tanna

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The baraita if he said to her, by the deposit you are holding for me. But if he said, by everything which I deposited with you, she is not preliminarily married unless all of it is available. What is the difference between this and a loan? A loan was given to be spent; this was not given to be spent. But did we not state: “If she was eating right away she is not preliminarily married unless one of them was worth a peruṭah.” Then even if a peruṭah’ s worth was left, she should not be preliminarily married unless all of them were available! He explains that as earlier. If it refers to the earlier statement, did we not state: “If she was eating immediately she is not preliminarily married unless one of them was worth a peruṭah”? Rebbi Abun said, were we not of the opinion to say, who is the Tanna of Wawim? Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Joḥanan said: The words of Rebbi Jehudah imply comprehensive one sacrifice, in detail three sacrifices. Just as he says there, comprehensive one sacrifice, in detail three sacrifices, so he says here, comprehensive one preliminary marriage, in detail three preliminary marriages.

“If she went to an Elder and he dissolved her vow, she is preliminarily married. To a doctor and he healed her, she is not preliminarily married.” What is the difference between the Elder and the doctor? The Elder uproots the vow from its start; the doctor heals only for the future. Some Tannaïm state: Even if she went to an Elder and he dissolved her vow, she is not preliminarily married. The baraita follows Rebbi Eleazar, as we have stated there: “Rebbi Eleazar said, it would have been logical about a vow which has to be investigated by a Sage, because the Elder uproots the vow from its start. Why did they forbid a vow which has to be investigated by a Sage? Because of a vow which does not have to be investigated by a Sage. Some Tannaïm state: She is allowed to marry without a bill of divorce. Some Tannaïm state: She is forbidden to marry without a bill of divorce. They wanted to say that he who says, she is allowed to marry without a bill of divorce is Rebbi Eleazar, and he who says, she is forbidden to marry without a bill of divorce are the rabbis. Everything follows the rabbis. He who says, she is forbidden to marry without a bill of divorce, the rabbis. He who says, she is allowed to marry without a bill of divorce: Since she knows that if she went to an Elder, he would dissolve her vow, since she does not go therefore she can be married without a bill of divorce. What is the reason of him who says, she is forbidden to marry without a bill of divorce, that she should not go to an Elder who would dissolve her vow, then the preliminary marriage would become retroactively valid for her and it would turn out that her children became bastards. Therefore she is forbidden to marry without a bill of divorce.

“If she went to an Elder and he dissolved her vow, she is preliminarily married. To a doctor and he healed her, she is not preliminarily married.” What is the difference between the Elder and the doctor? The Elder uproots the vow from its start; the doctor heals only for the future. Some Tannaïm state: Even if she went to an Elder and he dissolved her vow, she is not preliminarily married. The baraita follows Rebbi Eleazar, as we have stated there: “Rebbi Eleazar said, it would have been logical about a vow which has to be investigated by a Sage, because the Elder uproots the vow from its start. Why did they forbid a vow which has to be investigated by a Sage? Because of a vow which does not have to be investigated by a Sage. Some Tannaïm state: She is allowed to marry without a bill of divorce. Some Tannaïm state: She is forbidden to marry without a bill of divorce. They wanted to say that he who says, she is allowed to marry without a bill of divorce is Rebbi Eleazar, and he who says, she is forbidden to marry without a bill of divorce are the rabbis. Everything follows the rabbis. He who says, she is forbidden to marry without a bill of divorce, the rabbis. He who says, she is allowed to marry without a bill of divorce: Since she knows that if she went to an Elder, he would dissolve her vow, since she does not go therefore she can be married without a bill of divorce. What is the reason of him who says, she is forbidden to marry without a bill of divorce, that she should not go to an Elder who would dissolve her vow, then the preliminary marriage would become retroactively valid for her and it would turn out that her children became bastards. Therefore she is forbidden to marry without a bill of divorce.

“If she went to an Elder and he dissolved her vow, she is preliminarily married. To a doctor and he healed her, she is not preliminarily married.” What is the difference between the Elder and the doctor? The Elder uproots the vow from its start; the doctor heals only for the future. Some Tannaïm state: Even if she went to an Elder and he dissolved her vow, she is not preliminarily married. The baraita follows Rebbi Eleazar, as we have stated there: “Rebbi Eleazar said, it would have been logical about a vow which has to be investigated by a Sage, because the Elder uproots the vow from its start. Why did they forbid a vow which has to be investigated by a Sage? Because of a vow which does not have to be investigated by a Sage. Some Tannaïm state: She is allowed to marry without a bill of divorce. Some Tannaïm state: She is forbidden to marry without a bill of divorce. They wanted to say that he who says, she is allowed to marry without a bill of divorce is Rebbi Eleazar, and he who says, she is forbidden to marry without a bill of divorce are the rabbis. Everything follows the rabbis. He who says, she is forbidden to marry without a bill of divorce, the rabbis. He who says, she is allowed to marry without a bill of divorce: Since she knows that if she went to an Elder, he would dissolve her vow, since she does not go therefore she can be married without a bill of divorce. What is the reason of him who says, she is forbidden to marry without a bill of divorce, that she should not go to an Elder who would dissolve her vow, then the preliminary marriage would become retroactively valid for her and it would turn out that her children became bastards. Therefore she is forbidden to marry without a bill of divorce.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody preliminarily marries two women with the value of a peruṭah,” etc. It was stated: “In all these cases, if they had intercourse they acquired. Rebbi Simeon [ben] Jehudah says in the name of Rebbi Simeon: In all these cases, if they had intercourse they did acquire since his intercourse was predicated on the preceding preliminary marriage.” What did they acquire? Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They acquired for restrictions. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: With any condition which refers to a preceding action, she is preliminarily married for restrictions. Rebbi Mana asked before Rebbi Yudan: Who is the Tanna who stated: “Any condition which refers to a preceding action is invalid”? This does not follow Rebbi Simeon. Rebbi Yudan in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: She is preliminarily married for restrictions. How is that: “I am marrying you preliminarily by intercourse on condition that rains should fall.” If rain fell, she is preliminarily married, otherwise she is not preliminarily married. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: In matters of a preliminary marriage by a loan for restrictions, for real estate it was not acquired, for movables one does not deliver him to “Him Who exacted retribution.” If [the buyer] insists on the deal? Let us hear from the following: “You have wine to get from me, when he had no wine.” Therefore, if he had wine he would be obligated to deliver. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, if he has wine he is obligated to deliver. Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac did (not) say there: You should know that Rebbi Ḥiyya instructed following Rebbi Joḥanan that a preliminary marriage by a loan is for restrictions. Rebbi Ze‘ira resented it. Why? Because they were restrictive in practice and he taught them leniency? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, they were lenient in practice and he taught them to be restrictive, that if another man came and married her preliminarily, his marriage would hold. Rebbi Yudan ben Rebbi Ḥanan said, if there is a doubt between adultery and no adultery, decide on no adultery.

“Here you have money that your slave shall become acquired by me after thirty days.” Some Tannaïm stated: The first [owner] is subject to “a day or two”. But some Tannaïm stated: The second [owner] is subject to “a day or two”. Some Tannaïm stated: Neither the first nor the second [owners] are subject to “a day or two”. But some Tannaïm stated: Both first and second [owners] are subject to “a day or two”. He who says, the first [owner] is subject to “a day or two”, “if he dies in his possession.” He who says, the second [owner] is subject to “a day or two”, “for he is his money.” He who says, both first and second [owners] are subject to “a day or two”, the first because of “if he dies in his possession,” the second because of “for he is his money.” He who says, neither the first nor the second [owners] are subject to “a day or two”, for he is not the first’s money and does not die in the possession of the second.

“Here you have money that your slave shall become acquired by me after thirty days.” Some Tannaïm stated: The first [owner] is subject to “a day or two”. But some Tannaïm stated: The second [owner] is subject to “a day or two”. Some Tannaïm stated: Neither the first nor the second [owners] are subject to “a day or two”. But some Tannaïm stated: Both first and second [owners] are subject to “a day or two”. He who says, the first [owner] is subject to “a day or two”, “if he dies in his possession.” He who says, the second [owner] is subject to “a day or two”, “for he is his money.” He who says, both first and second [owners] are subject to “a day or two”, the first because of “if he dies in his possession,” the second because of “for he is his money.” He who says, neither the first nor the second [owners] are subject to “a day or two”, for he is not the first’s money and does not die in the possession of the second.

“Here you have money that your slave shall become acquired by me after thirty days.” Some Tannaïm stated: The first [owner] is subject to “a day or two”. But some Tannaïm stated: The second [owner] is subject to “a day or two”. Some Tannaïm stated: Neither the first nor the second [owners] are subject to “a day or two”. But some Tannaïm stated: Both first and second [owners] are subject to “a day or two”. He who says, the first [owner] is subject to “a day or two”, “if he dies in his possession.” He who says, the second [owner] is subject to “a day or two”, “for he is his money.” He who says, both first and second [owners] are subject to “a day or two”, the first because of “if he dies in his possession,” the second because of “for he is his money.” He who says, neither the first nor the second [owners] are subject to “a day or two”, for he is not the first’s money and does not die in the possession of the second.

“Here you have money that your slave shall become acquired by me after thirty days.” Some Tannaïm stated: The first [owner] is subject to “a day or two”. But some Tannaïm stated: The second [owner] is subject to “a day or two”. Some Tannaïm stated: Neither the first nor the second [owners] are subject to “a day or two”. But some Tannaïm stated: Both first and second [owners] are subject to “a day or two”. He who says, the first [owner] is subject to “a day or two”, “if he dies in his possession.” He who says, the second [owner] is subject to “a day or two”, “for he is his money.” He who says, both first and second [owners] are subject to “a day or two”, the first because of “if he dies in his possession,” the second because of “for he is his money.” He who says, neither the first nor the second [owners] are subject to “a day or two”, for he is not the first’s money and does not die in the possession of the second.

“As daughter of an Israel married to a Cohen she may eat heave.” Some Tannaïm state: She may not eat heave. Rebbi Hila said, the one who says that she may eat heave refers to the case that the second man is a Cohen, but the one who says that she may not eat heave refers to the case that the second man is not a Cohen.

There, we have stated: “A person can impose a condition of his ‘eruv.” So is the Mishnah: “A person can impose a condition of his‘eruvin.” Rebbi Eleazar said, who is the Tanna of “if they came”, “if they did not come”? Rebbi Meïr! Which Rebbi Meïr? The colleagues say, Rebbi Meïr of Qiddušin. As it was stated: If somebody say to a woman: You are preliminarily married to me on condition that there will be rain. If rain fell, she is preliminarily married, otherwise she is not preliminarily married. Rebbi Meïr says, she is preliminarily married whether or not rain fell unless he doubled his condition. Everybody agrees that if he said, after rainfall, if it rained she is preliminarily married, otherwise she is not preliminarily married. Rebbi Yose said, it follows Rebbi Meïr in Eruvin, as we have stated there: “If it be in doubt, Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Jehudah say, he is a camel-donkey driver.” Rebbi Yose said, Rebbi Meïr said this only as a restriction. Rebbi Mana said, that is correct. He cannot acquire his ‘eruv since he is not able to enjoy it. [Why not] like the people of his place? If he had decided to leave his place. And here, she is not preliminarily married to the first, since no rain came. She is not preliminarily married to the second, since [the first] did not double his condition. Rebbi Ḥaggai asked before Rebbi Yose: Is this “if” not a reaction? He answered, there is a difference since the land was in their hand and he wanted to take it away from them.

It was stated: “If a Gentile or a slave had intercourse with a Jewish woman, the child is a bastard; Rebbi Simeon ben Jehudah says in the name of Rebbi Simeon, the child is not a bastard, for a bastard is only from a woman forbidden to him by an incest prohibition for which the penalty is extirpation.” Both of them explained the same verse, “nobody may take his father’s wife, etc.” Rebbi Meïr explains: Since his father’s wife is special in that he cannot have preliminary marriage with her, but she could have preliminary marriage with others, and the child is a bastard, so in all cases in which she cannot have preliminary marriage with him, the child is a bastard. Rebbi Simeon ben Jehudah explains: Since his father’s wife is special in that she cannot have preliminary marriage with him, but she could have preliminary marriage with others, and the child is a bastard; this excludes the Gentile and the slave who cannot contract preliminary marriage with her or with others. Rebbi Samuel bar Abba questions that first Tanna: The sister-in-law who whored cannot have preliminary marriage with him or with others, but the child is qualified! Rebbi Yannai in the name of Rebbi: If a Gentile or a slave had intercourse with a Jewish woman, the child is a bastard. Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both say, the child is a bastard. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Simeon bar Abba, Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, in the name of Rebbi (Yannai ben) Rebbi: The child is neither qualified nor disqualified but dirtied. Rebbi Jonathan went with Rebbi Jehudah Neśia to the hot springs of Gadara. There, he instructed: The child is qualified. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, this child improves as time goes by. Rebbi declared the child dirtied, his grandson declared him qualified. Rebbi Abba bar Zavda instructed in the name of all rabbis: The child is qualified. Rebbi Bevai said before Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: The child is qualified. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, if it is from that, one does not learn from a declaration. Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, I know the story from beginning to end. Rebbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina went up to the hot springs of Gadara. He visited his father who said to him: Be careful, because there are those who are disqualified, lest you injure them.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody says, this my son is a bastard, he cannot be believed,” etc. There, we have stated: “If somebody said, this is my son, he is to be believed.” Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: To give him, but not to take from him. Rebbi Yose said, is that not the Mishnah: “Even if both of them say about the fetus in her belly that he is a bastard, they cannot be believed”? Maybe it was said following Rebbi Jehudah, for Rebbi Jehudah said, they can be believed; Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: To give him, but not to take from him. Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, still it is a baraita: “For he has to recognize the firstborn, the son of the hated one.” If they maintained that he was his son but at the moment of his death he said that he was not his son, he cannot be believed. That he was not his son but at the moment of his death he said that he was his son, he is believed. Some Tannaïm state on the first case that he is believed. Rebbi Ḥisqiah, Rebbi Zeriqan in the name of Rebbi Huna: If they maintained that he was from his slave girl, he is believed. If he was standing next to the customs collectors and said, he is my son, but later he said, he is my slave, he is believed. He is my slave, but later he said, he is my son, he is not believed. Some Tannaïm state, he is believed. Rebbi Mana said, because of those Samaritans who use their sons as slaves.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody says, this my son is a bastard, he cannot be believed,” etc. There, we have stated: “If somebody said, this is my son, he is to be believed.” Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: To give him, but not to take from him. Rebbi Yose said, is that not the Mishnah: “Even if both of them say about the fetus in her belly that he is a bastard, they cannot be believed”? Maybe it was said following Rebbi Jehudah, for Rebbi Jehudah said, they can be believed; Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: To give him, but not to take from him. Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, still it is a baraita: “For he has to recognize the firstborn, the son of the hated one.” If they maintained that he was his son but at the moment of his death he said that he was not his son, he cannot be believed. That he was not his son but at the moment of his death he said that he was his son, he is believed. Some Tannaïm state on the first case that he is believed. Rebbi Ḥisqiah, Rebbi Zeriqan in the name of Rebbi Huna: If they maintained that he was from his slave girl, he is believed. If he was standing next to the customs collectors and said, he is my son, but later he said, he is my slave, he is believed. He is my slave, but later he said, he is my son, he is not believed. Some Tannaïm state, he is believed. Rebbi Mana said, because of those Samaritans who use their sons as slaves.

New paragraph. “Properties of people of the Covenant,” excluding cattle of a Jew which gored cattle of a Gentile. “Private property,” excluding ownerless property. “Except for property belonging solely to the person responsible for the damage” who cannot be sued. “But [the rules] apply to property common to the person suffering the damage and the person responsible for the damage.” Rebbi Jeremiah said, if it were stated “except for property belonging solely to the person responsible for the damage” and had stopped, I would have said that [responsibility applies] both to a common courtyard and to a courtyard belonging to neither party. Why did it state: “[the rules] apply to property common to the person suffering the damage and the person responsible for the damage”? [To indicate] that it applies to the unpaid trustee, the borrower, the paid trustee, and the renter. Rebbi Yose said, since it stated “except for property belonging solely to the person responsible for the damage”, would we not know that “[the rules] apply to property common to the person suffering the damage and the person responsible for the damage”? Why was it stated that “[the rules] apply to property common to the person suffering the damage and the person responsible for the damage”? To exclude a courtyard belonging to neither of them. Some Tannaїm state: A condominium courtyard is obligated, a courtyard belonging to neither of them is free. Some Tannaїm state: Even a courtyard belonging to neither of them is obligated. He who says, a condominium courtyard is obligated, a courtyard belonging to neither of them is free, for it is written: “the best of his fields.” But he who says, even a courtyard belonging to neither of them is obligated, for it is written: “It ravages another person’s field.”

New paragraph. “Properties of people of the Covenant,” excluding cattle of a Jew which gored cattle of a Gentile. “Private property,” excluding ownerless property. “Except for property belonging solely to the person responsible for the damage” who cannot be sued. “But [the rules] apply to property common to the person suffering the damage and the person responsible for the damage.” Rebbi Jeremiah said, if it were stated “except for property belonging solely to the person responsible for the damage” and had stopped, I would have said that [responsibility applies] both to a common courtyard and to a courtyard belonging to neither party. Why did it state: “[the rules] apply to property common to the person suffering the damage and the person responsible for the damage”? [To indicate] that it applies to the unpaid trustee, the borrower, the paid trustee, and the renter. Rebbi Yose said, since it stated “except for property belonging solely to the person responsible for the damage”, would we not know that “[the rules] apply to property common to the person suffering the damage and the person responsible for the damage”? Why was it stated that “[the rules] apply to property common to the person suffering the damage and the person responsible for the damage”? To exclude a courtyard belonging to neither of them. Some Tannaїm state: A condominium courtyard is obligated, a courtyard belonging to neither of them is free. Some Tannaїm state: Even a courtyard belonging to neither of them is obligated. He who says, a condominium courtyard is obligated, a courtyard belonging to neither of them is free, for it is written: “the best of his fields.” But he who says, even a courtyard belonging to neither of them is obligated, for it is written: “It ravages another person’s field.”

HALAKHAH: “For a dog or a kid goat which jumped from a roof,” etc. There are Tannaïm who state: “jumped”. There are Tannaïm who state: “fell”. Rebbi Joḥanan said, so is the Mishnah: “jumped”. But “fell” does not apply.

HALAKHAH: “For a dog or a kid goat which jumped from a roof,” etc. There are Tannaïm who state: “jumped”. There are Tannaïm who state: “fell”. Rebbi Joḥanan said, so is the Mishnah: “jumped”. But “fell” does not apply.

HALAKHAH: “Two potters were walking one behind the other,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan asked: Does one give time to the first to get up? Rebbi Yose said, it is obvious for Rebbi Joḥanan to give time to the first to stand up. But it is reasonable otherwise from the second one onwards, does one give time to the second to stand up? Let us hear from the following: “Potters were walking one behind the other. The first stumbled and fell, the next one stumbled and fell, the next one stumbled and fell. The first one pays to the second, and the second to the third. But if all fell because of the first, he pays for all of them. They are liable for damage to humans but not liable for damage to vessels. But if they (damaged) [warned] one another, none are liable. Donkey drivers were walking one behind the other. The first stumbled and fell, the next one stumbled and fell, the next one stumbled and fell. The first one pays to the second, and the second to the third. But if all fell because of the first, he pays for all of them. Donkeys were walking one behind the other. The first stumbled and fell, the next one stumbled and fell: even 100, all are liable.” Some Tannaïm state, none are liable. Rebbi La said, he who says ‘liable’, if their owner let them lie down. He who says ‘not liable’, if they fell, since animals are not responsible for accidents. “If the feet of a donkey were bad, one is not allowed to step over him. [ ]” What does it mean, ‘to step over him?’ They step on his body and pass by. “If one was free, the other loaded, the loaded one has the right of way before the free one. One unloaded, the other one loaded, the loaded one has the right of way before the unloaded one. If both were loaded or both unloaded, let them agree between themselves. Two carriages or two ships, one empty, the other loaded, the loaded one has the right of way before the unloaded one. If both were unloaded or loaded, let them agree between themselves.” “The person entering the bath house gives precedence to the person leaving; the person leaving the toilet gives precedence to the person entering.”

Rebbi Yasa said, I heard something from Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac in this matter, but I do not remember what it was. Rebbi Ze‘ira told him, maybe it was the following: At the start the discussion refers to the tame animal. It added weregilt for the notorious. Then it added damages for both of them. I could think that as it added damages, it added the payment for the slave; the verse says “but the owner of the bull is free;” free from paying for a slave. Rebbi La said, everywhere you are more restrictive for a slave than anything else since even if he is scabbed one pays thirty tetradrachmas; I would have said also (for his father and his mother) the same; the verse says “but the owner of the bull is free;” free from paying for fetuses. Everywhere you are more restrictive for a notorious than for a tame one, would you be more restrictive here for a tame one than for a notorious? But it must be so: Men who act unintentionally are liable; bulls who act unintentionally are not liable. Does this mean that if they acted intentionally, they were liable? The verse says, “but the owner of the bull is free;” free from paying for a slave. Another Tanna stated: “But the owner of the bull is free;” free from paying for a slave. But is it not written: “If people quarrel”, people but not bulls. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, so is the baraita: Men who act unintentionally are liable; bulls who act unintentionally are not liable. Does this mean that if they acted intentionally, they were liable? The verse says, “but the owner of the bull is free;” free from paying for a slave. But is it not written: “When they quarrel,” “when they brawl”. Is not quarrel the same as brawl? Since there the act was intentional, so here the act was intentional; or since here the act was unintentional, so here the act was unintentional. What about this? As Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, at the start it treats the tame animal, etc.

HALAKHAH: “A bull which was rubbing itself against a wall,” etc. “A man who kills any human soul,” to include a hit which is potentially deadly. Some Tannaïm state, even if it is not deadly. Rebbi La said, even if it is deadly but a third person came and killed, the killer is guilty. “And it killed a man or a woman,” just as a man lets his sons inherit his injury claims, so a woman lets her sons inherit her injury claims. But does not a man inherit from his wife? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, so did Rebbi Hoshaiah, the father of the Mishnah, explain: One teaches here about weregilt which is due after death.

If somebody sells a bull to another person and it turns out to be goring. Rav said, it is an acquisition in error, but Samuel says, he can tell him: I sold it to you to be slaughtered. “He shall give weregilt for his person.” Some Tannaїm state: The attacker’s person. Some Tannaїm state: The person suffering the damage. Following him who said, the person suffering the damage, [assume] the first one injured him fatally and then the second came and kept him in confusion. If you say that damages are fully required, the first one pays damages and the second pays the weregilt. If you say that damages are not fully required, the first one pays weregilt but the second is not liable. Following him who said, the attacker’s person, if you say that damages are fully required, the first one pays weregilt and the second is not liable. If you say that damages are not fully required, neither one is liable.

If somebody sells a bull to another person and it turns out to be goring. Rav said, it is an acquisition in error, but Samuel says, he can tell him: I sold it to you to be slaughtered. “He shall give weregilt for his person.” Some Tannaїm state: The attacker’s person. Some Tannaїm state: The person suffering the damage. Following him who said, the person suffering the damage, [assume] the first one injured him fatally and then the second came and kept him in confusion. If you say that damages are fully required, the first one pays damages and the second pays the weregilt. If you say that damages are not fully required, the first one pays weregilt but the second is not liable. Following him who said, the attacker’s person, if you say that damages are fully required, the first one pays weregilt and the second is not liable. If you say that damages are not fully required, neither one is liable.

Some Tannaĩm state: וְלִיבָּה. Some Tannaïm state: וְנִיבָּה. He who says וְלִיבָּה. As it is written, “in the flaming fire”. He who says וְנִיבָּה, “it was in my heart like burning fire.”

Some Tannaĩm state: וְלִיבָּה. Some Tannaïm state: וְנִיבָּה. He who says וְלִיבָּה. As it is written, “in the flaming fire”. He who says וְנִיבָּה, “it was in my heart like burning fire.”

It was stated: “She reached out with her hand,” but not the court marshal’s wife. Another Tanna stated, “she reached out with her hand,” including the court marshal’s wife. He who said, “she reached out with her hand,” but not the court marshal’s wife, if he whipped with permission. He who said, “she reached out with her hand,” including the court marshal’s wife, if he whipped without permission. It was stated: Not the wife of two men.

HALAKHAH: “If one says to two people, I robbed,” etc. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Here if they complain, there if they are silent. Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Here, if witnesses know; there, if no witnesses know. Rav Jeremiah in the name of Rav: Here if he swore; there if he did not swear. There, they say in the name of Rav: Here if he swore; there if he did not swear. Rebbi Jeremiah wanted to say, he should have kept silent and not confessed. Rebbi Yasa wanted to say, he should have kept silent and not have sworn. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if he swore, he should have appointed an officer of the court. Rebbi Joḥanan seems to say, an officer of the court determined that one was a robber, not a court which determined that one was robbed. Other Tannaїm stated, a court which determined that one was robbed, [as it was stated, Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar said, a court which determined that one was robbed,] not a court which determined that one was a robber. Rebbi Ila said, we also have stated that the rules are identical for robbery, intercourse, and loan. Everbody agrees about the deposit mentioned in the Mishnah, from the following: “If he said to two people, I robbed a mina from one of you but I do not know which one of you it was.”

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, “or buying from your neighbor’s hand”, from you neighbor’s hand you need an act of acquisition; you do not need an act of acquisition from the Gentile’s hand. In Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish’s opinion, why does one deliver a person to “Him Who exacted retribution”? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, it follows the Tanna who stated: “Nobody dealing in words only may one deliver to “Him Who exacted retribution”.

Cahana asked before Rav: If the seller is being cheated, he is cheated up to a fifth; if the buyer is being cheated, he is cheated up to a sixth! He answered him, it and the amount of cheating add up to a sixth. If he sold him what was worth five for six, can [the seller] not say, you were taken in for a denar, take your denar! Rebbi Ze‘ira said, the other can say to him, it is not to my honor that people say, this one was made a laughing stock. Some say, he can say to him, it is not to my honor to wear a garment of five denars. Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Hoshaia say, what is that Tanna’s reason? “I know that my merchandise was worth only five denars, but because he needed it, I gave it to him for six. Take yours and return mine.”

If he sold him what was worth five for six; [the buyer] did not have time to ask around until it appreciated to be worth seven. Rebbi Jacob bar Idi, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Since the sale is annulled for one, it also is annulled for the other. There, we have stated: “Four situations in sales. If he sold him high quality wheat and it turned out to be low quality, the buyer can annul the transaction. Low quality and it turned out to be high quality, the seller can annul the transaction.” [Therefore, the buyer cannot annul the transaction.] Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, it follows this Tanna: “Nobody dealing in words only may one deliver to “Him Who exacted retribution”.

“He may use it for Second Tithe without hesitation since it is only miserly.” Jacob bar Zavdi, Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Simon: One does not add a fifth for any Second Tithe which in itself is not worth a peruṭah. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: One does not add a fifth for any Second Tithe for which the fifth is not worth a peruṭah. A baraita supports the one, a baraita supports the other. As it was stated: “From its tithe,” except what is worth less than a peruṭah. This means, not unless itself is worth a peruṭah. Another Tanna states: “From its tithe, its fifths” except if it is worth less than a peruṭah. This means, not unless the fifth is worth a peruṭah. Rebbi Abin bar Mamal said, our Mishnah follows neither one since we have stated “there are five peruṭot”, but we did not state “not unless itself is worth a peruṭah”; we have stated “there are five fifths”, but we did not state “not unless the fifth is worth a peruṭah”.

HALAKHAH: “One may increase rental fees,” etc. It was stated: “If somebody sells a field to another and stipulates, on condition that I shall work it as a sharecropper, on condition that I shall be part owner, on condition that the tithes shall be mine, on condition that if you sell it, you will sell it only to me, that anytime I want I may pay you back and take it; this is permitted.” “If he owed him money and wrote his field over to him as a sale, any time the seller eats the yield it is permitted; any time the buyer eats the yield, it is forbidden. Rebbi Jehudah says, in any case it is permitted. Rebbi Jehudah said, that is what Boethos ben Zenon did following the Sages. They said to him, is that a proof? The seller was eating the yield.” Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Eleazar, and Rebbi Hoshaia said, Rebbi Jehudah learned from the houses of walled cities. As it was stated: The year mentioned in the Torah regarding walled cities is like interest but it is not interest. Another Tanna stated: This is interest but the Torah permitted it. He who said, it is like interest but it is not interest, Rebbi Meïr. He who said, this is interest but the Torah permitted it, Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Idi said, when I came from the Diaspora, I found that a case was before Rebbi Immi of “it is like interest but it is not interest.” Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, they only said that “this is interest but the Torah permitted it.” There, the Torah permitted it, therefore not in any other case. Nevertheless, Rebbi Immi did not consider it, for he said: a house dwells with its inhabitants.

“If he rented a donkey and it developed eye trouble,” it was stumbling. “Or it was taken to government service.” There are Tannaїm who state, government service is like death; but there are Tannaїm who state, he tells him, here is your property before you. He who stated, government service is like death, if he can find an accomodation; he who says, he tells him, here is your property before you, if he cannot find an accomodation.

“If he rented a donkey and it developed eye trouble,” it was stumbling. “Or it was taken to government service.” There are Tannaїm who state, government service is like death; but there are Tannaїm who state, he tells him, here is your property before you. He who stated, government service is like death, if he can find an accomodation; he who says, he tells him, here is your property before you, if he cannot find an accomodation.

HALAKHAH: “He who sells a village,” etc. It was stated: “He who sells a village. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, he who sells a village sold the steward but did not sell the administrator. But if he said to him, ‘it and all it contains’? Even if he said to him, ‘it and all it contains’. In neither case did he sell ŝirah and its dependencies, and hard rocks hewn from it, and preserves of wild animals, birds, and fish.” Ŝirah means outlying houses, dependencies are hamlets. Its part in ocean or river, there are Tannaїm who state, it is sold, and there are Tannaїm who state, it is not sold. Rav Ḥisda said, he who says, it is sold, as long as it is within its domain; he who says, it is not sold, if it is not within its domain.

HALAKHAH: “He who sells a village,” etc. It was stated: “He who sells a village. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, he who sells a village sold the steward but did not sell the administrator. But if he said to him, ‘it and all it contains’? Even if he said to him, ‘it and all it contains’. In neither case did he sell ŝirah and its dependencies, and hard rocks hewn from it, and preserves of wild animals, birds, and fish.” Ŝirah means outlying houses, dependencies are hamlets. Its part in ocean or river, there are Tannaїm who state, it is sold, and there are Tannaїm who state, it is not sold. Rav Ḥisda said, he who says, it is sold, as long as it is within its domain; he who says, it is not sold, if it is not within its domain.

There, we have stated: “If somebody find a corpse in original position, lying as usual, he takes him and his surroundings.” Rav Ḥisda said, this implies that it is permitted to remove a corpse of obligation, since we have stated: “he takes him and his surroundings.” And how much? Rebbi Samuel in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: Up to three finger-breadths, the place where fluid penetrates. Rebbi Ze‘ira says, this is not reasonable; it is forbidden to remove a corpse of obligation. If you would say, it is permitted to remove him, since you are going to ruin the whole field, would it be permitted to remove him? Since it is obvious for the Tanna that it is forbidden to remove a corpse of obligation, therefore, one needs the Mishnah. Rav Ḥisda said, it follows him who said, it is permitted to remove a corpse of obligation; I am saying that he was buried on a permitted path. But whould one not have to worry that maybe he was a corpse of obligation? Corpses of obligation are infrequent.

HALAKHAH: “He who says, this is my son, is to be believed,” etc. If it was the general belief that he was his son, but at the moment of his death he said, he is not my son, or about one not his son he said, he is my son, he is believed. If he stood near the toll collector and said, he is my son and then changed and said, he is my slave, he is believed. He is my slave, and then said, he is my son, he cannot be believed. Some Tannaïm state, he is to be believed. Rebbi Mana said, for example those Nabateans who particularly use their sons as slaves.

HALAKHAH: “But the Sages say, on the Sabbath, his words are confirmed,” etc. Some Tannaїm state it inversely. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, so is the Mishnah: if they said that for the Sabbath, so much more for weekdays. Some Tannaїm state it inversely. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, so is the Mishnah: if they said that for an underage person, so much more for an adult.

HALAKHAH: “But the Sages say, on the Sabbath, his words are confirmed,” etc. Some Tannaїm state it inversely. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, so is the Mishnah: if they said that for the Sabbath, so much more for weekdays. Some Tannaїm state it inversely. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, so is the Mishnah: if they said that for an underage person, so much more for an adult.

Rebbi Zachariah asked before Rebbi Immi: Does one act following that Tanna, as it was stated: “Rebbi Simeon ben Menassiah says, sometimes you are empowered to propose a compromise, sometimes you are not empowered to propose a compromise. How is this? Two come before a judge; before he heard their arguments, or after he heard their arguments but does not know how to correctly apply the law, he may tell them, go and work out a compromise. After you heard their arguments and know how to correctly apply the law, you may not propose a compromise, as it is said: One may remove the beginning of a quarrel like water; before it becomes manifest, the quarrel may be abandoned. Before the quarrel became manifest, you are permitted to abandon it; after the quarrel became manifest, you are not permitted to abandon it.” Rebbi Mattaniah said, even compromise needs intelligent decision.

Rebbi Jonathan said, from there the great Synhedrion of all of Israel. The minister of the executioners took Seraiah the Chief Priest and Zephania the priest, these are two. And seven men from the king’s entourage, this makes nine. And sixty men from the People of the Land, this makes seventy minus one. And from the city one eunuch, this makes seventy. There are Tannaïm who state seventy-one: The chief executioner took … the three guards of the threshhold, and seven men from the king’s entourage, and sixty men from the People of the Land, and from the city he took one eunuch, this makes seventy-one. And why is he called a eunuch? Because he transposes practice.

lt was stated: If the Synhedrion saw the killer. Some Tannaïm state: two of them become witnesses and testify before the rest of them. There are Tannaïm who state that they all are witnesses and have to go and testify before other [judges]. Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira: As they differ here, so they differ about testimony for the New Moon.

lt was stated: If the Synhedrion saw the killer. Some Tannaïm state: two of them become witnesses and testify before the rest of them. There are Tannaïm who state that they all are witnesses and have to go and testify before other [judges]. Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira: As they differ here, so they differ about testimony for the New Moon.

Some Tannaïm state: “One does not intercalate because of impurity.” Rebbi Yose says, one intercalates, since we find that Hezekiah intercalated because of the impurity, as it is said: For most of the people from Ephraim, Manasse, Issachar, and Zevulun had not been purified, for they ate the Passover contrary to what is written, for Hezekiah had prayed, saying, the Eternal, the Benevolent, will pardon this. Rebbi Simeon says, even though he intercalated Nisan, it was Adar which was intercalated. Rebbi Simeon ben Jehudah said in the name of Rebbi Simeon: Hezekiah forced the community to celebrate the Second Passover.”

Some Tannaïm state: One intercalates because of impurity. Some Tannaïm state: One does not intercalate. He who says, one does not intercalate, from the following: for they ate the Passover contrary to what is written. How does the one who says one does not intercalate, explain contrary to what is written? They intercalated in Nisan but one intercalates only in Adar. This follows what Rebbi Simon bar Zavdi said: they found the skull of Ornan the Yebusite under the altar.

Some Tannaïm state: One intercalates because of impurity. Some Tannaïm state: One does not intercalate. He who says, one does not intercalate, from the following: for they ate the Passover contrary to what is written. How does the one who says one does not intercalate, explain contrary to what is written? They intercalated in Nisan but one intercalates only in Adar. This follows what Rebbi Simon bar Zavdi said: they found the skull of Ornan the Yebusite under the altar.

“And Moses was presiding.” Moses found a way to settle things. When the Holy One, praise to Him, told him, count all male firstborns among the Children of Israel, he said, who will consent voluntarily to give five sheqel per head? What did he do? He took 22’000 tickets and wrote on them “Levite” and 273 on which he wrote “five sheqel” and put all of them in an urn. He told them, come and take your ticket. To any one who drew a ticket saying “Levite” he said, a Levite already redeemed you. To anybody who drew a slip saying “five sheqel” he said, what can I do, it is from Heaven; Rebbi Jehudah. But Rebbi Nehemiah the Tanna objected to the colleagues: If you had given me the possibility of a Levite, it would have come up for me. But the following is what he did. He took 22’000 tickets and wrote on them “Levite” and two hundred seventy three on which he wrote “five sheqel” and put all of them in an urn. He told them, come and take your ticket. To any one who drew a slip saying “Levite” he said, a Levite already redeemed you. The anybody who drew a ticket saying “five sheqel” he said, what can I do, it is from Heaven. The Tanna objected to the colleagues: Think of it, if all came up as “Levite”? They told him, it was miraculous and they came up alternatingly. Rebbi Samuel said, in the opinion of the second Tanna, it was a miracle. In the opinion of the first Tanna, it was not a miracle. They told him, it was a miracle in any case since they came up alternatingly.

“And Moses was presiding.” Moses found a way to settle things. When the Holy One, praise to Him, told him, count all male firstborns among the Children of Israel, he said, who will consent voluntarily to give five sheqel per head? What did he do? He took 22’000 tickets and wrote on them “Levite” and 273 on which he wrote “five sheqel” and put all of them in an urn. He told them, come and take your ticket. To any one who drew a ticket saying “Levite” he said, a Levite already redeemed you. To anybody who drew a slip saying “five sheqel” he said, what can I do, it is from Heaven; Rebbi Jehudah. But Rebbi Nehemiah the Tanna objected to the colleagues: If you had given me the possibility of a Levite, it would have come up for me. But the following is what he did. He took 22’000 tickets and wrote on them “Levite” and two hundred seventy three on which he wrote “five sheqel” and put all of them in an urn. He told them, come and take your ticket. To any one who drew a slip saying “Levite” he said, a Levite already redeemed you. The anybody who drew a ticket saying “five sheqel” he said, what can I do, it is from Heaven. The Tanna objected to the colleagues: Think of it, if all came up as “Levite”? They told him, it was miraculous and they came up alternatingly. Rebbi Samuel said, in the opinion of the second Tanna, it was a miracle. In the opinion of the first Tanna, it was not a miracle. They told him, it was a miracle in any case since they came up alternatingly.

“And Moses was presiding.” Moses found a way to settle things. When the Holy One, praise to Him, told him, count all male firstborns among the Children of Israel, he said, who will consent voluntarily to give five sheqel per head? What did he do? He took 22’000 tickets and wrote on them “Levite” and 273 on which he wrote “five sheqel” and put all of them in an urn. He told them, come and take your ticket. To any one who drew a ticket saying “Levite” he said, a Levite already redeemed you. To anybody who drew a slip saying “five sheqel” he said, what can I do, it is from Heaven; Rebbi Jehudah. But Rebbi Nehemiah the Tanna objected to the colleagues: If you had given me the possibility of a Levite, it would have come up for me. But the following is what he did. He took 22’000 tickets and wrote on them “Levite” and two hundred seventy three on which he wrote “five sheqel” and put all of them in an urn. He told them, come and take your ticket. To any one who drew a slip saying “Levite” he said, a Levite already redeemed you. The anybody who drew a ticket saying “five sheqel” he said, what can I do, it is from Heaven. The Tanna objected to the colleagues: Think of it, if all came up as “Levite”? They told him, it was miraculous and they came up alternatingly. Rebbi Samuel said, in the opinion of the second Tanna, it was a miracle. In the opinion of the first Tanna, it was not a miracle. They told him, it was a miracle in any case since they came up alternatingly.

“And Moses was presiding.” Moses found a way to settle things. When the Holy One, praise to Him, told him, count all male firstborns among the Children of Israel, he said, who will consent voluntarily to give five sheqel per head? What did he do? He took 22’000 tickets and wrote on them “Levite” and 273 on which he wrote “five sheqel” and put all of them in an urn. He told them, come and take your ticket. To any one who drew a ticket saying “Levite” he said, a Levite already redeemed you. To anybody who drew a slip saying “five sheqel” he said, what can I do, it is from Heaven; Rebbi Jehudah. But Rebbi Nehemiah the Tanna objected to the colleagues: If you had given me the possibility of a Levite, it would have come up for me. But the following is what he did. He took 22’000 tickets and wrote on them “Levite” and two hundred seventy three on which he wrote “five sheqel” and put all of them in an urn. He told them, come and take your ticket. To any one who drew a slip saying “Levite” he said, a Levite already redeemed you. The anybody who drew a ticket saying “five sheqel” he said, what can I do, it is from Heaven. The Tanna objected to the colleagues: Think of it, if all came up as “Levite”? They told him, it was miraculous and they came up alternatingly. Rebbi Samuel said, in the opinion of the second Tanna, it was a miracle. In the opinion of the first Tanna, it was not a miracle. They told him, it was a miracle in any case since they came up alternatingly.

Similarly. the Eternal said to Moses, assemble for Me seventy men of the Elders of Israel. Moses said, if I am taking six per tribe, there will be 72, ten of six each and two of five, which tribe will agree to be discriminated against? What did he do? He took 70 tickets and wrote on them “Elder”, two he left blank, and put them in an urn. He told them, come and take your ticket. To any one who drew a slip saying “Elder” he said, from Heaven they appointed you. To anybody who drew a blank slip he said, what can I do, it is from Heaven; Rebbi Jehudah. But Rebbi Nehemiah the Tanna objected to the colleagues: If you had given me the possibility of an Elder, it would have come up for me. But the following is what he did. He took 72 tickets and wrote on them “Elder” and two blank ones and put all of them in an urn. He told them, come and take your ticket. To any one who drew a slip saying “Elder” he said, from Heaven they appointed you. The anybody who drew a blank slip he said, what can I do, it is from Heaven. The Tanna objected to the colleagues: Think of it, if all came up as “Elder”? They told him, it was miraculous and they came up alternatingly. Rebbi Samuel said, I objected before Rebbi Abbahu: in the opinion of the second Tanna, it was a miracle. In the opinion of the first Tanna, it was not a miracle. He told him, it was a miracle in any case since they came up alternatingly.

Similarly. the Eternal said to Moses, assemble for Me seventy men of the Elders of Israel. Moses said, if I am taking six per tribe, there will be 72, ten of six each and two of five, which tribe will agree to be discriminated against? What did he do? He took 70 tickets and wrote on them “Elder”, two he left blank, and put them in an urn. He told them, come and take your ticket. To any one who drew a slip saying “Elder” he said, from Heaven they appointed you. To anybody who drew a blank slip he said, what can I do, it is from Heaven; Rebbi Jehudah. But Rebbi Nehemiah the Tanna objected to the colleagues: If you had given me the possibility of an Elder, it would have come up for me. But the following is what he did. He took 72 tickets and wrote on them “Elder” and two blank ones and put all of them in an urn. He told them, come and take your ticket. To any one who drew a slip saying “Elder” he said, from Heaven they appointed you. The anybody who drew a blank slip he said, what can I do, it is from Heaven. The Tanna objected to the colleagues: Think of it, if all came up as “Elder”? They told him, it was miraculous and they came up alternatingly. Rebbi Samuel said, I objected before Rebbi Abbahu: in the opinion of the second Tanna, it was a miracle. In the opinion of the first Tanna, it was not a miracle. He told him, it was a miracle in any case since they came up alternatingly.

Similarly. the Eternal said to Moses, assemble for Me seventy men of the Elders of Israel. Moses said, if I am taking six per tribe, there will be 72, ten of six each and two of five, which tribe will agree to be discriminated against? What did he do? He took 70 tickets and wrote on them “Elder”, two he left blank, and put them in an urn. He told them, come and take your ticket. To any one who drew a slip saying “Elder” he said, from Heaven they appointed you. To anybody who drew a blank slip he said, what can I do, it is from Heaven; Rebbi Jehudah. But Rebbi Nehemiah the Tanna objected to the colleagues: If you had given me the possibility of an Elder, it would have come up for me. But the following is what he did. He took 72 tickets and wrote on them “Elder” and two blank ones and put all of them in an urn. He told them, come and take your ticket. To any one who drew a slip saying “Elder” he said, from Heaven they appointed you. The anybody who drew a blank slip he said, what can I do, it is from Heaven. The Tanna objected to the colleagues: Think of it, if all came up as “Elder”? They told him, it was miraculous and they came up alternatingly. Rebbi Samuel said, I objected before Rebbi Abbahu: in the opinion of the second Tanna, it was a miracle. In the opinion of the first Tanna, it was not a miracle. He told him, it was a miracle in any case since they came up alternatingly.

Similarly. the Eternal said to Moses, assemble for Me seventy men of the Elders of Israel. Moses said, if I am taking six per tribe, there will be 72, ten of six each and two of five, which tribe will agree to be discriminated against? What did he do? He took 70 tickets and wrote on them “Elder”, two he left blank, and put them in an urn. He told them, come and take your ticket. To any one who drew a slip saying “Elder” he said, from Heaven they appointed you. To anybody who drew a blank slip he said, what can I do, it is from Heaven; Rebbi Jehudah. But Rebbi Nehemiah the Tanna objected to the colleagues: If you had given me the possibility of an Elder, it would have come up for me. But the following is what he did. He took 72 tickets and wrote on them “Elder” and two blank ones and put all of them in an urn. He told them, come and take your ticket. To any one who drew a slip saying “Elder” he said, from Heaven they appointed you. The anybody who drew a blank slip he said, what can I do, it is from Heaven. The Tanna objected to the colleagues: Think of it, if all came up as “Elder”? They told him, it was miraculous and they came up alternatingly. Rebbi Samuel said, I objected before Rebbi Abbahu: in the opinion of the second Tanna, it was a miracle. In the opinion of the first Tanna, it was not a miracle. He told him, it was a miracle in any case since they came up alternatingly.

It is stated: The eulogizer and all who participate in a eulogy interrupt for the recitation of Shemaˋ but do not interrupt for prayer. It happened that our teachers interrupted for the recitation of Shemaˋ and prayer. Did we not state: “If they are able to start and finish”? Our Mishnah refers to the first day; that the Tanna stated for the second day.

Some Tannaïm state: Women go first, after them men. But some Tannaïm state: Men first, women after them. He who says women first, since they caused death to the world. He who says men first, for the honor of the daughter of Israel, lest people look at women. But was it not written: King David followed the bier. They said, this was only to quiet. Whoever was calming the women was calming the men, and whoever was calming the men was calming the women.

Some Tannaïm state: Women go first, after them men. But some Tannaïm state: Men first, women after them. He who says women first, since they caused death to the world. He who says men first, for the honor of the daughter of Israel, lest people look at women. But was it not written: King David followed the bier. They said, this was only to quiet. Whoever was calming the women was calming the men, and whoever was calming the men was calming the women.

Rav Huna said: Who is the Tanna of “participants in pigeon contests”? Rebbi Eliezer, as we have stated there: “Participants in pigeon contests are disqualified from testimony.” Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose: Is that statement in Sanhedrin Rebbi Eliezer’s? He told him, it is everybody’s opinion. So said Rebbi Yose: We knew that he was disqualified for testimony in money matters. What does he come to testify about? For as he is disqualified in money matters, so he is disqualified to testify in criminal trials. The witnesses for the New Moon are held to the standards of criminal trials, as we have stated: “This is the principle: Any testimony for which a woman is not qualified, they are not qualified for.” Who stated this? The rabbis! Do the rabbis follow Rebbi Eliezer? They agree with him and disagree with him. Rebbi Huna in the name of Rav Huna said: It follows Rebbi Eliezer in everything. It turns out that this disagreement parallels another disagreement, as it was stated: A perjured witness is disqualified for any and all testimony required by the Torah, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Yose said, when has this been said? When he was found perjured in criminal matters. But if he was found perjured in money matters, he is disqualified only from that particular testimony. It turns out that Rebbi Yose parallels the rabbis and Rebbi Meïr Rebbi Eliezer.

“His brother-in-law”. Some Tannaïm state: Including sons and sons-in-law; but some Tannaïm state: Excluding sons and sons-in-law. He who said, including sons and sons-in law, from her. But he who said, excluding sons and sons-in law, from another family.

“His brother-in-law”. Some Tannaïm state: Including sons and sons-in-law; but some Tannaïm state: Excluding sons and sons-in-law. He who said, including sons and sons-in law, from her. But he who said, excluding sons and sons-in law, from another family.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, anybody who cannot argue for the crawling animal to make it pure a hundred times cannot start arguing for acquittal. How does one argue about a crawling animal? Rebbi Joḥanan said, since a snake which kills is pure, a rat which does not kill logically should be pure. Since a rat which does not kill is impure, a snake which kills logically should be impure. Rebbi Phineas objected: Is there not the scorpion which kills and is pure? It was found that a Tanna said, snake and scorpion both follow the same rules.

Some Tannaïm state: Jehudah ben Ṭabbai was president; some Tannaïm state, Simeon ben Sheṭaḥ was president.

Some Tannaïm state: Jehudah ben Ṭabbai was president; some Tannaïm state, Simeon ben Sheṭaḥ was president.

HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Meïr said,” etc. We have stated קַלֵּינִי. Some Tannaïm state קַל אָנִי. He who says קַלֵּינִי uses only an expression of lightness. He who says קַל אָנִי uses a language of load.

[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.

HALAKHAH: “The blasphemer is not liable,” etc. From where a warning for the blasphemer? You shall not curse God. Extirpation from where? Anybody who curses his God shall bear his sin. Punishment from where? He who curses the Name of the Eternal shall be put to death. But according to Rebbi Ismael, since Rebbi Ismael said that the verse refers to judges? If he is warned about judges, then so much more about [divine] substitute names. If he is subject to extirpation for substitute names, so much more for the Unique Name. Some Tannaïm state: for substitute names warning and extirpation, for the Unique Name the death penalty. Some Tannaïm state: for substitute names warning, for the Unique Name the death penalty or extirpation. He who says, for substitute names warning and extirpation, you shall not curse God and anybody who curses his God shall bear his sin by extirpation; for the Unique Name the death penalty, he who curses the Name of the Eternal shall be put to death. He who says, for substitute names warning, you shall not curse God, for the Unique Name the death penalty or extirpation, he who curses the Name of the Eternal shall be put to death; anybody who curses his God shall bear his sin, etc.

HALAKHAH: “The blasphemer is not liable,” etc. From where a warning for the blasphemer? You shall not curse God. Extirpation from where? Anybody who curses his God shall bear his sin. Punishment from where? He who curses the Name of the Eternal shall be put to death. But according to Rebbi Ismael, since Rebbi Ismael said that the verse refers to judges? If he is warned about judges, then so much more about [divine] substitute names. If he is subject to extirpation for substitute names, so much more for the Unique Name. Some Tannaïm state: for substitute names warning and extirpation, for the Unique Name the death penalty. Some Tannaïm state: for substitute names warning, for the Unique Name the death penalty or extirpation. He who says, for substitute names warning and extirpation, you shall not curse God and anybody who curses his God shall bear his sin by extirpation; for the Unique Name the death penalty, he who curses the Name of the Eternal shall be put to death. He who says, for substitute names warning, you shall not curse God, for the Unique Name the death penalty or extirpation, he who curses the Name of the Eternal shall be put to death; anybody who curses his God shall bear his sin, etc.

“The necromancer is the πύθων and one who speaks from his armpit. The medium speaks through his mouth. These are stoned but one who consults them is forewarned. And one who asks the dead. Some Tannaïm state: this is one who interrogates a skull. Some Tannaïm state: this is one who interrogates his masculinity. What is the difference between one interrogated by his skull or one raised by his masculinity? The one interrogated by his skull rises normally, rises on the Sabbath, and a commoner can raise a king. But one raised by his masculinity does not rise normally, does not rise on the Sabbath, and a commoner cannot raise a king.

“The necromancer is the πύθων and one who speaks from his armpit. The medium speaks through his mouth. These are stoned but one who consults them is forewarned. And one who asks the dead. Some Tannaïm state: this is one who interrogates a skull. Some Tannaïm state: this is one who interrogates his masculinity. What is the difference between one interrogated by his skull or one raised by his masculinity? The one interrogated by his skull rises normally, rises on the Sabbath, and a commoner can raise a king. But one raised by his masculinity does not rise normally, does not rise on the Sabbath, and a commoner cannot raise a king.

An androgynus who saw whitish [effluent] and entered the Sanctuary is not liable. If he saw red [effluent] and entered the Sanctuary, he is not liable. If he saw simultaneously whitish and red and entered the Sanctuary, he is liable. There is a Tanna who states: he is not liable. Rebbi Joḥanan said, this is Rebbi Simeon, as it was stated: “Two paths, one pure and one impure. He walked on one of them, entered the Sanctuary on the first one, sprinkled repeatedly, immersed himself, on the second one and entered; he is liable. Rebbi Simeon declares him not liable in this case. Rebbi Simeon ben Jehudah in the name of Rebbi Simeon declares him not liable in all cases.” One understands the androgynus, for whitish [effluent] you declare him to be a woman, for red [effluent] you declare him to be a man. But here there is no known impurity. Rebbi Samuel bar Sosartai said, explain it if he forgot the first. Rebbi Yose asked, where do we hold? If he forgot it forever, it is one path. If he forgot repeatedly, there are two paths. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rebbi Simeon parallels Rebbi Eliezer in the interpretation of Ḥizqiah. Just as Rebbi Eliezer said there, until he knows whether he did become impure by a crawling animal or a corpse, so Rebbi Simeon says here, until he knows whether he did become impure by red [effluent] or by whitish. One understands there since he said, a doubt of awareness is awareness. But here, since he saw whitish and red together, it is certain knowledge.

Does not the blasphemer have to bring a sacrifice? The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: They answered him according to his argument. Following your argument, since you say that the blasphemer does not act, where do we find that somebody talks and brings a sacrifice that this one talks and brings a sacrifice? Rebbi Abba from Carthage asked, is not Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish’s argument inverted? There he said, for Rebbi Aqiba the blasphemer does not act. But here he says, the blasphemer is acting in the opinion of Rebbi Aqiba. Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Two Tannaïm following the opinion of Rebbi Aqiba. One said, the blasphemer does not act, and the other said, the blasphemer does act.

They objected, is there not impurity of the Sanctuary and its sancta which need a variable rate [sacrifice] and did the Tanna not state it? We come to state only things carrying a liability to extirpation; there is no extirpation for oaths.

“If I did not see a snake like the beam of the olive press.” Did not the snake of king Sapor swallow camels and carts? When they wanted to kill it, they filled camel bags with straw and put glowing coals inside; it swallowed them and died. Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi said, I saw the hide of a snake made over eight spaces between pillars. Rebbi Samuel ben Jacob said, I saw the hide of a snake covering a state coach. Samuel said, square. If square one could state even a small one. Rebbi Yudan the father of Rebbi Mattaniah said, so it is. It is the way of this Tanna to use only big words, as we have stated: “A flying camel.” Could he not have stated, “a flying rat”?

If they were ten. There are Tannaïm who state, the first one is liable and all the rest are not liable. There are Tannaïm who state, the last one is not liable and all the rest are liable. The one who said, the first one is liable and all the rest are not liable, holds with him who said, the testimony can be verified by the remaining [witnesses]. The one who said, the last one is not liable and all the rest are liable, holds with him who said, testimony that was partially invalidated is totally invalidated. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah says so: “if there were two groups of witnesses.” He only said “two”. Therefore if there had been one, testimony that was partially invalidated it is totally invalidated.

If they were ten. There are Tannaïm who state, the first one is liable and all the rest are not liable. There are Tannaïm who state, the last one is not liable and all the rest are liable. The one who said, the first one is liable and all the rest are not liable, holds with him who said, the testimony can be verified by the remaining [witnesses]. The one who said, the last one is not liable and all the rest are liable, holds with him who said, testimony that was partially invalidated is totally invalidated. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah says so: “if there were two groups of witnesses.” He only said “two”. Therefore if there had been one, testimony that was partially invalidated it is totally invalidated.

Rav Huna said: Who is the Tanna of “participants in pigeon contests”? Rebbi Eliezer, as we have stated there: “Participants in pigeon contests are disqualified from testimony.” Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose: Is that statement in Sanhedrin Rebbi Eliezer’s? He told him, it is everybody’s opinion. So said Rebbi Yose: We knew that he was disqualified for testimony in money matters. What does he come to testify about? For as he is disqualified in money matters, so he is disqualified to testify in criminal trials. The witnesses for the New Moon are held to the standards of criminal trials, as we have stated: “Any testimony for which a woman is not qualified, they are not qualified for.” Who stated this? The rabbis! Do the rabbis follow Rebbi Eliezer? They agree with him and disagree with him. Rebbi Huna in the name of Rebbi Jonah said: It follows Rebbi Eliezer in everything. It turns out that this disagreement parallels another disagreement, as it was stated: A perjured witness is disqualified for any and all testimony required by the Torah, the words of Rebbi Meїr. Rebbi Yose said, when has this been said? When he was found perjured in criminal matters. But if he was found perjured in money matters, he is disqualified only from that particular testimony. It turns out that Rebbi Yose parallels the rabbis and Rebbi Meїr Rebbi Eliezer.

“And salqonarit salt.” Some Tannaïm state, black one is forbidden but white permitted. But some Tannaïm state, white one is forbidden but black permitted. He who said black one is forbidden, because one puts a black crawling thing in it. He who said white one is forbidden, because one puts a white crawling thing in it. Rebbi Ḥanania ben Gamliel said in the name of Rebbi Jehudah ben Gamliel, both are forbidden. Rebbi Ḥanania said, we had a neighbor who was mixing it with pig fat.

“And salqonarit salt.” Some Tannaïm state, black one is forbidden but white permitted. But some Tannaïm state, white one is forbidden but black permitted. He who said black one is forbidden, because one puts a black crawling thing in it. He who said white one is forbidden, because one puts a white crawling thing in it. Rebbi Ḥanania ben Gamliel said in the name of Rebbi Jehudah ben Gamliel, both are forbidden. Rebbi Ḥanania said, we had a neighbor who was mixing it with pig fat.

Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Rav: Rebbi was sitting and teaching his son Rebbi Simeon. The Gentile annuls his own idol and that of his neighbor. He said to him, when you still were in full mental powers you quoted Tannaim stating that a Gentile annuls his own idol and that of a Jew. He answered him, no, my son. An idol which a Jew had worshipped can never be annulled. And it was stated so: “Rebbi Simeon ben Menassia says, an idol which a Jew had worshipped can never be annulled.” Rav stated in the name of the reason of this Tanna: Cursed be the man who makes a hewn or molten image, forever.

So far when they fell in one after the other. What can one say if they fell together? Let us hear from the following: “When is leavened matter of Samaritans permitted after Passover? Of private persons after three weekly bakings, of city bakers after three days, of rural ones after three baking loads.” Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says, even when they said of private persons after three weekly bakings, if he was an important personality or he married off his son, if he baked three loads in one week one after the other it is permitted. Even when they said of (rural) [city] bakers after three days, if he was under pressure and baked three loads one after the other, it is permitted. It was stated: Rebbi Simeon says, even when they said of rural bakers after three baking loads, it is forbidden at least three days since in the morning he prepares sourdough for the entire day.” Does the second dough not become sour from forbidden and permitted? And Rebbi Jeremiah said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, who is the Tanna of “the leavened matter of the Samaritans”? Rebbi Eliezer! And Rebbi Yose said to Rebbi Ḥanina Eyntanaya: Do you remember that you and Rebbi Jeremiah were instructing in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, who is the Tanna of “the leavened matter of the Samaritans”? Rebbi Eliezer! But here we do not instruct so but Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, they treated leavened matter of the Samaritans following Rebbi Eliezer. In addition from the following:: Rebbi Ḥananiah bar Rebbi Abbahu said, my father had a case; he sent to Rebbi Ḥiyya, and Rebbi Immi, and Rebbi Yasa, and they instructed him following Rebbi Eliezer. How? Would they instruct following an isolated opinion? No, since they treated leavened matter of the Samaritans following Rebbi Eliezer.

So far when they fell in one after the other. What can one say if they fell together? Let us hear from the following: “When is leavened matter of Samaritans permitted after Passover? Of private persons after three weekly bakings, of city bakers after three days, of rural ones after three baking loads.” Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says, even when they said of private persons after three weekly bakings, if he was an important personality or he married off his son, if he baked three loads in one week one after the other it is permitted. Even when they said of (rural) [city] bakers after three days, if he was under pressure and baked three loads one after the other, it is permitted. It was stated: Rebbi Simeon says, even when they said of rural bakers after three baking loads, it is forbidden at least three days since in the morning he prepares sourdough for the entire day.” Does the second dough not become sour from forbidden and permitted? And Rebbi Jeremiah said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, who is the Tanna of “the leavened matter of the Samaritans”? Rebbi Eliezer! And Rebbi Yose said to Rebbi Ḥanina Eyntanaya: Do you remember that you and Rebbi Jeremiah were instructing in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, who is the Tanna of “the leavened matter of the Samaritans”? Rebbi Eliezer! But here we do not instruct so but Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, they treated leavened matter of the Samaritans following Rebbi Eliezer. In addition from the following:: Rebbi Ḥananiah bar Rebbi Abbahu said, my father had a case; he sent to Rebbi Ḥiyya, and Rebbi Immi, and Rebbi Yasa, and they instructed him following Rebbi Eliezer. How? Would they instruct following an isolated opinion? No, since they treated leavened matter of the Samaritans following Rebbi Eliezer.

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

They are not liable unless they void part and confirm part. Samuel said, only if they ruled that it was permitted; but not if they ruled that it was not prosecutable. They are not liable unless instruction was given from the ashlar hall. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the reason of this Tanna: From that place which the Eternal will choose. Rebbi Mana bar Tanḥum said, if a hundred came together, only if they ruled unanimously. There, Rebbi Zeˋira said, only if they all rule for the same reason. And here, what?

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

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

HALAKHAH: “If the Anointed Priest ruled,” etc. A person; if the Anointed Priest.” This makes the Anointed like a private person. Since the private person is not liable if he ate on the Court’s ruling, also neither is this one liable if he ate on the Court’s ruling. Since the private person is liable if he ate without a ruling, this one also should be liable if he ate without a ruling; the verse says, for the fault of the people. As the people are liable only if they issued a ruling, this one also is liable only if he issued a ruling. There are Tannaïm who state that the people are the Court. Since the people are liable if they instructed and others acted, this one also should be liable if he ruled and others acted. The verse says, as he sinned. He brings for what he sinned but he does not bring for what others sinned. There are Tannaïm who state that the people are the public. Since the people are liable if others ruled and they acted, this one also should be liable if others ruled and he acted. The verse says, as he sinned. He brings for what he sinned but he does not bring for what others sinned. Rebbi Jacob in the name of Rebbi Eleazar. Only if he is competent to argue about practice. Otherwise, would we say the incompetents give instructions? The anointed who ate following the Court’s prescript is not liable; following another Anointed’s prescript he is liable. Following the Court’s prescript he is not liable, since the prescript of others is nothing compared to their prescripts. Following another Anointed’s prescript he is liable, on condition that he instructed similarly.

HALAKHAH: “If the Anointed Priest ruled,” etc. A person; if the Anointed Priest.” This makes the Anointed like a private person. Since the private person is not liable if he ate on the Court’s ruling, also neither is this one liable if he ate on the Court’s ruling. Since the private person is liable if he ate without a ruling, this one also should be liable if he ate without a ruling; the verse says, for the fault of the people. As the people are liable only if they issued a ruling, this one also is liable only if he issued a ruling. There are Tannaïm who state that the people are the Court. Since the people are liable if they instructed and others acted, this one also should be liable if he ruled and others acted. The verse says, as he sinned. He brings for what he sinned but he does not bring for what others sinned. There are Tannaïm who state that the people are the public. Since the people are liable if others ruled and they acted, this one also should be liable if others ruled and he acted. The verse says, as he sinned. He brings for what he sinned but he does not bring for what others sinned. Rebbi Jacob in the name of Rebbi Eleazar. Only if he is competent to argue about practice. Otherwise, would we say the incompetents give instructions? The anointed who ate following the Court’s prescript is not liable; following another Anointed’s prescript he is liable. Following the Court’s prescript he is not liable, since the prescript of others is nothing compared to their prescripts. Following another Anointed’s prescript he is liable, on condition that he instructed similarly.

“What is the positive commandment about the menstruating woman?” Rebbi Abin said, Keep the Children of Israel away from their impurities. Rebbi Jonathan sent to ask Rebbi Simeon ben Rebbi Yose bar Lakonia, from where a warning for one having sex with an impure woman? He wanted to throw a stone after him; he told him, you are asking me something that children recite every day in the synagogue: To a woman in the separation ofher impurity you shall not come near to uncover her nakedness. He answered him, that is not my problem. My only problem is rather “if he was having sex with an impure woman, he is liable. If he was having sex with a pure one and she said to him, I became impure,” if he separates immediately, is he liable? He told him, I and you have the same problem. Let us go out and learn. They went out and heard the voice of a Tanna who stated following Ḥiskiah: If lying a man will lie with her. Not only that if he was having sex with an impure woman, he is liable. If he was having sex with a pure one and she said to him, I became impure, if he separates immediately, is he liable? The verse says, her secretion shall be, even if her secretion starts with him. What should he do? Rav Hoshaia, Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel, he shall cool down. If he did not cool down? Rebbi Yose said, for him I am reading do not come near as “do not separate”. Closeness is separation. Rav Ḥuna in the name of Rav Abba: Those who say, be close to yourself, do not touch me for I sanctified you. Rebbi Zeˋira said, he should imagine that a sword is cutting into his flesh. Is everybody Rebbi Zeˋira? Rebbi Tanḥuma in the name of Rav Ḥuna: He shall press his fingertips on the wall, then he will cool down.

Who is the teacher who taught him wisdom? The one who taught him first, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Jehudah said, the one from whom he received most of his instruction. Rebbi Yose said, anyone who explained a Mishnah to him.” Rebbi Abbahu came in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Practice follows him who said, the one from whom he received most of his instruction. Why did he not explain that this follows Rebbi Jehudah? There are Tannaïm who state it switched. Rebbi Eleazar tore his garment for his first teacher. Samuel took off [his phylacteries] for one who had explained a Mishnah to him. What Mishnah did he explain to him? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, “for one key he has to go down to his arm-pit and one opens straight.” What means “for one he has to gown to his arm-pit,” he had to lower his hand under his arm-pit until it could be opened. Rebbi Ḥanania was leaning on Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba in Sepphoris, when he saw everybody running. He asked him, why is everybody running? He answered, Rebbi Joḥanan is sitting preaching in Rebbi Banaia’s house of study and everybody is running to hear him. He said, praised be the Merciful Who showed me fruits while I am alive. In Agadah I explained him everything except Proverbs and Ecclesiastes.

GEMARA What authority has the Tanna [that the Shema' is to be read at all] that he raises the question: From what time?

The Tanna bases his authority on Scripture ; for it is written, "When thou liest down and when thou risest up" (Deut. vi. 7). His statement in the Mishnah is to be understood thus : When is the time for reading the Shema' which is to be recited when lying down? From the time the priests enter [the Temple] to partake of their Terumah.

The Tanna commenced with the evening and then treats of the morning; but while on the subject of the morning, he explains matters connected with the morning, and afterwards explains matters connected with the evening.

A Tanna taught in the presence of R. Johanan : whoever occupies himself with Torah and benevolent acts,

Ahi [asked of him] a Tanna of the school of R. Hiyya, asked R. Hiyya : May one interrupt the Hallel or the Megillah [to greet a person] ? Do we argue a fortiori : If with the reading of the Shema', which is an ordinance of the Torah, one may interrupt, how much more so should it be permitted in the case of the Hallel or the Megillah, which is only a Rabbinical ordinance ! Or is it perhaps that the proclamation of a miracle is superior [to the reading of the [Shema'] ?

[He asked of him] Ashyan, a Tanna of the school of R. Ammi, asked R. Ammi : May one who is undergoing a fast taste anything? If he has taken upon himself [to abstain from] eating and drinking, it comes under the heading of neither ; or is it that he has taken upon himself [to abstain from] any kind of gratification, and [tasting] is to be so regarded?

GEMARA What is R. Jose's reason [for declaring that unless the Shema' is read audibly the requirements of the law have not been fulfilled]? Because it is written, "Hear O Israel," i.e. let thine ear hear what thou issuest from thy mouth. And the first Tanna ? He holds that "Hear" [means that the Shema' may be read] in any language which thou hearest.

R. Ammi and R. Assi were once decorating the bridal-chamber for R.Eleazar. He said to them, "In the meanwhile I will go and listen to the teaching in the House of Study, and will come back and report it to you." He went and found a Tanna expounding in the presence of R. Johanan:

He went and found a Tanna teaching the following in the presence of Rab Judah : If one was standing in the Tefillah and broke wind, he should wait until the odour passes off and then resume the prayer [from where he interrupted it] ; another version is : If he was standing in the Tefillah and felt the need to break wind, he should step back four cubits and having relieved himself, wait until the odour passes off and then resume his prayer, saying, "Lord of the universe ! Thou hast created us with many orifices and vessels. Revealed and known to Thee is our shame and confusion in our lifetime, and in our end we are but worm and vermin"; he then resumes at the place where he interrupted.