stringency

Two [separate] kavs [of dough], this one had its hallah removed on its own, and this one had its hallah removed on its own, and then he went back and made of them one dough: Rabbi Akiva exempts; But the sages make it liable. It turns out that the stringency of his [first] ruling leads to the leniency of his other ruling.

Greater stringency applies to sacred things than to terumah, that they may immerse vessels within vessels [together] for terumah, but not for sacred things. The outside and inside and handle [of a vessel are regarded as separate] for terumah, but not for sacred things. One that carries anything possessing midras-uncleanness may carry [at the same time] terumah, but not sacred things. The garments of those who eat terumah posses midras-uncleanness for [those who eat] sacred things. The rule [for the immersion of garments] for [those who would eat terumah is not the same as the rule for [those who would eat] sacred things: for in the case of sacred things, he must [first] untie [any knots in the unclean garment], dry it [if it is wet, then] immerse it, and afterwards retie it; but in case of terumah, it may [first] be tied and afterwards immersed.

Greater stringency applies to terumah [than to sacred things], for in Judah [the people of the land (amei haaretz)] are trusted in regard to the purity of [sacred] wine and oil throughout the year; and at the season of the wine-presses and olive-presses even in regard to terumah. If [the season of] the wine-presses and olive-presses passed, and they brought to him a jar of wine of terumah, he [the priest] should not accept it from him, but [the am ha-aretz] may leave it for the coming [season] of the wine-press. But if he said to him, “I have set apart a quarter log [of wine] as a sacred thing,” he is believed [in regard to the purity of the whole jug]. [When it comes to] jugs of wine and jugs of oil that are meant for terumah, they are believed during the season of the wine-presses and the olive-presses and prior to [the season of] the wine-presses seventy days.

[If he says,] “A korban should be what I do not eat of yours”; “By a korban! If I eat of yours”; “What I do not eat of yours should not be a korban to me” the vow is not binding. [If he says], “An oath [that] I will not eat of yours”; “An oath that I eat of yours”; “No oath [that] I will not eat of yours” his oath is valid. In these instances oaths are more stringent than vows. There is [also] greater stringency in vows than in oaths. How so? If one says, “Konam be the sukkah that I make,”; “The lulav that I take”; “The tefillin that I put on”; as vows they are binding, but as oaths they are not, because one cannot swear to transgress the commandments.

The annulment of vows is the whole day. This may result in a stringency or in a leniency. How is this so? If she vowed on the eve of the Sabbath, he can annul on the eve of the sabbath and on the Sabbath day until nightfall. If she vowed just before nightfall, he can annul only until nightfall: for if night fell and he had not annulled it, he can no longer annul it.

Three things are forbidden to a nazirite: ritual defilement, shaving and products of the vine. Defilement and shaving have a stringency that products of the vine do not have, in that defilement and shaving annul [the period of naziriteship already observed], whereas [partaking of] products of the vine does not do so. Products of the vine have a stringency that defilement or shaving do not have, in that products of the vine permit of no exception from the general prohibition, whereas defilement and shaving are allowed as exception from the general prohibition in the case where shaving is a religious duty, or where there is a neglected corpse. And defilement has a stringency that shaving does not have, in that defilement annuls the whole [period of naziriteship already served], and [a nazirite who is defiled] is liable for a sacrifice, whereas shaving annuls only thirty days and he is not liable for a sacrifice.

Three things are forbidden to a nazirite: ritual defilement, shaving and products of the vine. Defilement and shaving have a stringency that products of the vine do not have, in that defilement and shaving annul [the period of naziriteship already observed], whereas [partaking of] products of the vine does not do so. Products of the vine have a stringency that defilement or shaving do not have, in that products of the vine permit of no exception from the general prohibition, whereas defilement and shaving are allowed as exception from the general prohibition in the case where shaving is a religious duty, or where there is a neglected corpse. And defilement has a stringency that shaving does not have, in that defilement annuls the whole [period of naziriteship already served], and [a nazirite who is defiled] is liable for a sacrifice, whereas shaving annuls only thirty days and he is not liable for a sacrifice.

Three things are forbidden to a nazirite: ritual defilement, shaving and products of the vine. Defilement and shaving have a stringency that products of the vine do not have, in that defilement and shaving annul [the period of naziriteship already observed], whereas [partaking of] products of the vine does not do so. Products of the vine have a stringency that defilement or shaving do not have, in that products of the vine permit of no exception from the general prohibition, whereas defilement and shaving are allowed as exception from the general prohibition in the case where shaving is a religious duty, or where there is a neglected corpse. And defilement has a stringency that shaving does not have, in that defilement annuls the whole [period of naziriteship already served], and [a nazirite who is defiled] is liable for a sacrifice, whereas shaving annuls only thirty days and he is not liable for a sacrifice.

If he left elder daughters and younger daughters, the elder daughters may not care for themselves at the cost of the younger daughters, nor may the younger daughters claim maintenance at the cost of the elder daughters, rather they all share alike. If the elder daughters married [and took each her dowry from the common inheritance] so too the younger daughters may marry [and take each a dowry from the common inheritance]. If the younger daughters said, “We will marry in the way you married”, they do not listen to them, for what their father gave them, he has given. A greater stringency applies to daughters than to sons, since daughters can claim maintenance at the cost of the sons, but they cannot claim maintenance at the cost of the [other daughters].

An elder rebelling against the ruling of the court [is strangled], for it says, “If there arise a matter too hard for you for judgement […you shall promptly repair to the place that the Lord your God will have chosen, and appear before the levitical priests, or the magistrate in charge at the time, and present your problem. When they have announced to you the verdict in the case, you shall carry out the verdict that is announced to you from that place that the Lord chose, observing scrupulously all their instructions to you. You shall act in accordance with the instructions given you and the ruling handed down to you; you must not deviate from the verdict that they announce to you either to the right or to the left. Should a man act presumptuously and disregard the priest charged with serving there the Lord your God, or the magistrate, that man shall die” (Deut. 17:8-13, JPS translation). Three courts of law were there, one situated at the entrance to the Temple mount, another at the door of the [Temple] court, and the third in the Chamber of Hewn Stone. They [first] went to the court which is at the entrance to the Temple mount, and he [the rebellious elder] stated, “Thus have I expounded and thus have my colleagues expounded; thus have I taught, and thus have my colleagues taught.” If [this first court] had heard [a ruling on the matter], they state it. If not, they go to the [second court] which is at the entrance of the Temple court, and he declares, “Thus have I expounded and thus have my colleagues expounded; thus have I taught, and thus have my colleagues taught.” If [this second court] had heard [a ruling on the matter] they state it; if not, they all proceed to the great court of the Chamber of Hewn Stone from whence instruction issued to all Israel, for it says, [you shall carry out the verdict that is announced to you] from that place that the Lord chose (Deut. 17:10). If he returned to his town and taught again as he did before, he is not liable. But if he gave a practical decision, he is guilty, for it says, “Should a man act presumptuously” (Deut. 17:12) he is liable only for a practical ruling. But if a disciple gave a practical decision [opposed to the court], he is exempt: thus his stringency is his leniency.

There is greater stringency in respect to the teachings of the scribes than in respect to the torah: [thus,] if [a rebellious elder] says, there is no commandment of tefillin, so that a biblical law may be transgressed, he is exempt. [But if he rules that the tefillin must contain] five compartments, thus adding to the words of the scribes, he is liable.

The size of a hole that renders an earthen vessel clean: If the vessel was made for food, the hole must be big enough for olives [to fall through]. If it was used for liquids it suffices for the hole to be big enough for liquids [to go through it]. And if it was used for both, we apply the greater stringency, that olives must be able to fall through.

[Both] persons and vessels can be defiled through a corpse. A greater stringency applies to persons than to vessels and to vessels than to persons. For with vessels [there can be] three [series of defilements], whereas with persons [there can be only] two. A greater stringency applies to persons, for whenever they are in the middle of a [series] there can be four [in the series], whereas when they are not in the middle of a [series] there can be [only] three.

[Both] persons and vessels can be defiled through a corpse. A greater stringency applies to persons than to vessels and to vessels than to persons. For with vessels [there can be] three [series of defilements], whereas with persons [there can be only] two. A greater stringency applies to persons, for whenever they are in the middle of a [series] there can be four [in the series], whereas when they are not in the middle of a [series] there can be [only] three.

Persons and garments can be defiled by a zav. A greater stringency applies to persons than to garments and a greater stringency applies to garments than to persons. For a person who touches a zav can defile garments, whereas garments that touch a zav cannot defile [other] garments. A greater stringency applies to garments, for garments which form the support of a zav can defile persons, whereas a person who forms the support of a zav cannot defile [other] persons.

Persons and garments can be defiled by a zav. A greater stringency applies to persons than to garments and a greater stringency applies to garments than to persons. For a person who touches a zav can defile garments, whereas garments that touch a zav cannot defile [other] garments. A greater stringency applies to garments, for garments which form the support of a zav can defile persons, whereas a person who forms the support of a zav cannot defile [other] persons.

Persons and garments can be defiled by a zav. A greater stringency applies to persons than to garments and a greater stringency applies to garments than to persons. For a person who touches a zav can defile garments, whereas garments that touch a zav cannot defile [other] garments. A greater stringency applies to garments, for garments which form the support of a zav can defile persons, whereas a person who forms the support of a zav cannot defile [other] persons.

Rabbi Hanina, the vice-chief of priests, says: the colors of negaim are sixteen. Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas says: the colors of negaim are thirty-six. Akaviah ben Mahalalel says: seventy-two. Rabbi Hanina the vice-chief of priests says: negaim may not be inspected for the first time at the end of Shabbat, since the end of that week will fall on Shabbat; Nor on a Monday, since the end of the second week will fall on Shabbat; Nor on a Tuesday, in the case of houses, since the end of the third week will fall on Shabbat. Rabbi Akiva says: they may be inspected at all times, and if the time for the second inspection falls on Shabbat it is postponed to after Shabbat; and this procedure leads sometimes to a leniency and sometimes to a stringency.

How does it lead to a stringency? If it had no white hairs and then white hairs appeared; If they were black and then turned white; If one hair was black and the other white and both turned white; If they were short and they became long; If one was short and the other long and both became long. If a boil adjoined both hairs or one of them, if a boil encompassed both hairs or one of them or if they were parted from one another by a boil, the quick flesh of a boil, a burn, or the quick flesh of a burn, or white scurf, and then [one of these things] disappeared. If it had no quick flesh and then quick flesh appeared. If it was round or long and then became four sided; If it was at the side and then it became encompassed. If it was dispersed and then it became united or a boil appeared and made its way into it. If it was encompassed, parted or lessened by a boil, the quick flesh of a boil, a burn, the quick flesh of a burn or white scurf, and then they disappeared; If it had no spreading and then a spreading appeared; If a boil, the quick flesh of a boil, a burn, the quick flesh of a burn, or white scurf formed a division between the first sign and the spreading and then they disappeared. Behold all of these lead to a stringency.

How does it lead to a stringency? If it had no white hairs and then white hairs appeared; If they were black and then turned white; If one hair was black and the other white and both turned white; If they were short and they became long; If one was short and the other long and both became long. If a boil adjoined both hairs or one of them, if a boil encompassed both hairs or one of them or if they were parted from one another by a boil, the quick flesh of a boil, a burn, or the quick flesh of a burn, or white scurf, and then [one of these things] disappeared. If it had no quick flesh and then quick flesh appeared. If it was round or long and then became four sided; If it was at the side and then it became encompassed. If it was dispersed and then it became united or a boil appeared and made its way into it. If it was encompassed, parted or lessened by a boil, the quick flesh of a boil, a burn, the quick flesh of a burn or white scurf, and then they disappeared; If it had no spreading and then a spreading appeared; If a boil, the quick flesh of a boil, a burn, the quick flesh of a burn, or white scurf formed a division between the first sign and the spreading and then they disappeared. Behold all of these lead to a stringency.

In the case of a stone in a corner, when the stone is taken out it, he must take it all out; But when [the house is] torn down he tears down his own [part] and leaves that which belongs to his neighbor. Thus it follows that there is a greater stringency for taking out than for tearing down. Rabbi Elazar says: if a house is built of rows of head stones and small stones, and a nega appears on a head stone, all of it must be taken out; but if it appeared on the small stones, he takes out his stones and leaves the others.

All who are occupied with the preparation of the [red] cow from the beginning until the end, defile their clothing, and they also render it invalid by [doing other] work. If some invalidity occurred while it was being slaughtered, it does not defile clothing. If it occurred while the blood was being sprinkled, for all who were occupied with it before the invalidity occurred, it defiles their clothing, but for those who were occupied with it after it had become invalid it does not defile their clothing unclean. Thus it follows that the stringency turns into a leniency. It is always subject to the rules of trespassing. Wood may be added to the fire. The service must be performed by day and by a priest. Work renders it invalid. [All of this is only] until it becomes ashes And work causes the water to be invalid until the ashes are put into it.

All foods combine together to make up the half of a half-loaf which makes the body unfit. All liquids combine together to make up the quarter-log which makes the body unfit. This is more of a stringency in the case of one who drinks unclean liquids than in the case of the mikveh, for in this case they have made all other liquids like water.

If a zav [sat] in one scale of the balance, while food and liquids were in the other scale, [the latter become] unclean. In the case of a corpse, everything remains clean except for a man. This is [an example of] the greater stringency applying to a zav than to a corpse; and there is a greater stringency in the case of a corpse than a zav. For whereas the zav defiles all objects on which he sits or lies upon, so that these likewise convey uncleanness to people and garments, and he conveys to what is above him madaf uncleanness, so that these in turn defile food and liquids. Whereas in the case of a corpse no such uncleanness is conveyed. Greater stringency is also found in the case of a corpse, since it can convey uncleanness by overshadowing, and it defiles seven days’ defilement, whereas in the case of a zav no such uncleanness is conveyed.

If a zav [sat] in one scale of the balance, while food and liquids were in the other scale, [the latter become] unclean. In the case of a corpse, everything remains clean except for a man. This is [an example of] the greater stringency applying to a zav than to a corpse; and there is a greater stringency in the case of a corpse than a zav. For whereas the zav defiles all objects on which he sits or lies upon, so that these likewise convey uncleanness to people and garments, and he conveys to what is above him madaf uncleanness, so that these in turn defile food and liquids. Whereas in the case of a corpse no such uncleanness is conveyed. Greater stringency is also found in the case of a corpse, since it can convey uncleanness by overshadowing, and it defiles seven days’ defilement, whereas in the case of a zav no such uncleanness is conveyed.

If a zav [sat] in one scale of the balance, while food and liquids were in the other scale, [the latter become] unclean. In the case of a corpse, everything remains clean except for a man. This is [an example of] the greater stringency applying to a zav than to a corpse; and there is a greater stringency in the case of a corpse than a zav. For whereas the zav defiles all objects on which he sits or lies upon, so that these likewise convey uncleanness to people and garments, and he conveys to what is above him madaf uncleanness, so that these in turn defile food and liquids. Whereas in the case of a corpse no such uncleanness is conveyed. Greater stringency is also found in the case of a corpse, since it can convey uncleanness by overshadowing, and it defiles seven days’ defilement, whereas in the case of a zav no such uncleanness is conveyed.

A pot which was full of liquid and a tevul yom touched it: If it is terumah, the liquid is disqualified, but the pot is clean. But if the liquid is non-sacred [hullin] then all remains clean. If his hands were defiled [and he touched the liquids in the pot], all becomes unclean. This is a case defiled hands are treated more stringently than a tevul yom. But a greater stringency is applied to a tevul yom than to defiled hands, since a doubtful tevul yom disqualifies terumah, but doubts with regard to defiled hands are clean.

There we have stated: “A woman who inherited property before she was betrothed, the Houses of Shammai and Hillel both are of the opinion that she may sell or give away and her actions are valid. If she inherited after she was betrothed, the House of Shammai say, she may sell, but the House of Hillel say, she may not sell.” Rebbi Phineas asked before Rebbi Yose, why did we not state it with the leniencies of the House of Shammai and the stringencies of the House of Hillel? He said to him, the Mishnaiot come only for circumstances that are either stringent on both sides or lenient on both sides. But here it is a stringency on one side and a leniency on the other side. But did we not state: “The House of Shammai say, property abandoned to the poor is abandoned?” Is this not lenient for the poor and stringent for the householder, and it was stated! It is lenient for the poor and not stringent for the householder, since it was abandoned by his intent. He said to him, did we not state: “The sheaf that was near a closure, a stack, cattle, or vessels, if it was forgotten,” is this not lenient for the householder and stringent for the poor, and it was stated! He said to him, it is lenient for the householder but not stringent for the poor, because they did not acquire it yet. You may also say here, it is lenient for the woman and not stringent for the husband since he did not yet acquire property rights to it. He said to him, since he became betrothed to her, the inheritance fell to both of them.

Rebbi Zeïra, Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Cahana: He who is planting on the Sabbath is guilty because of sowing. Rebbi Zeïra said, he who prunes is like one who plants. If he planted and pruned on the Sabbath, according to Cahana he is guilty on two counts, according to Rebbi Zeïra only on one count. Did not Rebbi Zeïra say the pruner is like the planter, did he say the planter is like the pruner? All was included in the notion of sowing; pruning was singled out for particular stringency. Because pruning was singled out for particular stringency you want to exempt it because of sowing? There is no difference, both according to Cahana and according to Rebbi Zeïra he is guilty on two counts.

Rebbi Zeïra, Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Cahana: He who is planting on the Sabbath is guilty because of sowing. Rebbi Zeïra said, he who prunes is like one who plants. If he planted and pruned on the Sabbath, according to Cahana he is guilty on two counts, according to Rebbi Zeïra only on one count. Did not Rebbi Zeïra say the pruner is like the planter, did he say the planter is like the pruner? All was included in the notion of sowing; pruning was singled out for particular stringency. Because pruning was singled out for particular stringency you want to exempt it because of sowing? There is no difference, both according to Cahana and according to Rebbi Zeïra he is guilty on two counts.

HALAKHAH: There, we have stated: “Libation wine is forbidden and makes forbidden in the most minute amount.” Ḥizqiah said, if somebody mixed a cup from forbidden and from permitted [wine], if the forbidden fell in last it makes it forbidden, permitted at the end makes it permitted. Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, this follows Rebbi Eliezer, as Rebbi Eliezer said, I am going after the last one. Rebbi Jeremiah said, this is a stringency about libation wine. Rebbi Yose asked, if it were a stringency about libation wine, even if the permitted fell in last it should be forbidden! Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If somebody mixed a cup from forbidden and from permitted [wine], one considers the permitted as nonexistent; if the forbidden does impart taste it is forbidden, otherwise permitted. Rebbi Hoshaia said, only if the permitted fell in last. Rebbi Ammi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, it does not make any difference whether the forbidden fell in first and the permitted last or the permitted first and the forbidden last, even water and wine, even if it was mixed perfectly from permitted, one considers the permitted as nonexistent; if the forbidden does impart taste it is forbidden, otherwise permitted. Rebbi Zeïra said, that which you say and everybody stated, how can this be? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if a flask of libation wine fell into an amphora of wine and then it fell into a water cistern, one considers the permitted as nonexistent; if it can be tasted it is forbidden, otherwise permitted.

HALAKHAH: There, we have stated: “Libation wine is forbidden and makes forbidden in the most minute amount.” Ḥizqiah said, if somebody mixed a cup from forbidden and from permitted [wine], if the forbidden fell in last it makes it forbidden, permitted at the end makes it permitted. Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, this follows Rebbi Eliezer, as Rebbi Eliezer said, I am going after the last one. Rebbi Jeremiah said, this is a stringency about libation wine. Rebbi Yose asked, if it were a stringency about libation wine, even if the permitted fell in last it should be forbidden! Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If somebody mixed a cup from forbidden and from permitted [wine], one considers the permitted as nonexistent; if the forbidden does impart taste it is forbidden, otherwise permitted. Rebbi Hoshaia said, only if the permitted fell in last. Rebbi Ammi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, it does not make any difference whether the forbidden fell in first and the permitted last or the permitted first and the forbidden last, even water and wine, even if it was mixed perfectly from permitted, one considers the permitted as nonexistent; if the forbidden does impart taste it is forbidden, otherwise permitted. Rebbi Zeïra said, that which you say and everybody stated, how can this be? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if a flask of libation wine fell into an amphora of wine and then it fell into a water cistern, one considers the permitted as nonexistent; if it can be tasted it is forbidden, otherwise permitted.

[Rebbi] Zeˋira, Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Cahana: He who is planting on the Sabbath is guilty because of sowing. Rebbi Zeˋira said, he who prunes is like one who plants. If he planted and pruned on the Sabbath, according to Cahana he is guilty on two counts, according to Rebbi Zeˋira only on one count. Did not Rebbi Zeˋira say the pruner is like the planter, did he say perhaps the planter is like the pruner? All was included in the category of sowing; pruning was singled out for particular stringency. Because pruning was singled out for particular stringency you want to exempt it because of sowing? This means, there is no difference. If he planted and pruned on the Sabbath, according to both Cahana and Rebbi Zeˋira he is guilty on two counts.

[Rebbi] Zeˋira, Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Cahana: He who is planting on the Sabbath is guilty because of sowing. Rebbi Zeˋira said, he who prunes is like one who plants. If he planted and pruned on the Sabbath, according to Cahana he is guilty on two counts, according to Rebbi Zeˋira only on one count. Did not Rebbi Zeˋira say the pruner is like the planter, did he say perhaps the planter is like the pruner? All was included in the category of sowing; pruning was singled out for particular stringency. Because pruning was singled out for particular stringency you want to exempt it because of sowing? This means, there is no difference. If he planted and pruned on the Sabbath, according to both Cahana and Rebbi Zeˋira he is guilty on two counts.

It was stated, “and Gad from Gadiel”. They objected to Rebbi Jehudah, are not these straight and those bent? It was stated in the name of Rebbi Jehudah: If he wrote two identical letters and they form a word he is liable, e. g., חָח ,רָר ,גַּג ,תֵּת ,שָׂשׂ. But the rabbis, two letters anywhere. You are finding to say that there is leniency and stringency for Rebbi Jehudah, leniency and stringency for the rabbis. A leniency for Rebbi Jehudah: If he wrote two identical letters and they form a word, in the opinion of Rebbi Jehudah he is liable, in the opinion of the rabbis he is not liable. Two letters anywhere even though they do not define a word, in the opinion of Rebbi Jehudah he is not liable, in the opinion of the rabbis he is liable. The opinion of Rebbi Jehudah seems inverted, as it was stated: “I could think only if he wrote the entire word, only if he wove the entire cloth, only if he made the entire sieve, the verse says, of one. If of one, I could think even if he wrote one letter, even if he wove one thread, even if he made one loop on a fine or coarse sieve. The verse says, he did one. How is this? Only if he made a work similar to one which is permanent.” And here he says, “one who hits or smooths a weave is liable because he equalizes with his hand.” And here because he equalizes with his hand.

It was stated, “and Gad from Gadiel”. They objected to Rebbi Jehudah, are not these straight and those bent? It was stated in the name of Rebbi Jehudah: If he wrote two identical letters and they form a word he is liable, e. g., חָח ,רָר ,גַּג ,תֵּת ,שָׂשׂ. But the rabbis, two letters anywhere. You are finding to say that there is leniency and stringency for Rebbi Jehudah, leniency and stringency for the rabbis. A leniency for Rebbi Jehudah: If he wrote two identical letters and they form a word, in the opinion of Rebbi Jehudah he is liable, in the opinion of the rabbis he is not liable. Two letters anywhere even though they do not define a word, in the opinion of Rebbi Jehudah he is not liable, in the opinion of the rabbis he is liable. The opinion of Rebbi Jehudah seems inverted, as it was stated: “I could think only if he wrote the entire word, only if he wove the entire cloth, only if he made the entire sieve, the verse says, of one. If of one, I could think even if he wrote one letter, even if he wove one thread, even if he made one loop on a fine or coarse sieve. The verse says, he did one. How is this? Only if he made a work similar to one which is permanent.” And here he says, “one who hits or smooths a weave is liable because he equalizes with his hand.” And here because he equalizes with his hand.

For no deceased one he rends the trim except for father and mother, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Jehudah says, any tear which does not completely sever the trim is a frivolous tear. Rebbi Joḥanan disagrees with Rebbi Jehudah in two things. Rebbi Joḥanan heard that Rebbi Ḥanina was weak. He was going up to visit him. On the road he heard that he had died. He descended from his donkey, took out the good Sabbath garment, and tore it. As we have stated there: “The High Priest rends his garment below, the common priest above.” Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Cahana: On top, high starting with the seam, below, low starting with the seam. Rebbi Joḥanan said, really low. Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Cahana follows Rebbi Jehudah. If following Rebbi Jehudah, he should not tear at all! How about this? It is a stringency for the High Priest that he shall sever the seam completely.

Rebbi Phineas asked before Rebbi Yose, why did we not state it with the leniencies of the House of Shammai and the stringencies of the House of Hillel? He said to him, the Mishnaiot apply only to circumstances that are either stringent on both sides or lenient on both sides. But here it is a stringency on one side and a leniency on the other side. But did we not state: “The House of Shammai say, property abandoned to the poor [is abandoned]?” Is this not lenient for the poor and stringent for the householder, and it was stated! He said to him, it is lenient for the poor and not stringent for the householder, since he intentionally abandoned it. He said to him, did we not state: “If the sheaf that was near a closure, a stack, cattle, or vessels was forgotten,” is this not lenient for the householder and stringent for the poor, and it was stated! He said to him, it is lenient for the householder but not stringent for the poor, because they did not acquire it yet. You may also say here, it is lenient for the woman and not stringent for the husband since he did not yet acquire property rights to it. He said to him, since he became betrothed to her, the inheritance fell to both of them.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody sent a bill of divorce to his wife,” etc. This disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan, since Rebbi Joḥanan said that a person invalidates the agent appointed by him by a declaration. He explains it by the stringency of the rules of incest. If he appointed an agent to deliver the bill of divorce, the latter has to deliver it in the presence of two [witnesses]; the agent is not counted as one of the two. If another agent went to invalidate the bill of divorce, he has to invalidate it in the presence of two [witnesses] and the agent is counted as one of the two. If he met him on the road and asked him, what about the bill of divorce I gave you? He answered, I delivered it to her. While they were talking there, he dropped it. He said, did you not tell me that you delivered it to her? He explained, I delivered it to her and she said, keep it for me. What? Can he be believed since it is in his power to divorce, or can he not be believed because it is in his hand? If the agent fell sick, how do you treat this? By the rules of divorces or the rules of preliminary marriages? By the rules of divorces one can divorce through the agency of anybody. By the rules of preliminary marriages one cannot preliminarily marry through the agency of anybody.

HALAKHAH: “Similarly, if a woman empowered her agent,” etc. Does this not disagree with Rebbi Joḥanan, since Rebbi Joḥanan said that a person invalidates agency by a declaration? He explains it by the stringency of the rules of adultery and incest. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun understood this from the latter part: “Similarly, if a woman empowered her agent to contract preliminary marriage for her and then went and contracted for herself.” Does this not disagree with Rebbi Joḥanan, since Rebbi Joḥanan said that a person invalidates agency by a declaration? He explains it by the stringency of the rules of adultery and incest.

HALAKHAH: “Similarly, if a woman empowered her agent,” etc. Does this not disagree with Rebbi Joḥanan, since Rebbi Joḥanan said that a person invalidates agency by a declaration? He explains it by the stringency of the rules of adultery and incest. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun understood this from the latter part: “Similarly, if a woman empowered her agent to contract preliminary marriage for her and then went and contracted for herself.” Does this not disagree with Rebbi Joḥanan, since Rebbi Joḥanan said that a person invalidates agency by a declaration? He explains it by the stringency of the rules of adultery and incest.

“If the first went by and did not cover it, the second and did not cover it, the second is liable.” Rebbi Abba bar Bizna, Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One gives him time to cut cedars from Lebanon. That can be a stringency and it can be a leniency. Sometimes he is close to the Lebanon, sometimes he is far from the Lebanon.

Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Cahana: On top, high starting with the seam, below, low starting with the seam. Rebbi Joḥanan said, really low. Rebbi Joḥanan was going up the mountain to visit Rebbi Ḥanina; on the road he heard that he had died. He sent, brought his good Sabbath garment, and tore it. Rebbi Joḥanan disagrees with Rebbi Jehudah in two things, but Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Cahana follows Rebbi Jehudah. If following Rebbi Jehudah, he should not tear at all! This refers only to his father or mother, following Rebbi Meïr, as it was stated: One tears the seam for nobody who died except for father and mother, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Jehudah says, any tear which does not completely sever the seam is a frivolous tear. How is that? It is a stringency for the High Priest that he shall sever the seam completely.

Rebbi Zeˋira, Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Cahana: He who is planting on the Sabbath is guilty because of sowing. Rebbi Ze`ura said, he who prunes is like one who plants. If he planted and pruned on the Sabbath, according to Cahana he is guilty on two counts, according to Rebbi Ze`ura only on one count. Did not Rebbi Ze`ura say the pruner is like the planter, did perhaps he say the planter is like the pruner? All was included in the category of sowing; pruning was singled out for particular stringency. Because pruning was singled out for particular stringency you want to exempt it because of sowing? This means, there is no difference. If he planted and pruned on the Sabbath, according to both Cahana and Rebbi Ze`ura he is guilty on two counts

Rebbi Zeˋira, Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Cahana: He who is planting on the Sabbath is guilty because of sowing. Rebbi Ze`ura said, he who prunes is like one who plants. If he planted and pruned on the Sabbath, according to Cahana he is guilty on two counts, according to Rebbi Ze`ura only on one count. Did not Rebbi Ze`ura say the pruner is like the planter, did perhaps he say the planter is like the pruner? All was included in the category of sowing; pruning was singled out for particular stringency. Because pruning was singled out for particular stringency you want to exempt it because of sowing? This means, there is no difference. If he planted and pruned on the Sabbath, according to both Cahana and Rebbi Ze`ura he is guilty on two counts

You may be of the opinion that Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel’s statement was a leniency, but rather it is a stringency. For the opening of the rabbis leaves little of the cover.

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

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

HALAKHAH: “What is an old woman,” etc. Rebbi Meïr says, the blood disappears because of the milk. Rebbi Yose says, the blood disappears because of the pain. You find a leniency and a stringency following Rebbi Meïr, and a leniency and a stringency following Rebbi Yose. A leniency following Rebbi Meïr, for if the baby was continuing to suckle for four ot five years, her timing continues exact. And a stringency, if she handed her child to a wet-nurse or it died, she [makes impure] for 24 hours. A leniency for Rebbi Yose, for if she handed her child to a wet-nurse or it died, her timing is exact. And a stringency, for if the baby was continuing to suckle for four ot five years, it is forbidden after 24 months. But did not Rebbi Meïr say, she makes impure for 24 hours? When? Immediately or if the baby stops and cannot start again? Let us hear from the following: “A baby can nurse until 24 complete months, after that it is as if an abomination suckled, the words of Rebbi Eliezer. Rebbi Joshua said, a baby can nurse even four or five years; this is permitted. If he stopped, one cannot return him.” How long? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: up to 24 hours. Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, up to three times 24 hours. When was this said? If he stopped when healthy. But if he stopped because of sickness, one can return him immediately. And for a baby which was not in danger. But a baby who was in danger one can return him immediately even after a longer time.

HALAKHAH: “What is an old woman,” etc. Rebbi Meïr says, the blood disappears because of the milk. Rebbi Yose says, the blood disappears because of the pain. You find a leniency and a stringency following Rebbi Meïr, and a leniency and a stringency following Rebbi Yose. A leniency following Rebbi Meïr, for if the baby was continuing to suckle for four ot five years, her timing continues exact. And a stringency, if she handed her child to a wet-nurse or it died, she [makes impure] for 24 hours. A leniency for Rebbi Yose, for if she handed her child to a wet-nurse or it died, her timing is exact. And a stringency, for if the baby was continuing to suckle for four ot five years, it is forbidden after 24 months. But did not Rebbi Meïr say, she makes impure for 24 hours? When? Immediately or if the baby stops and cannot start again? Let us hear from the following: “A baby can nurse until 24 complete months, after that it is as if an abomination suckled, the words of Rebbi Eliezer. Rebbi Joshua said, a baby can nurse even four or five years; this is permitted. If he stopped, one cannot return him.” How long? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: up to 24 hours. Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, up to three times 24 hours. When was this said? If he stopped when healthy. But if he stopped because of sickness, one can return him immediately. And for a baby which was not in danger. But a baby who was in danger one can return him immediately even after a longer time.

HALAKHAH: “What is an old woman,” etc. Rebbi Meïr says, the blood disappears because of the milk. Rebbi Yose says, the blood disappears because of the pain. You find a leniency and a stringency following Rebbi Meïr, and a leniency and a stringency following Rebbi Yose. A leniency following Rebbi Meïr, for if the baby was continuing to suckle for four ot five years, her timing continues exact. And a stringency, if she handed her child to a wet-nurse or it died, she [makes impure] for 24 hours. A leniency for Rebbi Yose, for if she handed her child to a wet-nurse or it died, her timing is exact. And a stringency, for if the baby was continuing to suckle for four ot five years, it is forbidden after 24 months. But did not Rebbi Meïr say, she makes impure for 24 hours? When? Immediately or if the baby stops and cannot start again? Let us hear from the following: “A baby can nurse until 24 complete months, after that it is as if an abomination suckled, the words of Rebbi Eliezer. Rebbi Joshua said, a baby can nurse even four or five years; this is permitted. If he stopped, one cannot return him.” How long? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: up to 24 hours. Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, up to three times 24 hours. When was this said? If he stopped when healthy. But if he stopped because of sickness, one can return him immediately. And for a baby which was not in danger. But a baby who was in danger one can return him immediately even after a longer time.

HALAKHAH: “What is an old woman,” etc. Rebbi Meïr says, the blood disappears because of the milk. Rebbi Yose says, the blood disappears because of the pain. You find a leniency and a stringency following Rebbi Meïr, and a leniency and a stringency following Rebbi Yose. A leniency following Rebbi Meïr, for if the baby was continuing to suckle for four ot five years, her timing continues exact. And a stringency, if she handed her child to a wet-nurse or it died, she [makes impure] for 24 hours. A leniency for Rebbi Yose, for if she handed her child to a wet-nurse or it died, her timing is exact. And a stringency, for if the baby was continuing to suckle for four ot five years, it is forbidden after 24 months. But did not Rebbi Meïr say, she makes impure for 24 hours? When? Immediately or if the baby stops and cannot start again? Let us hear from the following: “A baby can nurse until 24 complete months, after that it is as if an abomination suckled, the words of Rebbi Eliezer. Rebbi Joshua said, a baby can nurse even four or five years; this is permitted. If he stopped, one cannot return him.” How long? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: up to 24 hours. Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, up to three times 24 hours. When was this said? If he stopped when healthy. But if he stopped because of sickness, one can return him immediately. And for a baby which was not in danger. But a baby who was in danger one can return him immediately even after a longer time.

How many [cubits] does this[amount to]? Eighteen; while sixteen and four-fifths would be enough. That is [then] what was meant [when it was stated] that he only gave an approximate figure; and in this case it is in the direction of stringency.

Do not then two statements of Shmuel contradict one another, for here Rav Judah says in the name of Shmuel, The [minimum] length of the hadas and the aravah is three [normal handbreadths], and elsewhere R. Huna said in the name of Shmuel that the halakhah is in accordance with R. Tarfon? [Shmuel] was not precise. Say that we can say that one is not precise when [this results in] a stringency but not when [it results in] a leniency?

Is there not still a difficulty between [the two statements of] Shmuel? He was not precise, and in this case his lack of precision results in a stringency since R. Huna said in the name of Shmuel that the halakhah is according to R. Tarfon.

The question [of R. Yirmiyah] is concerning that very statement of R. Papa: Is he certain that the law of "set aside" does not apply to commandments, irrespective of whether it creates a stringency or a leniency, or perhaps he is doubtful, and therefore we apply it to create a stringency, but not to create a leniency? The question stands.

The question [of R. Yirmiyah] is concerning that very statement of R. Papa: Is he certain that the law of "set aside" does not apply to commandments, irrespective of whether it creates a stringency or a leniency, or perhaps he is doubtful, and therefore we apply it to create a stringency, but not to create a leniency? The question stands.

They answered him: Any a fortiori argument which begins with a stringency and concludes with a leniency is not a valid argument.

Rather what [can be derived] from the common characteristic of the sins that possesses a stringency? Rebbi Yehuda doesn't consider a stringency to be a question.

Rather what [can be derived] from the common characteristic of the sins that possesses a stringency? Rebbi Yehuda doesn't consider a stringency to be a question.

Say that you heard [this view ascribed] to Rebbi Yehuda regarding maiser [shenei when it would result in a] stringency. If the trunk is outside and the branches inside, just as on the branches one may not redeem [the maiser shenei], so too on the trunk one may not eat redeem [the maiser shenei], If the trunk is inside and the branches outside, just as on the branches one may not eat [the maiser shenei] without redeeming it, so too on the trunk one may not eat [the maiser shenei] without redeeming it.

But with regards to cities of refuge [going after the branches doesn't always result in a stringency], it is understandable if the trunk is outside and the branches inside, just as on the branches [the Goel Hadam] may not kill him [the murderer], so too on the trunk he may not kill him. But if the trunk is inside and the branches outside [then it won't result in a stringency to say that] just as on the branches [the Goel Hadam] may kill him, so too on the trunk he may kill him, Because he is inside [the boundary]!?

But with regards to cities of refuge [going after the branches doesn't always result in a stringency], it is understandable if the trunk is outside and the branches inside, just as on the branches [the Goel Hadam] may not kill him [the murderer], so too on the trunk he may not kill him. But if the trunk is inside and the branches outside [then it won't result in a stringency to say that] just as on the branches [the Goel Hadam] may kill him, so too on the trunk he may kill him, Because he is inside [the boundary]!?

That what is the stringency of bikorim over maaser [sheni]? That [bikorim] is forbidden to non-Kohanim. But, to the contrary, Maaser [sheni] is more stringent, as it is forbidden to an onien.

And what is the stringency of Todah and Shelamim over maaser [sheni]? That [Todah and Shelamim] require the placement of blood and sacrificial parts on the alter. But, to the contrary, Maaser [sheni] is more stringent, as it requires a minted coin.

And what is the stringency of Bechor over Todah and Shelamim? That [a Bechor] is sanctified from birth. But, to the contrary, Todah and Shelamim are more stringent, as they require leaning, libation, and the waving of the breast and thigh.

And what is the stringency of Chatos and Asham over Bechor? That [Chatos and Asham] are of high sanctity. But, to the contrary, Bechor is more stringent, as it is sanctified from birth.

And what is the stringency of Ollah over Chatos and Asham? That [Ollah] is entirely burnt. But, to the contrary, Chatos and Asham are more stringent, as they atone.