the large one, and the seller says, I do not know: he acquired the large one. The seller says, I sold the small and the other party says, I do not know: he has only the small one. If one says the large one and the other says the small, let the seller swear that he sold the small one. If both say, I do not know, they shall split.

MISHNAH: Somebody exchanged a cow for a donkey and it gave birth, or he sold his slave girl and she gave birth. If one said, [it happened] before I sold, the other said, after I bought, they shall split. If he had two slaves, one adult and one young, or two fields, one large and one small. The buyer says, I bought the large one, and the seller says, I do not know: he acquired the large one. The seller says, I sold the small and the other party says, I do not know: he has only the small one. If one says the large one and the other says the small, let the seller swear that he sold the small one. If both say, I do not know, they shall split.

MISHNAH: Somebody sold his olive trees for their wood. If they produced less than a quartarius [of oil] per se‘ah, it belongs to the owner of the olive trees. A quartarius [of oil] per se‘ah, one says, my olive trees grew [the olives], the other says, my land grew them: they shall split evenly. If a river flooded his olive trees and carried them to another’s field; one says, my olive trees grew them, the other says, my land grew them: they shall split evenly.

MISHNAH: Somebody sold his olive trees for their wood. If they produced less than a quartarius [of oil] per se‘ah, it belongs to the owner of the olive trees. A quartarius [of oil] per se‘ah, one says, my olive trees grew [the olives], the other says, my land grew them: they shall split evenly. If a river flooded his olive trees and carried them to another’s field; one says, my olive trees grew them, the other says, my land grew them: they shall split evenly.

MISHNAH: He who leases a dwelling to another person by the year, if the year was intercalated, it was intercalated for the lessor. If he leased by the month, if the year was intercalated it was intercalated for the lessee. It happened in Sepphoris that a person leased a bathhouse from another for twelve gold denars per year, one gold denar per month. The case came before Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel and Rebbi Yose who said, they should split the intercalated month.

HALAKHAH: “Two vegetable gardens,” etc. What shall one do? Ephraim in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, they shall split. In the House of Rebbi Yannai they say, up to ten handbreadths. Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: Only he shall not force himself.

MISHNAH: A pigeon chick which is found within 50 cubits belongs to the owner of the dovecote; farther away than 50 cubits it belongs to its finder. If it was found between two dovecotes, if it is closer to one of them, it belongs to it; in the middle, both [owners] shall split evenly.

HALAKHAH: 8: “He who sells a field,” etc. Halakhah 9: “But he sold neither,” etc. Halakhah 10: “Neither the cistern,” etc. Halakhah 11: “If somebody dedicated a field to the Temple,” etc. In the House of Rebbi Yannai they said, poles for vines. The Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya asked, if there were split rings to select? Rebbi Isaac bar Tebelai asked, if there were marble plates for walls? Rebbi Yudan ben Rebbi Ismael asked: If there were split rods to frame windows?

HALAKHAH: 8: “He who sells a field,” etc. Halakhah 9: “But he sold neither,” etc. Halakhah 10: “Neither the cistern,” etc. Halakhah 11: “If somebody dedicated a field to the Temple,” etc. In the House of Rebbi Yannai they said, poles for vines. The Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya asked, if there were split rings to select? Rebbi Isaac bar Tebelai asked, if there were marble plates for walls? Rebbi Yudan ben Rebbi Ismael asked: If there were split rods to frame windows?

Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba asked: One se’ah of wheat which fell into one hundred of barley, do the Cohen and the Israel split the increase in value? Rebbi Isaac bar Tebelai asked: One se’ah of heave which fell into one hundred of profane grain, do the seller and the buyer split the remainder? Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, let us hear from the following: He who takes out impurities from his neighbor’s heap has to give him good grain in their stead.

Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba asked: One se’ah of wheat which fell into one hundred of barley, do the Cohen and the Israel split the increase in value? Rebbi Isaac bar Tebelai asked: One se’ah of heave which fell into one hundred of profane grain, do the seller and the buyer split the remainder? Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, let us hear from the following: He who takes out impurities from his neighbor’s heap has to give him good grain in their stead.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody says to another: I am selling you a bet kor of dust,” etc. Rebbi Yasa said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Only if it is the smaller part of his field and enclosed in it. And a rock with a total surface area of a bet rova‘ is not measured with it. If it is in the middle, it is measured, at the side it is not measured. What is a side and what is in the middle? In the House of Rebbi Yannai they said, any place surrounded by a ploughed area is in the middle; any place not surrounded by a ploughed area is to the side. Rebbi Yose came in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If it was a majority on one side, but if you spread it, it becomes a smaller part, and it is measured with it. How wide? Rebbi Ḥaggai said, up to four cubits. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, up to ten handbreadths. If there was a depression ten handbreadths deep but less than four wide, what is the rule? Let us hear from the following, what Rebbi Yasa said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: “Only if it is the smaller part of his field and enclosed in it. And a rock with a total surface area of a bet rova‘ is not measured with it. If it was split, it is measured with it.” This means that if the greater part of it was on one side, but if you spread it, it becomes the smaller part and is not measured with it. If there was a long depression which added up to a bet rova‘? Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba asked: If it was shaped like sticks, is it measured with it or not? Rebbi Yudan bar Ismael asked: If it was like marble plates, is it measured with it or not? Rebbi Isaac bar Tebelai asked: If it was formed like chairs, does he measure from the place of its wall or does he measure from its declivity? Rav Huna in the name of Rav, [Rebbi] Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Only if the total agricultural area was four bet kor.

Rebbi explained it by a parable; to what can this be compared? To two brothers, co-owners who left Egypt. One had nine sons, the other a single son. They inherited ten bet kor. Each of them takes a letekh. They return it to their fathers and then split. It turns out that the single son takes half and the sons of the other take half.

Rebbi Dositheos ben Jehudah explained it by a parable; to what can this be compared? To two brothers, Cohanim and co-owners who stood by a threshing floor; one had nine sons and the other had one. They took (the area of) ten qab. They returned it to their father and split. It turns out that the son of one takes half and the sons of the other take half.

MISHNAH: He who says, this is my son, is to be believed. This is my brother, he is not to be believed but he shall split his part with him; if he dies the properties shall return to their origin. If he received property from another source, his brother shall inherit with him. If somebody died and a will was found tied to his hip, this is nothing. If in it he transferred property to another, whether of the heirs or not of the heirs, his words are confirmed.

MISHNAH: If he left adult and underage sons, the adult ones cannot be provided for at the expense of the underaged, nor the underaged fed at the expense of the adults, but they split evenly. If the adult ones wed, the underaged may wed. But if the underaged said, we want to have weddings just as you had, one does not listen to them, because what their father gave them, he gave. If he left adult and underage daughters, the adult ones cannot be provided for at the expense of the underaged, nor the underaged fed at the expense of the adults, but they split evenly. If the adult ones wed, the underaged may wed. But if the underaged said, we want to have weddings just as you had, one does not listen to them. It is a restriction about daughters which does not exist for sons, that daughters will be fed at the expense of sons but not at the expense of daughters.

MISHNAH: If he left adult and underage sons, the adult ones cannot be provided for at the expense of the underaged, nor the underaged fed at the expense of the adults, but they split evenly. If the adult ones wed, the underaged may wed. But if the underaged said, we want to have weddings just as you had, one does not listen to them, because what their father gave them, he gave. If he left adult and underage daughters, the adult ones cannot be provided for at the expense of the underaged, nor the underaged fed at the expense of the adults, but they split evenly. If the adult ones wed, the underaged may wed. But if the underaged said, we want to have weddings just as you had, one does not listen to them. It is a restriction about daughters which does not exist for sons, that daughters will be fed at the expense of sons but not at the expense of daughters.

MISHNAH: If the house collapsed on him and his father, or on him and his heirs, or on him and one from whom he inherits, and a woman’s ketubah and documents of indebtedness were on him. The father’s heirs say that the son died first and then the father; the holders of the debt say that the father died first and then the son. The House of Shammai say that they shall split; the House of Hillel say the properties are in the possession of their holders. If the house collapsed on him and his wife; the father’s heirs say that the wife died first and then the husband. The wife’s heirs say that the man died first and then the wife. The House of Shammai say that they shall split; the House of Hillel say the properties are in the possession of their holders, the ketubah is in the hands of the husband’s heirs; properties that enter and leave with her are in the hands of her father’s heirs. If the house collapsed on him and his wife; the father’s heirs say that the wife died first and then the husband. The wife’s heirs say that the man died first and then the wife. The House of Shammai say that they shall split; the House of Hillel say the properties are in the possession of their holders, the ketubah is in the hands of the husband’s heirs; properties that enter and leave with her are in the hands of her father’s heirs.

MISHNAH: If the house collapsed on him and his father, or on him and his heirs, or on him and one from whom he inherits, and a woman’s ketubah and documents of indebtedness were on him. The father’s heirs say that the son died first and then the father; the holders of the debt say that the father died first and then the son. The House of Shammai say that they shall split; the House of Hillel say the properties are in the possession of their holders. If the house collapsed on him and his wife; the father’s heirs say that the wife died first and then the husband. The wife’s heirs say that the man died first and then the wife. The House of Shammai say that they shall split; the House of Hillel say the properties are in the possession of their holders, the ketubah is in the hands of the husband’s heirs; properties that enter and leave with her are in the hands of her father’s heirs. If the house collapsed on him and his wife; the father’s heirs say that the wife died first and then the husband. The wife’s heirs say that the man died first and then the wife. The House of Shammai say that they shall split; the House of Hillel say the properties are in the possession of their holders, the ketubah is in the hands of the husband’s heirs; properties that enter and leave with her are in the hands of her father’s heirs.

MISHNAH: If the house collapsed on him and his father, or on him and his heirs, or on him and one from whom he inherits, and a woman’s ketubah and documents of indebtedness were on him. The father’s heirs say that the son died first and then the father; the holders of the debt say that the father died first and then the son. The House of Shammai say that they shall split; the House of Hillel say the properties are in the possession of their holders. If the house collapsed on him and his wife; the father’s heirs say that the wife died first and then the husband. The wife’s heirs say that the man died first and then the wife. The House of Shammai say that they shall split; the House of Hillel say the properties are in the possession of their holders, the ketubah is in the hands of the husband’s heirs; properties that enter and leave with her are in the hands of her father’s heirs. If the house collapsed on him and his wife; the father’s heirs say that the wife died first and then the husband. The wife’s heirs say that the man died first and then the wife. The House of Shammai say that they shall split; the House of Hillel say the properties are in the possession of their holders, the ketubah is in the hands of the husband’s heirs; properties that enter and leave with her are in the hands of her father’s heirs.

It is written: To amusement I said, be praised. The Holy One, praise to him, said to Solomon: What is this crown on your head? Descend from My throne! Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, at that moment an angel came down looking like Solomon, removed him from his throne, and sat in his stead. He was going around in synagogues and houses of study, saying I am Ecclesiastes, I used to be king over Israel in Jerusalem. They were telling him, the king sits on his chair of honor and you say, I am Ecclesiastes? They hit him with a stick and brought a dish of split beans before him. At that moment, he said: that is my part. Some say, a staff. Others say, a rod. Others say, with his belt. Who had accused him? Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, י in יַרְבֶּה accused him. Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai stated: The book Deuteronomy ascended, bowed down before the Holy One, praise to Him, and said to Him: Master of the Universe, You wrote in Your Torah that any disposition which is partially invalid is totally invalid, and now Solomon wants to uproot a י from me! The Holy One, praise to Him, said to it: Solomon and a thousand like him will disappear but nothing from you will disappear.

There, we have stated: “If two groups of witnesses were testifying against a person, one group say that he vowed nazir twice, the others say that he vowed nazir five times. The House of Shammai say, the testimony is split and there is no nezirut there. But the House of Hillel say, five contains two; he should be a nazir twice.” Rav said, they differ in the overall testimony. But in detail, everybody agrees that the testimony is split. Rebbi Joḥanan said, they differ in counting. But in an overall testimony, everybody agrees that five contains two. What is overall and what is counting? Overall, this one says two, the other one says five. Counting, this one says one, two, the other one says three, four.

There, we have stated: “If two groups of witnesses were testifying against a person, one group say that he vowed nazir twice, the others say that he vowed nazir five times. The House of Shammai say, the testimony is split and there is no nezirut there. But the House of Hillel say, five contains two; he should be a nazir twice.” Rav said, they differ in the overall testimony. But in detail, everybody agrees that the testimony is split. Rebbi Joḥanan said, they differ in counting. But in an overall testimony, everybody agrees that five contains two. What is overall and what is counting? Overall, this one says two, the other one says five. Counting, this one says one, two, the other one says three, four.

HALAKHAH: They brought in the second,” etc. It was stated: “If they found him innocent, they freed him; otherwise they hold his case over, split into groups of two, eat little and refrain from wine, and discuss during the entire night. The next morning they start early, the beadles of the synagogues come for them. They ask, Mr. X [ben Mr. Y. He says, present.] I was for conviction and I still am for conviction; or I was for acquittal and I still am for acquittal; I was for conviction and now I am for acquittal; one accepts his vote. I was for acquittal and now I am for conviction; argue as before.” It was stated: If one of the judges erred, the clerks of court remind him. If he was for conviction, they tell him, argue as before.

MISHNAH: If they found him innocent, they free him. Otherwise they hold his case over to the next day, split into groups of two, eat little and refrain from wine the entire day, and discuss during the entire night. The next morning they start early. One who voted for acquittal says, I am for acquittal and I remain for acquittal. One who voted for conviction says, I am for conviction and I remain for conviction. He who voted for conviction may vote for acquittal; but he who voted for acquittal may not change and vote for conviction. If they erred in the matter, the two clerks of court will remind them. If they found him innocent, they free him; otherwise they tally the vote. If twelve are for acquittal and eleven for conviction, he is found innocent. If twelve are for conviction and eleven for acquittal, or even twenty-two are for acquittal or conviction and one says, I do not know, they shall add judges. Up to what number does one add? [One adds] two and two up to 71. If 36 vote for acquittal and 35 for conviction, he is found innocent. If 36 vote for conviction and 35 for acquittal, they have to continue to argue with one another until one of the voters for conviction is convinced by the arguments of those in favor of acquittal.

But Rebbi Joḥanan himself had a problem: from where does one prove it? Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Two prohibitions and one extirpation, the prohibitions split the extirpation. For example, it should not be used to be rubbed on anybody’s skin and in its proportions you shall not imitate it, and it is written, a person who would compound similarly, or who would put it on a stranger, will be extirpated from his people, that is two prohibitions and one extirpation. The prohibitions split the extirpation. Also from the following: Samuel bar Abba asked before Rebbi Ze`ura, should not well-being sacrifices, being treated separately, split all sancta regarding impurity? He told him, it was necessary that they be treated separately, to eliminate sancta destined for the upkeep of the Temple [regarding larceny], lest one be liable for them because of mushiness, leftovers, and impurity. But is that not a Mishnah? “All sancta destined for the altar combine with one another with respect to liability for mushiness, leftovers, and impurity,” in contrast to sancta destined for the upkeep of the Temple. Since they do not combine, they do (not) split. Rebbi Ḥanina said, what he really questioned, should they not split but combine ?

But Rebbi Joḥanan himself had a problem: from where does one prove it? Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Two prohibitions and one extirpation, the prohibitions split the extirpation. For example, it should not be used to be rubbed on anybody’s skin and in its proportions you shall not imitate it, and it is written, a person who would compound similarly, or who would put it on a stranger, will be extirpated from his people, that is two prohibitions and one extirpation. The prohibitions split the extirpation. Also from the following: Samuel bar Abba asked before Rebbi Ze`ura, should not well-being sacrifices, being treated separately, split all sancta regarding impurity? He told him, it was necessary that they be treated separately, to eliminate sancta destined for the upkeep of the Temple [regarding larceny], lest one be liable for them because of mushiness, leftovers, and impurity. But is that not a Mishnah? “All sancta destined for the altar combine with one another with respect to liability for mushiness, leftovers, and impurity,” in contrast to sancta destined for the upkeep of the Temple. Since they do not combine, they do (not) split. Rebbi Ḥanina said, what he really questioned, should they not split but combine ?

But Rebbi Joḥanan himself had a problem: from where does one prove it? Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Two prohibitions and one extirpation, the prohibitions split the extirpation. For example, it should not be used to be rubbed on anybody’s skin and in its proportions you shall not imitate it, and it is written, a person who would compound similarly, or who would put it on a stranger, will be extirpated from his people, that is two prohibitions and one extirpation. The prohibitions split the extirpation. Also from the following: Samuel bar Abba asked before Rebbi Ze`ura, should not well-being sacrifices, being treated separately, split all sancta regarding impurity? He told him, it was necessary that they be treated separately, to eliminate sancta destined for the upkeep of the Temple [regarding larceny], lest one be liable for them because of mushiness, leftovers, and impurity. But is that not a Mishnah? “All sancta destined for the altar combine with one another with respect to liability for mushiness, leftovers, and impurity,” in contrast to sancta destined for the upkeep of the Temple. Since they do not combine, they do (not) split. Rebbi Ḥanina said, what he really questioned, should they not split but combine ?

But Rebbi Joḥanan himself had a problem: from where does one prove it? Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Two prohibitions and one extirpation, the prohibitions split the extirpation. For example, it should not be used to be rubbed on anybody’s skin and in its proportions you shall not imitate it, and it is written, a person who would compound similarly, or who would put it on a stranger, will be extirpated from his people, that is two prohibitions and one extirpation. The prohibitions split the extirpation. Also from the following: Samuel bar Abba asked before Rebbi Ze`ura, should not well-being sacrifices, being treated separately, split all sancta regarding impurity? He told him, it was necessary that they be treated separately, to eliminate sancta destined for the upkeep of the Temple [regarding larceny], lest one be liable for them because of mushiness, leftovers, and impurity. But is that not a Mishnah? “All sancta destined for the altar combine with one another with respect to liability for mushiness, leftovers, and impurity,” in contrast to sancta destined for the upkeep of the Temple. Since they do not combine, they do (not) split. Rebbi Ḥanina said, what he really questioned, should they not split but combine ?

But Rebbi Joḥanan himself had a problem: from where does one prove it? Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Two prohibitions and one extirpation, the prohibitions split the extirpation. For example, it should not be used to be rubbed on anybody’s skin and in its proportions you shall not imitate it, and it is written, a person who would compound similarly, or who would put it on a stranger, will be extirpated from his people, that is two prohibitions and one extirpation. The prohibitions split the extirpation. Also from the following: Samuel bar Abba asked before Rebbi Ze`ura, should not well-being sacrifices, being treated separately, split all sancta regarding impurity? He told him, it was necessary that they be treated separately, to eliminate sancta destined for the upkeep of the Temple [regarding larceny], lest one be liable for them because of mushiness, leftovers, and impurity. But is that not a Mishnah? “All sancta destined for the altar combine with one another with respect to liability for mushiness, leftovers, and impurity,” in contrast to sancta destined for the upkeep of the Temple. Since they do not combine, they do (not) split. Rebbi Ḥanina said, what he really questioned, should they not split but combine ?

Example. Rebbi Eliezer, Rebbi Joshua, and Rebbi Aqiba went to bathe at the public baths of Tiberias. A Minean saw them, said what he said, and the cupola caught them. Rebbi Eliezer said to Rebbi Joshua: Joshua ben Ḥanania, look what you can do. When this Minean was leaving, Rebbi Joshua said what he said and the door trapped him. Anybody who entered hit him with his fist, anybody leaving hit him when forcing the door open. He told them, undo what you did; they told him, you undo, then we shall undo. They mutually undid. When they left, Rebbi Joshua said to this Minean, is that all you are wise to? He answered, let us go down to the sea. When they had descended to the sea, this Minean said what he said and the sea was split. He told them, is that not what your teacher Moses did to the sea? They answered, do you not agree that our teacher Moses walked through it? He said to them, yes. They told him, enter it. He entered it. Rebbi Joshua commanded the prince of the sea who swallowed him.

If there are two prohibitions and one liability to extirpation, the prohibitions split the extirpation. What is the reason? On human flesh it may not be rubbed and in its proportions you should not make [a compound] like it, etc.. And it is written: A man who would compound like it, etc. This implies that for two prohibitions and one liability to extirpation, the prohibitions split the extirpation.

If there are two prohibitions and one liability to extirpation, the prohibitions split the extirpation. What is the reason? On human flesh it may not be rubbed and in its proportions you should not make [a compound] like it, etc.. And it is written: A man who would compound like it, etc. This implies that for two prohibitions and one liability to extirpation, the prohibitions split the extirpation.

Rebbi Jeremiah said that Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac asked: Justice protects the one on the straight path but sin destroys the sinner. Evil deeds will pursue the sinner but He will reward the just. While He makes scoffers targets of scoffing, He will bestow grace on the meek. He will watch over the feet of his pious ones, but evildoers will be silent in the darkness. The wise will inherit honor, but shame will mark the stupid ones. Fences are made fences and doors doors. Is it so that fences make fences and doors doors? But so it is: Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac: If a person is careful the first, second, and third times not to commit a sin, then in the future the Holy One, praise to Him, will watch over him. What is the reason? All this God will do twice, three times with a man. Rebbi Zeˋira said, but only if the person does not revert [to sin]. What is the reason? It does not say the triple thread “will never snap” but rather will not quickly snap. If you work on it, it will split.

It is written The rage of the Eternal was kindled against Israel. The Eternal said to Moses: Take all the heads of the people and hang them for the Eternal before the sun. What he told him was, install their heads as judges over them and let them execute the sinners at daytime. That is what is written: Moses told the judges of Israel: each one should kill his men who cling to the Baˋal Peˋor. How many were the judges of Israel? 78’600. Heads of thousands, 600. Heads of hundreds, 6'000. Heads of fifties, 12’000. heads of tens, 60’000. It turns out that the judges of Israel were 78’600. He told them, each of you should execute two. It turns out that the number of the killed was 157’200. Behold, a man from the Children of Israel came and introduced to his brothers the Midianite woman, to the eyes of Moses. What means to the eyes of Moses? Like a man who says, that is in your eyes, Moses. He told him, is not Ẓippora a Midianite, and are not her hooves split? This one is pure, that one is impure? There, Phineas was present. He said, is there nobody who would kill him or be killed? Where are the lions? A lion whelp is Jehudah; Dan is a lion whelp; Benjamin a rapacious wolf. When Phineas saw that nobody of Israel did anything, he immediately rose from his court, took the spear in his hand, and put its iron under his belt. He was leaning on its wood until he arrived at his door. When he arrived at his door, they asked him, where to, Phineas? He said to them, do you not agree that everywhere the tribe of Levi is with the tribe of Simeon? They said, let him, maybe the Pharisees permitted the matter. When he entered, the Holy One, praise to Him, performed six wonders for him. The first miracle: usually they would separate, but the angel glued the one to the other. The second miracle: He directed the spear into her belly to that his penis should be seen inside her belly because of the fault-finders, lest they say that he muscled himself in with them and satisfied himself. The third miracle: the angel closed their mouths, so they could not cry. The fourth miracle: they did not slip from the weapon but stayed in place. The fifth miracle: The angel lifted the lintel so that both of them were carried out between his shoulders. The sixth miracle: When the plague started to destroy the people, what did he do? He threw them on the ground and prayed. That is what is written: Phineas stood and prayed; the plague was arrested.

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

Rebbi Jeremiah said that Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac asked: Justice protects the one on the straight path. Evil deeds will pursue the sinner. He will watch over the feet of His pious ones. While He makes scoffers targets of scoffing. Fences are made fences and doors doors. Is it so that fences make fences and doors doors? But so it is: Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac: If a person is careful the first, second, and third times not to commit a sin, then the Holy One, praise to Him, will watch over him, as it is said, all this God will do twice, three times with a man. Rebbi Ze`ira said, but only if the person does not revert [to sin]. What is the reason? It does not say the triple thread “will never snap” but rather will not quickly snap. If you work on it, it will split.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Ḥanina said, One says, a large candelabra, but the other says, a small candelabra; he is liable since we have stated: “One swears only on matters of measure, or weight, or count.” Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, explain it if it was a candelabra composed of sections. One says, a large belt; the other says, a small belt. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated something but we do not know what he stated. If you say “liable”, a Mishnah disagrees, as we have stated: “One swears only on matters of measure, or weight, or count.” If you say “not liable”, a Mishnah disagrees, as we have stated: “If one says the adult one and the other says the underage one, let the seller swear that he sold the underage one. If both say that they do not know, they shall split.”

If he paid him in advance; in that case he swears and collects. If a pledge was in his hand; in that case he collects without swearing. If he was a slave. Would the court admit a slave to an oath? If he was suspect? Would the court admit a suspect person to an oath? If both were suspect, it is the dispute between Rebbi Meїr and Rebbi Yose: “If both were suspect, the oath returns to its origin, the words of Rebbi Yose; Rebbi Meїr says, they shall split the difference.”

MISHNAH: And if the opposing party was suspect of perjury, how? Equally oaths about testimony, or oaths about deposits, or even vain oaths, if one of them was a dice-player, a lender on interest, a participant in pigeon contests, or a dealer in sabbatical produce, the opposing party swears and collects. If both of them were suspect, the oath returns to its place, the words of Rebbi Yose. Rebbi Meїr says, they shall split.

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan. Scurvy is dangerous. Rebbi Joḥanan had it; he was treated by the daughter of Domitianus of Tiberias. Friday evening he went down to her and asked her, will I need anything tomorrow? She said no, but if you need anything take date pits, some say of Nicolaus dates, split and heated, skin of barley grain, and dry excrement of a baby, grind it and apply it; do not tell this to anybody. The next day he went up and preached it in the House of Study. She heard it and strangled herself; but some say that she converted. You understand from this three things. You understand that scurvy is dangerous. You understand that anything inside of the lips one heals on the Sabbath. You understand what Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If he was a professional healer it is permitted.

An Aramean’s leather bag split; the Jew received it into his. The case came before the rabbis who said, one fills them with water three days from time to time.

When Rebbi Aḥa expired, a star was seen at high noon. When Rebbi Ḥanan expired, the statues were bent. When Rebbi Joḥanan expired, the pictures were bent. They said, there was no picture beauty like his. When Rebbi Ḥanina from Hauran expired, Lake Tiberias was split. They said, when he was going to intercalate, the lake was split before him. When Rav Hoshaia expired, the shame of Tiberias fell down. When Rebbi Isaac ben Elyashiv expired, 70 thresholds of Galilean houses were uprooted. They said, these were kept in place by his merit.

When Rebbi Aḥa expired, a star was seen at high noon. When Rebbi Ḥanan expired, the statues were bent. When Rebbi Joḥanan expired, the pictures were bent. They said, there was no picture beauty like his. When Rebbi Ḥanina from Hauran expired, Lake Tiberias was split. They said, when he was going to intercalate, the lake was split before him. When Rav Hoshaia expired, the shame of Tiberias fell down. When Rebbi Isaac ben Elyashiv expired, 70 thresholds of Galilean houses were uprooted. They said, these were kept in place by his merit.

If somebody worshipped an egg Ḥizqiah said, he did not make it forbidden; Rebbi Joḥanan said, he made it forbidden. Rebbi Zeˋira said, they disagree about an egg. The colleagues say, they disagree about pebbles in a river bed. Rebbi Huna said, a verse supports what the colleagues say:Your part is with river pebbles; these are your destiny. The strength of Ḥizqiah is from the following: “Then why is an Ashera forbidden? Because it was held by human hand, and anything held by human hand is forbidden.” Everybody agrees that wheat is forbidden; as Rebbi Ḥanina bar Yasa said in the name of Rav Jehudah: The roots of wheat split the earth to a depth of 50 cubits; the soft roots of a fig tree split rock. Then what do the roots of the carob and the roots of the sycamore? Rebbi Ḥanina said, once every thirty days the abyss wells up and drenches them. What is the reason? I, the Eternal, am watching over it and water it in moments. It was stated: Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says, this teaches that the earth drinks only according to its hardness.

If somebody worshipped an egg Ḥizqiah said, he did not make it forbidden; Rebbi Joḥanan said, he made it forbidden. Rebbi Zeˋira said, they disagree about an egg. The colleagues say, they disagree about pebbles in a river bed. Rebbi Huna said, a verse supports what the colleagues say:Your part is with river pebbles; these are your destiny. The strength of Ḥizqiah is from the following: “Then why is an Ashera forbidden? Because it was held by human hand, and anything held by human hand is forbidden.” Everybody agrees that wheat is forbidden; as Rebbi Ḥanina bar Yasa said in the name of Rav Jehudah: The roots of wheat split the earth to a depth of 50 cubits; the soft roots of a fig tree split rock. Then what do the roots of the carob and the roots of the sycamore? Rebbi Ḥanina said, once every thirty days the abyss wells up and drenches them. What is the reason? I, the Eternal, am watching over it and water it in moments. It was stated: Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says, this teaches that the earth drinks only according to its hardness.

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

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

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

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

HALAKHAH: “Every hand which checks frequently is praiseworthy for women,” etc. So is the baraita: “Any one who frequently puts his hand on his eye will frequently have tears. Rebbi Ṭarphon says, it should be cut off on his navel. One said to him, does that not split open his belly? He said to them, that is what I said, for such a person’s death is better than his life.” The colleagues say, Rebbi Ṭarphon curses him in his body. Rebbi Yose said, he only explains that it is forbidden to manipulate lower than the navel. “That is, in the matter of semen. But in a case of gonorrhea, every hand which checks more frequently than another is more praiseworthy than the other.”

But it is not so ! For Rab Pappa spoke [evil] of Mar Samuel [after his death], and a pole fell from the roof and split his skull !

Is not rice a cooked dish? And lo, there is a teaching ; The following are cooked dishes : grist, groats, fine flour, split grain, barley-meal and rice!

Finally Raba came and gave [Bar Hedja] a fee, and said to him : I dreamt of a wall falling. He replied : Thou wilt acquire a boundless estate. He said to him : dreamt that Abbai's house collapsed and its dust covered me. He replied : Abbai will die and his [Office as Principal of the] College will revert to thee. He said to him : I dreamt that my house collapsed and everybody came to take each a brick. He replied : Thy teachings will be scattered throughout the world. He said to him : I dreamt that my head was split open and my brains fell out. He replied : The stuffing will fall out of thy bolster. He said to him : I dreamt that I was made to read the Hallel of Egypt. He replied : Many miracles will happen to thee. [Once Bar Hedja] went with Raba on a boat; he said [to himself]

Who dreams of the fig, his Torah will be preserved within him ; as it is said, "Whoso keepeth the fig-tree shall eat the fruit thereof" (Prov. xxvii. 18). Who dreams of pomegranates, if small, his business will bear fruit like the pomegranate ; if large, his business will grow like the pomegranate ; if split open, should he be a disciple of the wise, he may hope for Torah ; as it is said, "I would cause thee to drink of spiced wine, of the juice of my pomegranate" (Cant. viii. 2); but should he be an 'Am ha'ares, he may hope for commandments [to perform], as it is said, "Thy temples [rakkah] are like a pomegranate split open" (ibid. iv. 3). What means rakkah? Even the illiterate [rekanim] amongst thee will be full of commandments as a pomegranate [is full of seeds].

Who dreams of the fig, his Torah will be preserved within him ; as it is said, "Whoso keepeth the fig-tree shall eat the fruit thereof" (Prov. xxvii. 18). Who dreams of pomegranates, if small, his business will bear fruit like the pomegranate ; if large, his business will grow like the pomegranate ; if split open, should he be a disciple of the wise, he may hope for Torah ; as it is said, "I would cause thee to drink of spiced wine, of the juice of my pomegranate" (Cant. viii. 2); but should he be an 'Am ha'ares, he may hope for commandments [to perform], as it is said, "Thy temples [rakkah] are like a pomegranate split open" (ibid. iv. 3). What means rakkah? Even the illiterate [rekanim] amongst thee will be full of commandments as a pomegranate [is full of seeds].

The reason of R. Judah is not lest the wineskin split, but because he does not accept the principle of retroactivity (bererah).

But isn't R. Judah concerned about the possibility of the wineskin splitting? Surely since the latter part [of the baraita] states: They said to R. Meir, ‘Do you not agree that [we must fear] lest the wineskin split, with the result that he drank untithed [wine] retroactively?’ And he answered them, ‘When the wineskin splits’, it follows [does it not] that R. Judah is concerned about the possibility of the wineskin splitting?

[No!] There it is R. Judah who says to R. Meir, "As for myself I do not accept the principle of bererah, but according to you who do accept the principle of bererah, do you not agree that [we must fear] lest the wineskin split?’ And the latter answered, ‘When the wineskin splits’.

R. Papa asked: What is the rule if the central leaf is split? Come and hear what R. Yohanan said in the name of R. Joshua b. Levi: If the central leaf is removed, it is invalid. Is this also true if it is split? No, if it is removed the law is different,

R. Papa asked: What is the rule if the central leaf is split? Come and hear what R. Yohanan said in the name of R. Joshua b. Levi: If the central leaf is removed, it is invalid. Is this also true if it is split? No, if it is removed the law is different,

If the central leaf is split, it is as though it is removed, and [the lulav] is invalid. R. Judah says It has been taught: R. Judah said in the name of R. Tarfon, “Branches (kapot) of palm-trees,” kapot [means that if palm-branches must be] were separated, he must tie them up (yikhtefenu).

7) If a rash spread out on a majority of it, or if its pitom is removed, if it is peeled, split, or perforated so that any part is missing, it is invalid. 8) If a rash spread out on a lesser part of it, if its stem was missing, or if it is perforated but no part of it is missing, it is valid. 9) An etrog [which is black] as an Ethiopian is invalid. 10) An etrog which is green as a leek: a) Rabbi Meir declares it valid b) And Rabbi Judah declares it invalid 11) The minimum size of an etrog: a) Rabbi Meir says: the size of a nut. b) Rabbi Judah says: the size of an egg. 12) The maximum [size] is such that two can be held in one hand, the words of Rabbi Judah. a) Rabbi Yose says, even one that can only be held with his two hands.

Split, pierced: Ulla b. Hanina taught: If it is completely perforated [it is invalid even if the hole is] of the smallest size; if it is not completely perforated [the hole must be of the minimum size] of an issar.

Rava asked: If there developed in an etrog the symptoms [which render an animal] terefah, what is the law? What is he asking about? If it is peeled, have we not [already] learned it? If it is split have we not learned it also? If it was pierced have we not learned it also?

What was Trajan Day? It was reported that when Trajan had ordered the execution of Lulianus (Julianus) and his brother Pappos in Laodicea (Lydia), he said to them, if you are of the people of Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, let your God come and save you from my hands, as He saved them from the hand of Nebuchadnezzar; to which they replied: Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah were wholly righteous men and worthy of a miracle being performed for their sake; Nebuchadnezzar, too, was a respectable king, worthy of being the medium through which a miracle should be performed, but you are a wicked and ignoble man, not deserving that a miracle should be performed through you. Now, we have been found guilty of death in the eyes of God, and if you do not slay us, God has enough other slayers; He has plenty of bears and leopards and lions to attack and kill us, and the only reason for God's delivering us into your hand is that He intends to avenge our blood on you. It is reported that he had not yet moved from the place, when two deputies arrived from Rome and split his skull with clubs.

R. Eleazar said: When the libation is offered during the Feast of Tabernacles, one deep says to the other: "Let thy water spring forth, I hear the voice of two comrades," for it is said (Ps., 42. 8): "Deep calleth unto deep at the voice of Thy cataracts." Said Rabbah bar Bar Ḥanah, I saw that Ridya; he resembles a heifer of three years old; his lip is split and he is stationed between the upper and the lower deep; to the upper deep he says: "Pour down thy water," and to the lower deep: "Let thy water spring up," as it is said (Cant., 2. 12): "The flowers appear on the earth; the time of the singing is come, and the voice of the turtle is heard in our land."

MISHNA: [The false witnesses] divide the monetary payment but not the lashes. How is this? If they testified that a person was obligated to pay 200 zuz [a unit of currency] to his fellow and were then found to be false, they split the payment between them, but if they testified that a person was liable to forty lashes and were then found to be false, each [of the false witnesses] gets forty lashes.

They prepared roads from each to the other, as it is said: 'Prepare yourself the road and split [the land] into thirds' (Deuteronomy 19:3).

Rava asked, (Deuteronomy 14,6) "And any animal that has split hooves and has the hoof completely split into two and chews its cud,among the animals that you may eat". "That" you may eat, but a different animal you may not eat. And if it is as you say then why do I need (Deuteronomy 14,7) "This you may not eat"?

Rava asked, (Deuteronomy 14,6) "And any animal that has split hooves and has the hoof completely split into two and chews its cud,among the animals that you may eat". "That" you may eat, but a different animal you may not eat. And if it is as you say then why do I need (Deuteronomy 14,7) "This you may not eat"?