supports

[I could think that] they should be giving lashes for the addition. Rebbi Joḥanan explains the baraita: I could think that one gives lashes for ploughing during the Sabbatical year, but Rebbi Eleazar explains the baraita: I could think that one gives lashes for the first two terms. Some Tannaïm state: Six years you shall sow your field, and six years you shall prune your vineyard; but some Tannaïm state: Your field you shall not sow, etc. He who says six years supports Rebbi Joḥanan; he who says your field you shall not sow supports Rebbi Eleazar.

[I could think that] they should be giving lashes for the addition. Rebbi Joḥanan explains the baraita: I could think that one gives lashes for ploughing during the Sabbatical year, but Rebbi Eleazar explains the baraita: I could think that one gives lashes for the first two terms. Some Tannaïm state: Six years you shall sow your field, and six years you shall prune your vineyard; but some Tannaïm state: Your field you shall not sow, etc. He who says six years supports Rebbi Joḥanan; he who says your field you shall not sow supports Rebbi Eleazar.

A baraita supports Rebbi Eleazar: Be on guard, a prohibition. Lest, a prohibition. And it is written: There, you shall offer your elevation offerings and there you shall make. There, you shall offer, that is the offering; and there you shall make, that is slaughtering and sprinkling. Just as offering is a positive commandment and a prohibition, so slaughtering and sprinkling which are positive commandments should be covered by a prohibition. Because it is written there you shall offer, and there you shall make. Therefore, if there you shall offer, and there you shall make were not written, no positive commandment would allow inferences for a prohibition and no prohibition would allow inferences for a positive commandment. How does Rebbi Joḥanan handle this? That you should not say as you say referring to the Sabbath: If one dug a hole, made a ditch, or dug to put in a pole, he is guilty only of one offense. Similarly, if he slaughtered and offered, he should be guilty only of one offense; therefore, it was necessary to say, he is liable for every single action.

Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥmani in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: If one says to it, you are my god, there is disagreement between Rebbi and the Sages. If he (prostrated himself), what is the rule? Rebbi Joḥanan said, everybody agrees that if he lowered his body, he is guilty. What is the difference between raising and lowering his body, and raising and lowering his lips? Rebbi Joḥanan said, following disagreement. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, following the distinction. Rebbi Zeˋira said, a verse supports Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: One rule should be for you, for the one acting in error. This only refers to what represents an action. The one who embraces (and who prostrates himself), which are not action, from where?

Rebbi Abba bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Look at the expression which the Torah taught you, Moloch; anything that you make king over yourself, even a chip of wood, even a pebble. I shall extirpate him from amidst his people, to include all other foreign worship in extirpation. Rebbi Nasa in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: to include all other foreign worship relating to sons and daughters, as it was stated: He is guilty whether for the Moloch or any other foreign worship, whether he worshipped them with sons and daughters, or worshipped them with fathers and mothers. Rebbi Zeˋira said: if its worship did not prescribe this; but if its worship did prescribe it, he is free from prosecution. Rebbi Hila said, even if its worship did prescribe it, he is twice guilty. A baraita supports Rebbi Hila: The Moloch was included in all other foreign worships; it is mentioned separately to be lenient in this regard that he be guilty only for his descendants. Rebbi Tanḥum bar Jeremiah said, it follows that Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon follows the argument of his father Rebbi Simeon. Just as Rebbi Simeon said, the Moloch was included in all other foreign worships; it is mentioned separately to be lenient in this regard that he be guilty only for his descendants, so Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon said, the Moloch was included in all other foreign worships; it is mentioned separately to be lenient in this regard that he be guilty only for his descendants.

Rebbi Huna said, a verse supports him who said, the necromancer is the one who raises by his masculinity. What is the reason? Please apply necromancer’s magic and raise for me whom I shall tell you. What do you understand from here? Rebbi Mana said, it implies that she was competent in many ways. What about it? Your voice will be from the earth like that of a necromancer.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody injures another person,” etc. So is the Mishnah: “Rebbi Neḥemiah declares him not [criminally] liable but the Sages declare him [criminally] liable since it is not unsubstantiated.” The Sages say, two estimations have precedence over one estimation; Rebbi Neḥemiah says, the intermediate estimation has precedence over the two. What is Rebbi Neḥemiah’s reason? If he gets up and walks outside on his cane, the attacker is exonerated. Could you think that this one walks in the market and the other one is executed because of him? But even if he dies according to the first estimation, he cannot be prosecuted. What is the rabbi’s reason? If he does not die but is bedridden. Would we not know that even if he does not die that he will be bedridden? But if they did not estimate that he would die. If they did not estimate that he would die, that is what is written: If he gets up and walks outside on his cane, the attacker is exonerated. Therefore, if he does not get up, [the attacker] is [criminally] liable. But if they estimated that he would die? If they estimated that he would die, that is what is written: But he has to pay for his disability and the medical costs. Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: It is an extraordinary decree of Scripture that he has to pay. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: It was an erroneous estimation. What is the difference between them? “But he got better and only afterwards deteriorated and died; he is [criminally] liable. Rebbi Neḥemiah declares him not liable since it is not unsubstantiated.” For him who said, it is an extraordinary decree of Scripture that he has to pay; if he paid, he paid. If he did not pay, does he have to pay? For him who said, it was an erroneous estimation; if he did not pay, one does not order him to pay. If he paid, can he take it back? A baraita supports one and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina: If they estimated that he would live but he died, from when does one count for him? From the moment he turns worse. This implies that the estimate was wrong. If you would say, it is an extraordinary decree of Scripture that he has to pay, he should pay from the first moment. A baraita supports Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: If they estimated that he would die but he lived, from when does one count for him? From the moment he turns worse. Rebbi Yose said, it does not say here “from the moment he turns worse” but “from the moment he turns better.” That means, it is an extraordinary decree of Scripture that he has to pay. But if you say, it was an erroneous estimation, he has to pay until [the victim] dies.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody injures another person,” etc. So is the Mishnah: “Rebbi Neḥemiah declares him not [criminally] liable but the Sages declare him [criminally] liable since it is not unsubstantiated.” The Sages say, two estimations have precedence over one estimation; Rebbi Neḥemiah says, the intermediate estimation has precedence over the two. What is Rebbi Neḥemiah’s reason? If he gets up and walks outside on his cane, the attacker is exonerated. Could you think that this one walks in the market and the other one is executed because of him? But even if he dies according to the first estimation, he cannot be prosecuted. What is the rabbi’s reason? If he does not die but is bedridden. Would we not know that even if he does not die that he will be bedridden? But if they did not estimate that he would die. If they did not estimate that he would die, that is what is written: If he gets up and walks outside on his cane, the attacker is exonerated. Therefore, if he does not get up, [the attacker] is [criminally] liable. But if they estimated that he would die? If they estimated that he would die, that is what is written: But he has to pay for his disability and the medical costs. Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: It is an extraordinary decree of Scripture that he has to pay. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: It was an erroneous estimation. What is the difference between them? “But he got better and only afterwards deteriorated and died; he is [criminally] liable. Rebbi Neḥemiah declares him not liable since it is not unsubstantiated.” For him who said, it is an extraordinary decree of Scripture that he has to pay; if he paid, he paid. If he did not pay, does he have to pay? For him who said, it was an erroneous estimation; if he did not pay, one does not order him to pay. If he paid, can he take it back? A baraita supports one and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina: If they estimated that he would live but he died, from when does one count for him? From the moment he turns worse. This implies that the estimate was wrong. If you would say, it is an extraordinary decree of Scripture that he has to pay, he should pay from the first moment. A baraita supports Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: If they estimated that he would die but he lived, from when does one count for him? From the moment he turns worse. Rebbi Yose said, it does not say here “from the moment he turns worse” but “from the moment he turns better.” That means, it is an extraordinary decree of Scripture that he has to pay. But if you say, it was an erroneous estimation, he has to pay until [the victim] dies.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody injures another person,” etc. So is the Mishnah: “Rebbi Neḥemiah declares him not [criminally] liable but the Sages declare him [criminally] liable since it is not unsubstantiated.” The Sages say, two estimations have precedence over one estimation; Rebbi Neḥemiah says, the intermediate estimation has precedence over the two. What is Rebbi Neḥemiah’s reason? If he gets up and walks outside on his cane, the attacker is exonerated. Could you think that this one walks in the market and the other one is executed because of him? But even if he dies according to the first estimation, he cannot be prosecuted. What is the rabbi’s reason? If he does not die but is bedridden. Would we not know that even if he does not die that he will be bedridden? But if they did not estimate that he would die. If they did not estimate that he would die, that is what is written: If he gets up and walks outside on his cane, the attacker is exonerated. Therefore, if he does not get up, [the attacker] is [criminally] liable. But if they estimated that he would die? If they estimated that he would die, that is what is written: But he has to pay for his disability and the medical costs. Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: It is an extraordinary decree of Scripture that he has to pay. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: It was an erroneous estimation. What is the difference between them? “But he got better and only afterwards deteriorated and died; he is [criminally] liable. Rebbi Neḥemiah declares him not liable since it is not unsubstantiated.” For him who said, it is an extraordinary decree of Scripture that he has to pay; if he paid, he paid. If he did not pay, does he have to pay? For him who said, it was an erroneous estimation; if he did not pay, one does not order him to pay. If he paid, can he take it back? A baraita supports one and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina: If they estimated that he would live but he died, from when does one count for him? From the moment he turns worse. This implies that the estimate was wrong. If you would say, it is an extraordinary decree of Scripture that he has to pay, he should pay from the first moment. A baraita supports Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: If they estimated that he would die but he lived, from when does one count for him? From the moment he turns worse. Rebbi Yose said, it does not say here “from the moment he turns worse” but “from the moment he turns better.” That means, it is an extraordinary decree of Scripture that he has to pay. But if you say, it was an erroneous estimation, he has to pay until [the victim] dies.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody injures another person,” etc. So is the Mishnah: “Rebbi Neḥemiah declares him not [criminally] liable but the Sages declare him [criminally] liable since it is not unsubstantiated.” The Sages say, two estimations have precedence over one estimation; Rebbi Neḥemiah says, the intermediate estimation has precedence over the two. What is Rebbi Neḥemiah’s reason? If he gets up and walks outside on his cane, the attacker is exonerated. Could you think that this one walks in the market and the other one is executed because of him? But even if he dies according to the first estimation, he cannot be prosecuted. What is the rabbi’s reason? If he does not die but is bedridden. Would we not know that even if he does not die that he will be bedridden? But if they did not estimate that he would die. If they did not estimate that he would die, that is what is written: If he gets up and walks outside on his cane, the attacker is exonerated. Therefore, if he does not get up, [the attacker] is [criminally] liable. But if they estimated that he would die? If they estimated that he would die, that is what is written: But he has to pay for his disability and the medical costs. Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: It is an extraordinary decree of Scripture that he has to pay. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: It was an erroneous estimation. What is the difference between them? “But he got better and only afterwards deteriorated and died; he is [criminally] liable. Rebbi Neḥemiah declares him not liable since it is not unsubstantiated.” For him who said, it is an extraordinary decree of Scripture that he has to pay; if he paid, he paid. If he did not pay, does he have to pay? For him who said, it was an erroneous estimation; if he did not pay, one does not order him to pay. If he paid, can he take it back? A baraita supports one and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina: If they estimated that he would live but he died, from when does one count for him? From the moment he turns worse. This implies that the estimate was wrong. If you would say, it is an extraordinary decree of Scripture that he has to pay, he should pay from the first moment. A baraita supports Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: If they estimated that he would die but he lived, from when does one count for him? From the moment he turns worse. Rebbi Yose said, it does not say here “from the moment he turns worse” but “from the moment he turns better.” That means, it is an extraordinary decree of Scripture that he has to pay. But if you say, it was an erroneous estimation, he has to pay until [the victim] dies.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, these are the words of Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah, Rebbi Ismael, and Rebbi Aqiba. But the words of the Sages are that the sent-away ram pardons. How does it pardon? Rebbi Zeˋira said, by and by. Rebbi Ḥanina said, at the end. What is the difference between them? If somebody died in-between. In the opinion of Rebbi Zeˋira, he already was pardoned. In the opinion of Rebbi Ḥanina, he was not pardoned. Rebbi Ḥanina said, a baraita supports Rebbi Zeˋira: There is strength in the ram which is not in the Day of Atonement, and in the Day of Atonement which is not in the ram, for the Day of Atonement pardons without a ram, but the ram does not atone except on the Day of Atonement. There is strength in the ram, for it pardons immediately but the Day of Atonement only at nightfall. Rebbi Huna said, the question was raised before Rebbi Jeremiah and he said, explain it if they intended to bring another ram but they did not bring it. Rebbi Yose ben Yose said, but does the Holy One, praise to Him, not see into the future? Then He should pardon immediately.

Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi said. not only to the bridal chamber but also to a house containing the bridal chamber. The following is problematic: Dining room and bedroom, bridal chamber and bedroom; if she entered the dining room, for which consequence? Rebbi Joḥanan said, to inherit from her. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, to dissolve her vows. Rebbi Zeˋira said, even though Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, to dissolve her vows, he agrees that he cannot actually dissolve them before she enters the bridal chamber. Rebbi Huna said, a verse supports Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: to whore in her father’s house. This excludes the case where the father’s agents handed her over to the husband’s agents, that she could not be stoned, but is strangled.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, these are the words of Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah, Rebbi Ismael, and Rebbi Aqiba. But the Sages say that the scapegoat pardons. How does it pardon? Rebbi Ze`ira said, by and by. Rebbi Ḥanania said, at the end. What is between them? If somebody died in-between. In the opinion of Rebbi Ze`ira, he already was pardoned. In the opinion of Rebbi Ḥanina, he was not pardoned. Rebbi Ze`ira said, a baraita supports Rebbi Ḥanina: There is strength in the he-goat which is not in the Day of Atonement, and in the Day of Atonement which is not in the he-goat: The Day of Atonement pardons without a he-goat, but the he-goat does not atone without the Day of Atonement. The he-goat pardons immediately but the Day of Atonement only at nightfall. Rebbi Huna said, the question was raised before Rebbi Jeremiah and he said, explain it if they intended to bring another he-goat but they did not bring it. Rebbi Yose said, but does the Holy One, praise to Him, not see into the future? Then He should pardon immediately.

HALAKHAH: “Give me the deposit, the loan,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Simeon implies that if it turns out that he had no wheat, he is not liable for the rest. Rebbi Abba said, even Rebbi (Yasa) will agree with this. If it turns out that he had no wheat, does [the oath] refer to the other kinds? The colleagues said, it does not. Rebbi Ze`ira said, it does. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, a baraita supports what the colleagues said. “A woman made a vow as a nazir and her friend heard it and said, ‘so am I’; the first woman’s husband heard it and dissolved [the vow] for her; the first one is permitted and the second forbidden. If she said, ‘my intention was only to be like her,’ both are permitted.” Because she said, “to be like her, in her state”. Therefore, if she did not say “to be like her, in her state”, the first is permitted and the second forbidden. Since there, where the essence is not an oath, you say it applies, here, where there was an original oath, not so much more? What Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Simeon implies if it turns out that he had no wheat, he is not liable for the rest, if he connects: If he says, [my obligation for] barley shall be like that for wheat; [my obligation for] spelt shall be like that for wheat.

“Give me the wheat, and the barley,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the words of Rebbi Jehudah imply collectively one sacrifice, in detail three sacrifices. How is this? A detail wheat, a detail barley, a detail spelt. Collectively one sacrifice, in detail three sacrifices. Detail a third wheat, detail a third barley, detail a third spelt, are these taken together? Come and see; although he holds many details, even so they can be formulated collectively or in detail. In which respect? To make him liable for sacrifices. If he held four kinds, two kinds in one detail, two kinds on two details. even so they can be formulated collectively or in detail. As Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: “And I am greeting X,” one can assume that he signed concerning everything; “I am greeting X,” he signed only for the greeting. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, “I am greeting X,” one can assume that he signed concerning everything. What means “collectively”? Rebbi Joḥanan said, “X divorces Y and Z U.” What means “collectively”? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, “We, X and Z, divorce our wives at place A.” Rebbi Ze`ira said, Rebbi Joḥanan agrees that if he mentions divorce for each one separately that he needs the typical text and witnesses for each one separately. The strength of Rebbi Joḥanan is from the following: “ ‘That I shall not benefit from this one; a qorban for this one and a qorban for that one.’ Each single one needs a separate opening.” Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “If he wrote a separate text for each of them and the witnesses signed at the end, [only] the one with which the witnesses are read is valid.”

It was said, if its owners were with him, he does not have to pay. Does he have to swear? Rebbi Ze`ira said, he swears. Rebbi Ḥanina and Rebbi La both are saying, he does not swear. A baraita supports Rebbi Ḥanina and Rebbi La: “Breakage, abduction, and death for which he is not liable in the cases of the paid keeper and the renter, and the borrower with the owner is not liable, without the owner is liable; loss and theft where the paid keeper and the renter are liable, is it not that a fortiori the borrower be not liable with the owner but liable without the owner?” For him who says it is obvious that he swears, should he not have to pay? Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of Rebbi Yudan: A baraita supports Rebbi Ze`ira. “The borrower, for whom the Torah was restrictive, with the owner is not liable, without the owner is liable; the paid keeper, for whom the Torah was lenient, a fortiori with the owner should not be liable, without the owner should be liable.” If you are saying, his problem was swearing, he should have stated “the paid keeper and the renter.” That means he only needs it for payment. It is difficult for Rebbi Ze`ira: the borrower swears if the owner was with him; if the owner was not with him he must pay. The unpaid keeper swears, whether the owner was with him or was not with him. You are saying that where the borrower pays the paid keeper swears. Where the paid keeper swears, the unpaid keeper should not be liable. Where the paid keeper pays, the unpaid keeper swears. What do you state about an unpaid keeper when the owner be with him? But some are asking, what do you state about an unpaid and a paid keeper, whether or not the owner be with him? Rebbi Abin said, any word of criminality. Rebbi Mana said, do we not find that the Torah treated loss and theft equally for the borrower? Therefore, we shall treat breakage, abduction, and death equally both for the unpaid and the paid keepers.

It was said, if its owners were with him, he does not have to pay. Does he have to swear? Rebbi Ze`ira said, he swears. Rebbi Ḥanina and Rebbi La both are saying, he does not swear. A baraita supports Rebbi Ḥanina and Rebbi La: “Breakage, abduction, and death for which he is not liable in the cases of the paid keeper and the renter, and the borrower with the owner is not liable, without the owner is liable; loss and theft where the paid keeper and the renter are liable, is it not that a fortiori the borrower be not liable with the owner but liable without the owner?” For him who says it is obvious that he swears, should he not have to pay? Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of Rebbi Yudan: A baraita supports Rebbi Ze`ira. “The borrower, for whom the Torah was restrictive, with the owner is not liable, without the owner is liable; the paid keeper, for whom the Torah was lenient, a fortiori with the owner should not be liable, without the owner should be liable.” If you are saying, his problem was swearing, he should have stated “the paid keeper and the renter.” That means he only needs it for payment. It is difficult for Rebbi Ze`ira: the borrower swears if the owner was with him; if the owner was not with him he must pay. The unpaid keeper swears, whether the owner was with him or was not with him. You are saying that where the borrower pays the paid keeper swears. Where the paid keeper swears, the unpaid keeper should not be liable. Where the paid keeper pays, the unpaid keeper swears. What do you state about an unpaid keeper when the owner be with him? But some are asking, what do you state about an unpaid and a paid keeper, whether or not the owner be with him? Rebbi Abin said, any word of criminality. Rebbi Mana said, do we not find that the Torah treated loss and theft equally for the borrower? Therefore, we shall treat breakage, abduction, and death equally both for the unpaid and the paid keepers.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, if somebody claims against another a claim of thief he pays double restitution. If he slaughtered or sold, he pays quadruple or quintuple restitution. There, they say, he pays quadruple or quintuple restitution. Rebbi Pedat in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: There we state and it supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “‘Where is my ox?’ He told him, ‘it was lost.’ ‘I want you to swear;’ he answered ‘Amen’. Witnesses testify that he ate it; he has to pay its value. If he confessed himself he pays the value, and a fifth, and a reparation sacrifice.” Is there eating without slaughtering? Rebbi Ḥaggai said, explain it if another slaughtered. And the following said so: He said to one in the market place, “where is my ox which you stole?” He says, “I did not steal.” “I want you to swear,” and he says “Amen.” He is (not) liable. Because he is one in the market place. But if he said it to one of the keepers, that one would be liable. The baraita when he ate it and then swore. What Rebbi Joḥanan said, if he swore and after that ate it.

The colleagues say, the reason of Rebbi Ismael is because of the holiday’s son. Rebbi Abba said, because he knows that it is forbidden to you to trade with him, he reduces the enjoyment of his holiday. What is the difference between them? To sell them things which do not keep. In the opinion of the colleagues it is forbidden. In the opinion of Rebbi Abba it is allowed. Rebbi Yudan said, a verse supports what the colleagues said. On the twenty-fourth day of the seventh month the sons of Israel assembled in fasting, and crying, and in sackcloth, and dirt on them. Why does it not say, on the twenty-third? Because of the holiday’s son. If you want to say because that was on a Sabbath, you cannot do this, because then the Great Fast would have been on a Sunday. And what about this? Does not Rebbi Onias make light of him who would move it from its place? Rebbi Joḥanan ben Madia said, I computed it and it was not on a Sabbath.

Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: At first they were saying, one curdles neither with the stomach content of the carcass nor with the stomach contents of the Gentile. They changed to say, one curdles with the stomach content of the carcass but not with the stomach contents of the Gentile. Rebbi Abba bar Zavda, Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac asked: Does this negate the declaration of Rebbi Eliezer, since Rebbi Eliezer said, the thoughts of the Non-Jew are about pagan worship? Rebbi (Assi) [Yasa] came in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Originally, they said, one does curdle [neither] with carcass stomach contents nor with Gentile’s stomach contents. They changed to say, one does curdle with carcass stomach contents and with Gentile’s stomach contents. The language of a baraita supports Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: Stomach contents of a Gentile or a carcass is forbidden following the original teaching. (The stomach contents of a torn animal which suckled from a qualified one are permitted following the later teaching; the stomach contents of a qualified animal which suckled from a torn one are forbidden following the later teaching.) [The stomach contents of a qualified animal which suckled from a torn one are forbidden following the former teaching, and the stomach contents of a torn animal which suckled from a qualified one are permitted following the later teaching.] And even if the House of Shammai would argue like the House of Hillel in the first teaching, an egg is a growth of its body; the contents of the stomach come from the outside. It parallels what Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It happened to the son[s] of (Rebbi) Jehudah ben Shamua that wolves tore more than 300 of their flock. The case came before the Sages who permitted their stomach contents. They said, an egg is a growth of its body; the contents of the stomach come from the outside.

Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: Anything which one introduced inside the lattice work he made forbidden; e. g., money pouches. Rebbi Yasa said, we had a note that (return) [this] of Rebbi Hoshaia disagreed with Rebbi Yannai, but it is not so; it supports it. Since on them refers to something which is particular for them and an adornment for them, also with them refers to something which is particular for them and an adornment for them; this excludes money pouches. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah: Even water and salt. Salt to rub and water to rinse. And this is “even”? But e. g., water and salt.

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.

Assi said, the proceeds of libation wine in the hands of a Gentile are prohibited. The proceeds of an idol in the hand of a Gentile, Rebbi Jonathan said it is permitted, Rebbi Joḥanan said it is prohibited. A baraita supports one and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “A Gentile who owed money to a Jew should not tell him, wait until I sell libation wine, until I sell an idol, and I shall give it to you. I am saying, maybe he exchanged.” A baraita supports Rebbi Jonathan: “A Gentile who owes money to a Jew may sell libation wine and give to him, an idol and give to him. Because of the bad impression?”

Assi said, the proceeds of libation wine in the hands of a Gentile are prohibited. The proceeds of an idol in the hand of a Gentile, Rebbi Jonathan said it is permitted, Rebbi Joḥanan said it is prohibited. A baraita supports one and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “A Gentile who owed money to a Jew should not tell him, wait until I sell libation wine, until I sell an idol, and I shall give it to you. I am saying, maybe he exchanged.” A baraita supports Rebbi Jonathan: “A Gentile who owes money to a Jew may sell libation wine and give to him, an idol and give to him. Because of the bad impression?”

Assi said, the proceeds of libation wine in the hands of a Gentile are prohibited. The proceeds of an idol in the hand of a Gentile, Rebbi Jonathan said it is permitted, Rebbi Joḥanan said it is prohibited. A baraita supports one and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “A Gentile who owed money to a Jew should not tell him, wait until I sell libation wine, until I sell an idol, and I shall give it to you. I am saying, maybe he exchanged.” A baraita supports Rebbi Jonathan: “A Gentile who owes money to a Jew may sell libation wine and give to him, an idol and give to him. Because of the bad impression?”

Assi said, the proceeds of libation wine in the hands of a Gentile are prohibited. The proceeds of an idol in the hand of a Gentile, Rebbi Jonathan said it is permitted, Rebbi Joḥanan said it is prohibited. A baraita supports one and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “A Gentile who owed money to a Jew should not tell him, wait until I sell libation wine, until I sell an idol, and I shall give it to you. I am saying, maybe he exchanged.” A baraita supports Rebbi Jonathan: “A Gentile who owes money to a Jew may sell libation wine and give to him, an idol and give to him. Because of the bad impression?”

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

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.

If he ate a full olive sized piece but there is doubt whether he ate it on the Day of Atonement or before the Day of Atonement. The atonement atones for the doubt. Whether he ate it on the Day of Atonement or after the Day of Atonement. The colleagues say, atonement atones for the doubt. Rebbi Mattaniah said, the atonement atones only for doubt of the kinds of blood. A Mishnah supports the colleagues: “Sabbath and the Day of Atonement and he worked in twilight.” As you take it, if it was the Day of Atonement, it atoned. If it was weekday, it is permitted. But did we not state “he ate”? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, eating permitted [food].

It was stated: The systematizer has precedence over the dialectician. Rebbi Samuel, Rebbi Berekhia’s brother, asked: Even like Rebbi Immi? He told him, what do you want from Rebbi Immi? He is a dialectician. This means, the Mishnah has precedence over Scripture. The following supports this, as Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai stated, one who studies Scripture is a qualification which is not a qualification. But the rabbis consider Scripture equally with the Mishnah. Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman said, the Mishnah has precedence over the Talmud. What is the reason? Acquire wisdom, acquire understanding, etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the Talmud has precedence over the Mishnah. What is the reason? Is acquiring wisdom not better than pure gold? How does Rebbi Joḥanan explain Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman’s reason? Water is cheap, wine is expensive. It is possible for the world to exist without wine; it is impossible for the world to exist without water. How does Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman explain Rebbi Joḥanan’s reason? Salt is cheap, pepper is expensive. It is possible for the world to exist without pepper; it is impossible for the world to exist without salt. Always pursue the Mishnah more than the Talmud. That is, before Rebbi incorporated most Mishnaiot into it. But since Rebbi incorporated most Mishnaiot into it, pursue the Talmud more than the Mishnah.

“And black, like ink-stone.” How do you check that? Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah: One takes the ink-stone and puts in on white leather. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, on colored leather. Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of the rabbis: Black like a raven, black like a grape berry, black like asphalt are pure. The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Black like liquid ink is pure. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Like a felt hat imported from overseas is impure. Rebbi Ze‘ira asked before Rebbi Immi: Are all these facts to be acted upon? He answered him, yes. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, all of them, if they are lighter than the standard they are pure, darker than the standard impure. Rebbi Joḥanan said, all of them, if they are lighter than the standard they are pure, darker than the standard pure except for black. The Mishnah supports Rebbi Joḥanan, as we have stated: “And black like ink-stone is impure, lighter than that is pure.” Therefore, darker than that is impure, but only black was mentioned in that connection. Therefore, all others, even if they are darker than the standards, are pure. The town of Rav Jehudah followed Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish but Rav Jehudah himself followed Rebbi Joḥanan. Bar Qappara stated a support for Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish but one does not follow him in practice, since Rebbi Ḥanina mixed wine for Bar Qappara and asked him, if it is like that, what is its status? He answered, impure. He lightened it, then he answered, pure. He said to him, peace shall be on him who erred with his mouth but not with his eyes. They wanted to say that he who says pure, refers to when it was polished. But he who says impure , if it is not polished. Let us hear from the following: It happened that a woman from the Patriarchate had a discharge of black blood. The case came before Rebbi Jacob bar Zabdi and Rebbi Isaac bar Ṭabelai; they wanted to declare her impure. Rebbi Ḥelbo told them: So says Rav Huna in the name of Rav: Black which penetrates is pure, that which polishes is impure. He said that only about black. Therefore, all others are pure even if they polish.

The teacher stated above : "Then let him read the Shema' and say the Tefillah." This supports the view of R. Johanan who declared : Who will inherit the world to come? He who joins the Ge'ullah to the evening Tefillah. R. Joshua b. Levi said : The Tefillot were arranged in the middle.

[His advice] "Do not pass behind a Synagogue at the time when the congregation is at prayer" supports the teaching of R. Joshua b. Levi who said: It is forbidden a man to pass behind a Synagogue at the time when the congregation is at prayer,

The teacher stated above : "He may expound the Mishnah but not the Talmud." This supports the statement of R. El'ai, for R. El'ai declared that Rab Aha b. Jacob said in the name of our master : The Halakah is that he may expound the Mishnah but not the Talmud. This is as the Tannaim [taught] : He may expound the Mishnah but not the Talmud ; these are the words of R. Meir. R. Judah b. Gamaliel says in the name of R. Hannina b. Gamaliel : Both of them are forbidden ; but [the Rabbis] said to him : Both of them are permitted.

The master said, "He turns his face away and reads the Shema'" — but their buttocks will be in contact ! This supports the opinion of Rab Huna who said that with buttocks there is no concern on the score of nakedness. It is possible to say that the following teaching is a support of Rab Huna's opinion, viz. : A woman may sit and cut off the Hallah while she is naked, because she is able to cover her nakedness with the ground; but it is not so with a man.

[This last-mentioned] supports the teaching of R. Joshua b. Levi : It is forbidden to pass in front of those who are saying the Tefillah. But it is not so, seeing that R. Assi and R. Ammi did so pass ! It was beyond a distance of four cubits that R. Ammi and R. Assi passed.

R. Zera (another version : R. Hinnana b. Pappa) also said : Come and see that the attribute of the Holy One, blessed be He, is not like that of the human being. The attribute of the human being is to support the empty vessel but not the full ; but the Holy One, blessed be He, is not so — He supports the full vessel, not the empty. As it is said, "And He said. If hearing, thou wilt hear" (sic ! Exod. xv. 26) — i.e. if thou wilt hear [once], thou wilt hear again; but if not, thou wilt not hear. Another explanation is : If thou wilt hear the old, thou wilt also hear the new; but should thine heart turn aside [from the Torah], thou wilt never again hear.

This supports the statement of Rab ; for Rab Hiyya b. Ashe said in the name of Rab : He who is the first to wash his hands at the conclusion of the meal has the privilege of saying Grace. Rab and R. Hiyya were sitting at table in the presence of Rabbi. Rabbi said to Rab, "Arise, wash thy hands." R. Hiyya noticed that Rab was trembling, and said to him, "O son of princes! See it is for the privilege of saying Grace after meals that Rabbi tells thee [to wash]."

He should not go out with patched sandals. This supports the statement of R. Hiyya b. Abba who said : It is a disgrace for a disciple of the wise to go out with patched sandals. But it is not so; for R. Hiyya b. Abba went out thus! Mar Zotra b. Rab Nahman said : It means with a patch on top of a patch, and it refers only to the legging ; but as for the sole, we have no objection. And even in the case of the legging, it means only when walking by the way ; but as for wearing such in the house, we have no objection. It further refers to the days of Summer, but in the days of Winter we have no objection.

This supports the statement of Rab ; for Rab Hiyya said in the name of Rab : He who washes his hands first at the end of a meal is delegated to say Grace.

This supports the teaching of R. El'ai who stated that R. Abba b. Aha said in the name of our master : Whoever omits the reference to the Covenant and the Torah in the benediction of "the land" and to the kingdom of the house of David in the benediction "Who...rebuildest Jerusalem" has not complied with the requirements of the law.

This supports the statement of R. Johanan who said : Pieces of bread which are less than the size of an olive may be destroyed by the hand.

Can we say that the following supports [R. Hisda's view]: If he covered it according to the rule, and adorned it with embroidered hangings and sheets, and hung in it nuts, almonds, peaches, pomegranates, bunches of grapes, wreaths of ears of corn, [vials of] wine, oil or fine flour, it is forbidden to make use of them

Or the long boards of a bed. Can we say that this supports [a statement of] R. Ammi b. Tavyomi, for R. Ammi b. Tavyomi said: If he covered the Sukkah with worn out vessels it is invalid?

Mishnah: One who supports his sukkah with the posts of a bed, it is valid. Rabbi Judah says: if it cannot stand on its own, it is invalid.

Can we say that the following supports [this view]: Dough of second tithe is exempt from hallah, according to R. Meir, while the Sages say that it is liable? Can we say that the following supports [this view]! It is the identical statement!

Can we say that the following supports [this view]: Dough of second tithe is exempt from hallah, according to R. Meir, while the Sages say that it is liable? Can we say that the following supports [this view]! It is the identical statement!

Can we say that [the following statement] supports [the view of R. Yohanan]: The bullocks, the rams and the lambs each prevent the fulfillment of the other. But R. Judah says, The bullocks do not prevent the fulfillment of the other, since they diminish in number progressively.

But, in any case must not the blessing [of the season] be recited over a cup [of wine]? Shall we then say that this supports the view of R. Nahman, for R. Nahman said [that the blessing of the] season may be recited even in the market-place? For if you will say that the cup [of wine] is essential, has one then a cup [of wine] every day? This might apply to a case where one chanced to have a cup [of wine].

It is right to forbid all the other actions, because they give pleasure, but why should work be forbidden which causes pain? Said R. Ḥisda in the name of R. Jeremiah b. 'Abba: Scripture says (Joel, 1. 14): "Sanctify ye a fast, call a solemn assembly," which indicates that just as on days of a solemn assembly work is forbidden, so also on fast days. If this is the reason, then, just as on days of solemn assembly work must be stopped on the evening before, so it should be stopped on the evening before fast days! Said R. Zera, to me the matter was thus explained by R. Jeremiah b. 'Abba: Since Scripture says (ibidem): "Gather the elders," the fast must be similar to the gathering of the elders, hence just as the gathering of the elders takes place during the day, so the fast is obligatory only during the day. Said R. Shisha, son of R. 'Idi, this statement supports that of R. Huna, who said: The fast-meeting takes place in the morning. What do they do the whole day? Said 'Abbayi: From morning to midday they consider communal affairs, from midday to evening, one quarter of the day is spent in reading the portions from the Pentateuch and the Prophets and the other quarter in praying and asking for mercy, for it is said (Nehem., 9. 3): "And they stood up in their place, and read in the book of the law of the Lord their God a fourth part of the day; and another fourth part they confessed, and prostrated themselves before the Lord their God."

Rather a Megillah lies before him and he reads from it, verse by verse, and then writes. Shall we then say that this supports Rabbah b. Bar Hanah, for Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said in the name of R. Yohanan: It is forbidden to write one letter [of the Megillah], not from another written copy? Perhaps [the Mishnah speaks of a case] where he just happened [to have a copy before him].

But on fast days [according to R. Jeremiah], why should there be an interruption [of the regular portion]? Let us read in the morning from the portion of the week and at minhah on the subject of the fast? This supports R. Huna; for R. Huna said: In the morning of fast days there is a public assembly.

consequently he must from the beginning have had the opinion that the Chagigah of the fourteenth day is not an enactment of the Law. The Mishnah teacher said, The house of Hillel say, From the tithe. But why? For surely it is obligatory, and everything which is obligatory comes only from that which is not previously consecrated. Ola said, This is so in the case of one making a supplementary offering. Hezekiah said, Men may supplement beast with beast, but they may not supplement money with money. But R. Jochanan said, Men may supplement money with money, but they may not supplement beast with beast. A Baraitha supports R. Hezekiah, and a Baraitha supports R. Jochanan. A Baraitha supports R. Jochanan, viz., The word "tribute" (Deut. xvi. 10) teaches that a man is to bring his duty offering from things not previously consecrated; and whence have we got it that if he wishes to mix things, he may mix? The teaching says, "According as the Lord thy God shall bless thee" (Deut. xvi. 10). A Baraitha supports R. Hezekiah, viz., The word "tribute" teaches that a man is to bring his duty offering from things not previously consecrated. The house of Shammai say, The first day from things not previously consecrated, thenceforward from the tithe, but the house of Hillel say, Only the first meal from things not previously consecrated, thenceforward from the tithe. And all the rest of the days of the Passover a man is to fulfil his duty with the tithe of a beast. On a high holiday what is the reason that he should not do the same? R. Ashi said, Lest perhaps, if this were allowed, he might go to tithe upon a high holiday, for it is impossible to tithe upon a high holiday on account of the red chalk. What passage is there to shew that "tribute" is a word that denotes things not previously consecrated? The passage, "And king Ahasuerus laid tribute upon the land" (Esth. x. 1).

consequently he must from the beginning have had the opinion that the Chagigah of the fourteenth day is not an enactment of the Law. The Mishnah teacher said, The house of Hillel say, From the tithe. But why? For surely it is obligatory, and everything which is obligatory comes only from that which is not previously consecrated. Ola said, This is so in the case of one making a supplementary offering. Hezekiah said, Men may supplement beast with beast, but they may not supplement money with money. But R. Jochanan said, Men may supplement money with money, but they may not supplement beast with beast. A Baraitha supports R. Hezekiah, and a Baraitha supports R. Jochanan. A Baraitha supports R. Jochanan, viz., The word "tribute" (Deut. xvi. 10) teaches that a man is to bring his duty offering from things not previously consecrated; and whence have we got it that if he wishes to mix things, he may mix? The teaching says, "According as the Lord thy God shall bless thee" (Deut. xvi. 10). A Baraitha supports R. Hezekiah, viz., The word "tribute" teaches that a man is to bring his duty offering from things not previously consecrated. The house of Shammai say, The first day from things not previously consecrated, thenceforward from the tithe, but the house of Hillel say, Only the first meal from things not previously consecrated, thenceforward from the tithe. And all the rest of the days of the Passover a man is to fulfil his duty with the tithe of a beast. On a high holiday what is the reason that he should not do the same? R. Ashi said, Lest perhaps, if this were allowed, he might go to tithe upon a high holiday, for it is impossible to tithe upon a high holiday on account of the red chalk. What passage is there to shew that "tribute" is a word that denotes things not previously consecrated? The passage, "And king Ahasuerus laid tribute upon the land" (Esth. x. 1).

consequently he must from the beginning have had the opinion that the Chagigah of the fourteenth day is not an enactment of the Law. The Mishnah teacher said, The house of Hillel say, From the tithe. But why? For surely it is obligatory, and everything which is obligatory comes only from that which is not previously consecrated. Ola said, This is so in the case of one making a supplementary offering. Hezekiah said, Men may supplement beast with beast, but they may not supplement money with money. But R. Jochanan said, Men may supplement money with money, but they may not supplement beast with beast. A Baraitha supports R. Hezekiah, and a Baraitha supports R. Jochanan. A Baraitha supports R. Jochanan, viz., The word "tribute" (Deut. xvi. 10) teaches that a man is to bring his duty offering from things not previously consecrated; and whence have we got it that if he wishes to mix things, he may mix? The teaching says, "According as the Lord thy God shall bless thee" (Deut. xvi. 10). A Baraitha supports R. Hezekiah, viz., The word "tribute" teaches that a man is to bring his duty offering from things not previously consecrated. The house of Shammai say, The first day from things not previously consecrated, thenceforward from the tithe, but the house of Hillel say, Only the first meal from things not previously consecrated, thenceforward from the tithe. And all the rest of the days of the Passover a man is to fulfil his duty with the tithe of a beast. On a high holiday what is the reason that he should not do the same? R. Ashi said, Lest perhaps, if this were allowed, he might go to tithe upon a high holiday, for it is impossible to tithe upon a high holiday on account of the red chalk. What passage is there to shew that "tribute" is a word that denotes things not previously consecrated? The passage, "And king Ahasuerus laid tribute upon the land" (Esth. x. 1).

consequently he must from the beginning have had the opinion that the Chagigah of the fourteenth day is not an enactment of the Law. The Mishnah teacher said, The house of Hillel say, From the tithe. But why? For surely it is obligatory, and everything which is obligatory comes only from that which is not previously consecrated. Ola said, This is so in the case of one making a supplementary offering. Hezekiah said, Men may supplement beast with beast, but they may not supplement money with money. But R. Jochanan said, Men may supplement money with money, but they may not supplement beast with beast. A Baraitha supports R. Hezekiah, and a Baraitha supports R. Jochanan. A Baraitha supports R. Jochanan, viz., The word "tribute" (Deut. xvi. 10) teaches that a man is to bring his duty offering from things not previously consecrated; and whence have we got it that if he wishes to mix things, he may mix? The teaching says, "According as the Lord thy God shall bless thee" (Deut. xvi. 10). A Baraitha supports R. Hezekiah, viz., The word "tribute" teaches that a man is to bring his duty offering from things not previously consecrated. The house of Shammai say, The first day from things not previously consecrated, thenceforward from the tithe, but the house of Hillel say, Only the first meal from things not previously consecrated, thenceforward from the tithe. And all the rest of the days of the Passover a man is to fulfil his duty with the tithe of a beast. On a high holiday what is the reason that he should not do the same? R. Ashi said, Lest perhaps, if this were allowed, he might go to tithe upon a high holiday, for it is impossible to tithe upon a high holiday on account of the red chalk. What passage is there to shew that "tribute" is a word that denotes things not previously consecrated? The passage, "And king Ahasuerus laid tribute upon the land" (Esth. x. 1).