understands

Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish was passing by the school when he heard them reciting the verse, they sacrificed animal sacrifices and brought elevation sacrifices the next day. He said, he who interrupts follows the House of Shammai; he who reads it as one sentence follows the House of Hillel. One understands elevation sacrifices the next day; but well-being sacrifices the next day? Are not well-being sacrifices brought following the House of Shammai? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, David died on Pentecost; all of Israel were deep mourners and they brought the next day.

May the body of a Pharisee be considered like that of a sufferer from gonorrhea for heave? Rebbi Joḥanan asked, but did we not state, “somebody who let a vulgar watch his house, at times when he sees those who enter and those who leave, food, and drinks, and open clay vessels are impure. But couches and seats and clay vessels tightly wound closed are pure”? If you are saying, they considered the body of a Pharisee like that of a sufferer from gonorrhea for heave then even those tightly [wound] closed should be impure. Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi said, explain it concerning a vulgar at a Pharisee’s, and you cannot infer anything. Rebbi Mana said, so said my teacher Rebbi Yose, all that we are considering here refers to heave. You may know that this is so, since we have stated there, “even moved, even tied, everything is impure.” Did they not say they are impure, not because moving? Did not Rebbi Joḥanan say, concerning heave there is neither separations, nor movings, nor [private domain, nor] vulgar. May heave itself be considered like a sufferer from gonorrhea in relation to sancta? Let us hear from the following. If one cuts a tube for sancta, he who cuts it and he who immerses it need immersion. One understands he who cuts. He who immerses? Could he not bind it with a (sit) [fiber] and immerse it? But explain it that he cut it in order to immerse it. May a sanctum itself be considered like a sufferer from gonorrhea in relation to the ashes of the Red Cow? Let us hear from the following. Two pitchers, one pure for sancta and one pure for heave, who touched one another are both pure. But does not a baraita disagree? They made that the person pure for the ashes of the Cow who moved spittle or semen of one pure for heave that it became impure. The same is pure for heave and pure for sancta.

If one cuts a tube for sancta, he who cuts it and he who immerses it need immersion. One understands he who cuts. He who immerses? Could he not bind it with a (sit) [fiber] and immerse it? But explain it that he cut it in order to immerse it. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, up to here about sanctified Temple sancta. From here on, about profane food prepared in the purity of sacrifices.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is from Rebbi Aqiba’s testimony. As we have stated there, “Rebbi Aqiba added that fine flour, and incense, frankincense, and coals, part of which were touched by a Tevul Yom are all disqualified.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, they knew that vessels of Servive do combine. About what comes he to testify? About the leftovers of flour-offerings that they do combine together. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Zamina in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Why did they say, leftovers of flour-offerings do combine together? Because they need their vessel. Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Yasa: they knew that vessels of Service do combine. About what comes he to testify? About fine flour, and incense, and frankincense, and coals. One understands fine flour, and incense, and frankincense. Coals? Rebbi Abun bar Cahana said, explain it about coals on the Day of Atonement which he has to carry inside in the vessel which he used to scoop up. But [not] about every day’s coals. As we have stated there, “If a qab of coals were dispersed, one sweeps them into the water canal, but on the Sabbath one covers it with a wine-cooler. Rebbi Mattania said, do fine flour, and incense, frankincense, and coals, need a minimum volume in this respect? Not because they have to be in their vessel? Here also because they have to be in their vessel.

There we have stated: “If he ate a fig cake with dirty hands, put his hand into his mouth to remove a pebble, …” Ḥizqiah said, one stated this only for a fig cake where he desires the fluid remaining on his finger, therefore not for anything else. Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is no difference, equally a fig cake where he desires the fluid remaining on his finger or anything other. The Mishnah disagrees with Ḥizqiah: “Touching by a person impure in the impurity of the dead who had food or drink in his mouth: if he put his head inside a pure stove he made it impure. If a pure person with food or drink in his mouth put his head inside the impure stove he became impure.” One understands drinks. From where was the food susceptible to impurity? Not from his saliva! Explain it either from a moist fig cake or as food which already outside were susceptible to impurity. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “One eats dry food with dirty hands with heave but not with sancta.” Explain it if he throws. If he throws then even for sancta. Maybe he will forget and touch. If maybe he will forget and touch then it should be forbidden also for heave. Eaters of heave are vigilant and he will not forget but eaters of sancta are not vigilant and he forgets.

HALAKHAH: “One waters irrigated plots,” etc. One understands a well which does not flow newly. A well which flows newly? Is that not requiring effort? But it follows Rebbi Meïr, as Rebbi Meïr says, one uses it to irrigate even a field depending on rain water. Rebbi Yose said, it is the opinion of everybody if it was one and became two or its waters were few and it was blessed. We have stated thus: “From a well which flowed newly one irrigates even a field depending on rain water, the words of Rebbi Meïr; but the Sages are saying one uses it to irrigate only an irrigated plot which dried up.” In the opinion of Rebbi Meïr one irrigates from it something not in danger of loss and something requiring effort. In the opinion of the rabbis one irrigates from it only something in danger of loss and only if not requiring effort. What do the rabbis say if there is danger of loss but it requires effort? Let us hear from the following: Anything which is continuously losing value is an irrigated plot. When it stopped weakening it is a field depending on rain water; the disagreement between Rebbi Meïr and the Sages. How long does it have to be irrigated to become an irrigated field? Only if was irrigated two, three days before the holiday? Let us hear from the following: The Qabray dried up three days before the holiday, and it came back on the holiday. The case came before Rav Ḥuna who said, those weakened shall be irrigated, those not weakened may not be irrigated. Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose instructed about that cool shadowy place which was sown with barley that it should be cut on the holiday to avoid their cracking and being lost.

One understands pumped water. Rain water? Rebbi Joḥanan said, they decided about rain water because it is like pumped water. Rebbi Bisna in the name of Rebbi La: They stated this only on a holiday; therefore in the Sabbatical it is permitted. What is the difference between Sabbatical and holiday? In the Sabbatical when work is permitted they permitted both activities requiring effort and activities not requiring effort. On a holiday when work is forbidden they only permitted to avoid loss and only activities not requiring effort. Some want to understand it from the following: In the Sabbatical which is extended they permitted, on a holiday which is short they forbade. Then these last seven days should be compared to the seven days of a holiday and be forbidden.

One understands a mole; a white field? But a white field next to an orchard.

HALAKHAH: One understands all of them. Stones? As the following: “If his wall was sloping one tears it down and rebuilds.” Could he not tear down and not build? Rebbi Ḥanania in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They permitted the end because of the beginning. For if you tell him not to build he will not tear down and create a danger.

The net-fishermen of Tiberias, and the grain splitters of Acco, and the farina millers of Sepphoris, accepted not to work on the intermediate days of a holiday. One understands the farina millers of Sepphoris, and the grain splitters of Acco. The net-fishers of Tiberias, do they not diminish the enjoyment of the holiday? He may fish with a hook; he may fish with a stationary net. Even so, do they not diminish the enjoyment of the holiday? Rebbi Immi cursed them because they diminish the enjoyment of the holiday.

It was stated: All these for whom they said that they shave on a holiday are permitted to shave during the thirty days of mourning. There are Tannaim who state, forbidden. [There are Tannaim who state, permitted.] Rav Ḥisda said, he who said permitted, if there happened to be a holiday; he who said forbidden, if there was no holiday. A baraita disagrees with Rav Ḥisda. If his mournings immediately followed one another he can lighten with a knife or coarse shears but not with scissors. But the second mourning relative to the first should be considered as an act of God and he should be permitted. Therefore it only was said for the honor of the holiday. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac asked, one understands the first Seven days. Within Thirty? Rebbi Ḥanania the colleague of the rabbis asked: Did we not state, these are the matters which are forbidden to the mourner during all Seven? If he would be forbidden during Thirty days, within Seven not so much more? It could not have been said except if mournings immediately followed one another. Does this imply that he is permitted? Rebbi Mattania said, he who said “forbidden”, as usual with scissors.

It is written: “The genitals of your brother’s wife you may not uncover.” One understands both his paternal and his maternal brothers’ wives, both the wife of a brother who lived concurrently with him or onewho did not live concurrently with him, whether he had children or did not have children. She became permitted, excluded from this set, by levirate. Should I think unconditionally? It is said here: “When brothers live together”; and it is said there: “We, your servants, are twelve brothers.” Since the “brothers” mentioned there are paternal brothers, so the “brothers” mentioned here must be paternal brothers.

HALAKHAH: “Three brothers married to three women,” etc. Can a woman waiting for a levir who became available to several brothers-in-law not be married in levirate? Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: The wife of one [dead husband] is married in levirate, not the wife of two dead. One understands that he has to perform ḥalîṣah with the “bespoken” because the wife of one [dead husband] is married in levirate, not the wife of two dead. Why can the other one not be married in levirate? Rebbi Eleazar said, this follows Rebbi Meïr, since Rebbi Meïr said, of any one you cannot marry in levirate, you cannot marry the co-wife in levirate. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if Rebbi Eleazar formulated this, he formulated what he had heard from me. Rebbi Yose said, a Mishnah said so: “ A boy at least nine years and one day old who had intercourse with his sister-in-law and when he grew up he married another wife; if he never had intercourse with the first again after he became an adult, the second [wife] may perform ḥalîṣah or be married in levirate. The first one must perform ḥalîṣah and cannot be married in levirate.” Here you say, she performs ḥalîṣah; there you say, she is married in levirate! Where you say she performs ḥalîṣah, Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon; where you say, she is married in levirate, Rebbi Simeon and the rabbis. Rebbi Abun bar Bisna in the name of Rebbi Aḥa, but only if first he married in levirate and then performed ḥalîṣah. But if he performed ḥalîṣah first, it is forbidden; perhaps “bespeaking” acquired and she was freed by her co-wife’s ḥalîṣah.

Rav said, in any case where the true fact can never be established, one does not have to bring a reparation offering for the doubt. How is that? If there were before him two olive-sized pieces, one of suet and one of fat, he ate one of them, and then a raven ate the other. Since he cannot ascertain the true fact, one does not have to bring a reparation offering for this doubt. But if the raven ate first and then he ate, since he could have ascertained the true fact, one has to bring a reparation offering for the doubt. But did not Rav say, only if he made sure that it certainly was suet? Even though Rav said, only if he made sure that it certainly was suet, he agrees here that he could have ascertained the true fact. A baraita disagrees with Rav: “As Rebbi Eleazar says, one must bring a reparation offering for the doubt of suet.” What does Rav do with that? They disagree with the words of Rebbi Eleazar. A baraita disagrees with Rav: “If there were both a piece of profane [meat] and a piece of sacrificial [meat], he ate one of them and it is not known which one, he brings a reparation offering for the doubt. If he [then] ate the second piece, he brings a reparation offering for a certain transgression. If he ate the first piece and another person came and ate the second, each one brings a reparation offering for the doubt.” One understands that the first brings a reparation offering for the doubt. Why the second? Rebbi Yose said, explain it that the piece was large, he ate half of it and left the other half. A Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “If it is doubtful whether [the child is] a nine-month child of the first [brother] or a seven-month of the second, he has to divorce her, the child is legitimate, and they are obligated for a reparation offering for the doubt.” Here it is impossible to ascertain the true fact and they are obligated for a reparation offering for the doubt! Rebbi Yose said, Rebbi Ze‘ira explained it before Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba; Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: Rebbi Ze‘ira explained it before us. Since he could just have touched her and then separated, he could have known whether it is his or the other’s, it is as if he could have ascertained the true fact!

Rebbi Meїr is suspicious about bills of divorce. Rebbi Jehudah is suspicious about a child. Rebbi Yose is suspicious about bills of divorce and a child. Could you say that Rebbi Meїr is not suspicious about bills of divorce, as we have stated: “Those that had received qiddushin can be married.” Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of Rebbi Gedula: The one who repudiates does not have to wait three months; the one who leaves by a bill of divorce needs to wait three months. This supports Rebbi Me‘ir since Rebbi Meїr is suspicious about bills of divorce. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Jeremiah: A woman who has been raped does not have to wait three months. This supports Rebbi Yose, since Rebbi Yose is suspicious about bills of divorce and a child. It was stated: The proselyte, the captive, and the slave woman who were redeemed, or converted, or freed, have to wait three months, the words of Rebbi Judah. Rebbi Yose says, they do not have to wait. Their blood, Rebbi Jehudah says, makes impure 24 hours retroactively; Rebbi Yose says, from its moment onwards. Rebbi said, the words of Rebbi Judah are reasonable for the blood, and the words of Rebbi Yose for the child. Rebbi Ḥanina ben Rebbi Abbahu said, my father had a case and he asked Rebbi Ḥiyya, Rebbi Yasa, and Rebbi Immi, and they instructed him following Rebbi Yose for the child. For if it were not so, what could we say? Between Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Yose, practice does not follow Rebbi Yose? But because Rebbi said, “they are reasonable”. Did not Rebbi Abba say in the name of Rebbi Ze‘ira, every time Rebbi taught “they are reasonable”, the disagreement is unresolved except in the case of the fig cake where each party to the controversy accepts the opposition’s argument. Rebbi Yose said, I stated a difficulty before Rebbi Ḥanina ben Rebbi Abbahu: Even if it is certain that they had sex? He said to him, is a normal Gentile not like one who had sex? Simeon bar Abba said, there came a case before Rebbi Joḥanan and he instructed following Rebbi Yose. Rebbi Eleazar was sorry about this; he said, one disregards the anonymous [Mishnah] and follows an isolated opinion! He found that Rebbi Ḥiyya stated it in the name of Rebbi Meїr. He understood that following Rebbi Simeon, he found that Rebbi Ḥiyya stated it in the name of Rebbi Meїr. He said, the old man certainly understands the chapters about bills of divorce.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, everywhere one taught anonymous Mishnaiot, it follows the rabbis unless one’s teacher explains it [differently]. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish says, all anonymous Mishnaiot follow Rebbi Meїr unless one’s teacher explains it [differently]. Rebbi Ze‘ira said before Rebbi Yasa, not that Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagrees, only he saw that most anonymous Mishnaiot follow Rebbi Meїr. Rebbi Ze‘ira asked before Rebbi Mana: What kind of teacher? The teacher of the baraita or the teacher of study? Does not the story of Rebbi Eleazar imply, the teacher of the baraita? “Following Rebbi Simeon, he found that Rebbi Ḥiyya stated it in the name of Rebbi Meїr. He said, the old man certainly understands his chapters.” We have to say that he received instruction from the teacher of the baraita when he understood that Rebbi Ḥiyya stated it in the name of Rebbi Meїr.

HALAKHAH: “A Cohen’s daughter married to an Israel,” etc. Rebbi Leontes asked before Rebbi Yose: One understands that a Cohen’s daughter who was married to an Israel returns to eat. But why does the daughter of an Israel married to a Cohen not eat when she should be enabled to eat? He said to him, so said Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rav Anan in the name of Rav: What means “a Cohen’s daughter”, one who is trained by a Cohen. As you say, “Babylon’s ransacked daughter,” was she the daughter of Babylon? But she behaved in Babylon’s way. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav: Two daughters are mentioned in the paragraph. One returns and eats, the other returns but does not eat. A Cohen’s daughter who was married to an Israel returns to eat. A daughter of an Israel married to a Cohen returns but does not eat. Say also, if she was married to a qualified person, she returns and eats, to a disqualified person she returns but does not eat. Rav said, practice is that she returns to eat heave but not to eat breast and foreleg. Rebbi Joḥanan said, she eats breast and foreleg. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated a support for Rav: “of food,” not all the food. Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai stated a support for Rebbi Joḥanan: “of her father’s food she shall eat,” to include the loaves of the thanksgiving sacrifice and the cakes of the nazir.

“Any child from either of the men is a bastard.” One understands that the child is a bastard from the second [husband]. Is it a bastard from the first? Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Ze‘ira, this follows Rebbi Aqiba, since Rebbi Aqiba says if a man copulates with his wife whom he accuses of infidelity the child is a bastard, if a man takes back his divorcee after she had remarried the child is a bastard. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Hila, according to everybody the child is acceptable; the status of her bill of divorce is the status of her bastardy. What is the difference between them? If the second one gave her a bill of divorce and then the first one copulated with her. In the opinion of Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Ze‘ira, the child is a bastard following Rebbi Aqiba; in the opinion of Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Hila, according to everybody the child is acceptable.

Rebbi Yose asked: When they remained until the time of indicators, does he retroactively become a man or from that time onward? For Rebbi Abun it is obvious that he becomes a man retroactively, so certainly also for the future, for he explains the position of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish by Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah. Why does Rebbi Yose not explain the position of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish by Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah since he asked, when they remained until the time of indicators, does he retroactively become a man or from that time onward? Rebbi Mana said, because he had difficulty. Rebbi Yose asked: When they remained until the time of indicators, does he retroactively become a man or from that time onward? One understands the case of a widow. But a divorcee? Explain it if he copulated with her after he became an adult and divorced her. Ḥalîṣah? Explain it if he copulated with her, died, and the [adult] brothers performed ḥalîṣah; she had ḥalîṣah because of him. In that case, even if he was younger than nine [years]! Rebbi Samuel ben Eudaimon said, that is correct. But because in all cases one stated “nine”, one stated this with them.

HALAKHAH: “[A woman] did not wait three months,” etc. “If both were Cohanim, he has to mourn intensely for them,” etc. Where do we hold? It is impossible after death [of the first] since we have stated: “He has to mourn intensely for them and they for him.” One understands that he does not defile himself for the second [husband], I say that he is the son of the first. But why does he not defile himself for the first one? It must be that he divorced. Then, as you take it, if he is his son, he should defile himself for him. If he is not his son, he is desecrated, and what happens if he defiles himself? It must be that he raped. Did not Rebbi Abba say in the name of Abba bar Jeremiah that a rape victim does not have to wait three months? Should we say, following the rabbis, but we follow Rebbi Yose!

May her husband dedicate for her without her knowledge? Since he is a partner in the flour offering, may he dedicate for her without her knowledge? May another person dedicate for her without her knowledge? It comes following what Rebbi Joḥanan said, as Rebbi Joḥanan said, for the four who need cleansing others may dedicate without their knowledge; these are the following: Man or woman [healed from] genital discharges, one [healed from] scale disease, and the woman after childbirth; since a father may dedicate for his small son who is lying in a crib. One understands man or woman [healed from] genital discharges or [healed from] scale disease, but a woman after childbirth? May a minor give birth? Did not Rebbi Redifa, Rebbi Jonah, say in the name of Rebbi Hila: If a woman became pregnant and gave birth before she grew two hairs, she and her son will die. After she grew two hairs, she and her son will live. If she became pregnant before she grew two hairs and gave birth after she grew two hairs, she will live but her son will die. How is the situation? Since a man may dedicate for his underage daughter. Since she grew [pubic hair] she already left his power. But it must be since a man may dedicate for his deaf-mute wife. Here, in the case of the suspected wife, the case of the minor does not apply since Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rebbi Yasa said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: An underage girl who whored has no will to be forbidden to her husband. The case of the deaf-mute does not apply since it is written: “The woman shall say: Amen, amen.” Rebbi Abin said, since it is written: “You shall enjoy together with your house,” and he is the cause that he cannot enjoy with her, he may dedicate without her knowledge.

HALAKHAH: “He took the flour-offering,” etc. It is written: “The Cohen shall take the jealousy-flour-offering from the woman’s hand.” Does he perform the weave? Does not she perform the weave? But from here [one understands that] he takes it from a profane vessel and puts it into a Temple vessel. “The Cohen puts his hands under hers and performs the weave.” Does the Cohen put his hands under hers? Is that not objectionable? He brings a kerchief. Does that not separate? He brings an elderly Cohen. You may even say, a young man, since bad inclinations do not happen at that hour. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: If the suspected wife has no hands, two priests weave in her stead.

HALAKHAH: “The following are recited,” etc. It is written: “The Cohen shall tell the woman,” in any language she understands, the words of Rebbi Joshia. Rebbi Jonathan said to him, if she does not understand, how could she answer “Amen, Amen”? But that he should not talk to her through an interpreter.

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

I could think that somebody who redeems a vineyard outside the Land would return, the verse says: “And he did not redeem it”. In case one is commanded to redeem it; this excludes where there is no commandment to redeem. It was stated: Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob says, one only understands “vineyard”. And similarly, one only understands “planted”. It was stated: “And he did not redeem it”, that excludes him who sinks or grafts. Rebbi Joḥanan said, this follows Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob. Rav Ḥisda said, this is everybody’s opinion if he grafted fruits of sin. Where do we hold? If he grafted a fruit tree on another fruit tree of a different kind; these are fruits of sin. But if he grafted a fruit tree on a futile tree, as if it were its own kind, he is planting anew. But we hold if he grafted a black fig tree on a white one.

I could think that somebody who redeems a vineyard outside the Land would return, the verse says: “And he did not redeem it”. In case one is commanded to redeem it; this excludes where there is no commandment to redeem. It was stated: Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob says, one only understands “vineyard”. And similarly, one only understands “planted”. It was stated: “And he did not redeem it”, that excludes him who sinks or grafts. Rebbi Joḥanan said, this follows Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob. Rav Ḥisda said, this is everybody’s opinion if he grafted fruits of sin. Where do we hold? If he grafted a fruit tree on another fruit tree of a different kind; these are fruits of sin. But if he grafted a fruit tree on a futile tree, as if it were its own kind, he is planting anew. But we hold if he grafted a black fig tree on a white one.

HALAKHAH: “If an adult male had sexual relations with an underage girl,” etc. What is an underage boy and what is an underage girl? They said in the name of Rebbi Jehudah ben Ḥagra, an underage boy is younger than nine years and one day, an underage girl is younger than three years and one day. One understands that if an adult male had sexual relations with an underage girl, her hymen repairs itself. If an underage boy has sexual relations with an underage female, her hymen repairs itself. But if an underage boy has sexual relations with an adult female, her hymen does not repair itself! Rebbi Abin, explain it that he had relations with her without penetration. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abin said, you can even say that he had normal relations with her. The relations of an underage boy are relations but he does not have the force to damage her hymen. It was stated thus: It happened that [an adult] became pregnant while her hymen was intact.

HALAKHAH: “Similarly, if of two men,” etc. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The Mishnah is valid for countryside sanctified food. But for family matters and the sanctified food of the altar one needs two witnesses. But was it not stated: One raises to priesthood, levitic status, or Israel, by the testimony of one witness. One understands priesthood and levitic status. But the status of an Israel? Is that not regarding family status? To give him the tithe of the poor.

HALAKHAH: “The father has the benefit to give his daughter,” etc. One understands that the father has a benefit from money or contract. By intercourse? Explain it that [the groom] said to [the father]: When your daughter becomes mine by intercourse, this money shall be your property.

One understands a proselyte. A minor? Can a minor divorce? Rebbi Ḥaggai said, I explained it following what Rebbi Eleazar said in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: Only if he slept with her when he regained sight or became sane mentally. And here, if he slept with her after he reached adulthood.

HALAKHAH: “Neither the orphan girl, nor the secondarily prohibited, nor the she-ram,” etc. One understands the secondarily prohibited and the she-ram. The orphan? Does an orphan not have ketubah? Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi J̣oḥanan: Explain it for an orphan who repudiated. Rebbi Ayvo bar Naggari, Rebbi Immi: Just as they fined her, so they fined him. In which respect? That if he preliminarily married her by [giving her] a pound of gold, he loses it all.

HALAKHAH: “All the time she lives in her father’s house,” etc. For the good she received; her properties became delivered during her husband’s lifetime and after 25 years she gave up the claim to her ketubah. Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Rav Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi La: One understands for a woman who has no ketubah. But should a woman who has a ketubah not be able to collect forever? He answered him, it tells you more: Even a woman who has a ketubah collects only up to 25 years. The statement of Rebbi Eleazar says, the creditor collects forever. He said only, “the creditor”; but a woman can collect only up to years. Rebbi Abin said, this is reasonable only for a woman who is not being supported. But for a woman who is being supported, I say that she did not claim it because of her support.

Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The Mishnah, if he sued him for wheat and he admitted barley; but if he sued him for two kinds and he admitted one of them, according to everybody he is free. And why did we state: “Rabban Gamliel obligates him”? This comes to tell you the power of Rabban Gamliel, how far he obligates people. Rebbi Abbahu [supported] that of Rebbi Immi. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish says, the Mishnah, if he sued him for wheat and he admitted barley; but if he sued him for two kinds and he admitted one of them, according to everybody he is obligated. Rav followed Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: A person went with another to court before Rav. He started claiming from him barley, wheat and spelt. Rav told him, charge him with anything you have to charge, and in the end he will swear one oath about everything. Rebbi Abbahu said, so argued Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish against Rebbi Joḥanan: In your opinion, since you say that if he sued him for two kinds and he admitted one of them, according to everybody he is free, did we not state “if he sued him for vessels and real estate; if he admitted the vessels and denied the real estate, the real estate and denied the vessels”? If he is obligated for vessels about vessels, not so much more vessels for real estate? What does he do with it? He explains it, to transfer an oath to him. But did we not state: If somebody sues another for amphoras of oil, and the defendant admits [that he owes him] vessels”? How do we hold? If he sued him for vessels and oil, and he admitted one of them, everybody agrees that this refers to the claim. But if he sued him for oil and he admitted vessels, everybody agrees that what he admitted does not refer to the claim, for Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rebbi Abuna said in the name of Rav: The Mishnah deals with the case that he sued for vessels full of oil; the ones are full, the others empty. One understands vessels but not oil. Oil but not vessels? Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Abun formulates it as oil bucket. Can one not ask him in the end? If he lost his speech.

Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Are there words of Rebbi Meїr that from a negative one understands a positive? There is no sacrifice from this. What I shall not eat from you. Therefore, what I shall eat from you is profane, it is not qorbān.

Rebbi Jeremiah asked: Since you say, one opens for him by the honor of his father and mother; in things between him and the Omnipresent, one does not open for him by the honor of the Omnipresent. But since in matters between him and his father and mother one opens for him by the honor of his father and mother; similarly, in things between him and the Omnipresent should one not open for him by the honor of the Omnipresent? What is the honor of the Omnipresent? For example, that I shall not make a tabernacle, that I shall not take a lulab, that I shall not put on phylacteries. One understands that he does it for his own benefit. As in the following: “If you are just, what are you giving Him?” “If you sinned, what would you do to Him?” Rebbi Yannai said, one who listens to his urges is as if he worshipped idols. What is the reason? “In yourself there shall be no alien force; do not bow down to a foreign god.”

It was stated in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: “If she should be a man’s”, the verse speaks about a preliminarily married adult girl. The colleagues say, Rebbi Eleazar says it correctly. Is it not difficult for Rebbi Eleazar: Did she not leave her father’s power the moment she became an adult? Who may dissolve the vows of an orphan whose father had died? The husband dissolves. It is difficult for the rabbis: If he may dissolve before she entered his power, is it not obvious [that he may dissolve] after she entered? How do the rabbis explain “with her vows on her”? What are we talking about? If about vows which she made before she was preliminarily married and she became preliminarily married, already the father and the husband had the power to dissolve. But we must talk about a vow which she made before her father died, then the father died and she became an adult. From where does Rebbi Eleazar obtain: “The father and the husband dissolve the vows of a preliminarily married adolescent girl.” “Between a man and his wife.” That deals with the husband. The father? “Between a father and his daughter.” How do the rabbis interpret “between a man and his wife”? Not what is between her and others. “Between a father and his daughter,” not what is between her and others. Does Rebbi Eleazar not agree with this? He agrees; he understands everything from there: “Between a man and his wife”, not what is between her and others; “between a father and his daughter,” not what is between her and others.

Does the Mishnah follow Rebbi Simeon? For “Rebbi Simeon declares him free, because his offering was not according to the way of offerers.” And Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, there is a difference because he reserved shaving. Rebbi Jeremiah asked: If it is because he reserved shaving, does not the following state “it is forbidden to him, but Rebbi Simeon permits.” Did he not reserve shaving [and] impurity but Rebbi Simeon frees him? There is a difference, because of an opening for the vow. If it was because of an opening for the vow, does not the following state “he is permitted but Rebbi Simeon forbids”? Rebbi Simeon does not recognize it as an opening for the vow but the rabbis recognize it as an opening for the vow. Why? Because he connects his vow with his life. One understands, to drink wine. The defile oneself for the dead? It is his profession to bury the dead.

HALAKHAH: “I shall be a nazir and obligate myself to shave a nazir,” etc. This “I also”, what do you subsume under it? Does “I also” refer to the entire sentence, or does “I also” only refer to part of the sentence? If “I also” refers to the entire sentence, he says “I also am a nazir.” If “I also” only refers to part of the sentence, he said “I am a nazir.” It was stated in the House of Rebbi: “ ‘I also’ refers to the entire sentence.” Rebbi Yose said, this implies that if some person said, I am a nazir for 100 days, and another person heard him and said, “I also”; the first one is a nazir for 100 days, the other is a nazir for 30 days unless he says, “I am like him, I am the same as he is.” Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: “I am obligated to shave half [a nazir]. Then he said, I am a nazir. If he shaved after 30 days he has fulfilled his obligation.” Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah implies this: “ ‘I shall be a nazir and obligate myself to shave a nazir,’ if another heard him and said: ‘I also shall be and I obligate myself to shave another nazir,’ if they are clever, they will shave one another.” But not themselves. Because he said, “I shall be a nazir and obligate myself to shave a nazir”. But if he said, “I obligate myself to shave half a nazir” and then he said, “I shall be a nazir,” if he shaved himself he has acquitted himself of his obligation. One understands that the second one can shave the first, but can the first shave the second? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Ze‘ira: This means that a person can take upon himself the sacrifice of a nazir who only in the future will make his vow. Rebbi Ḥinena in the name of Rebbi Ze‘ira inferred three [statements]: It implies that if he shaved himself he acquitted himself. It implies that a person obligates himself for another’s nezirut sacrifices of a future vow. It implies that a person chooses another’s nezirut sacrifices without the other’s knowledge. But he cannot dedicate [the animals] without the other’s knowledge.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody vowed two neziriot,” etc. If he finished his first period of nezirut and started to lean on the second, when they did not find an opening for the first while they found an opening for the second, the second can be used for the first. Where do we hold? If he said, “I am a nazir twice,” a vow which is partially annulled is totally annulled. If he said, “I am a nazir for these 30 days and those 30 days,” in this case the second cannot be used for the first. But we must hold that he said, “I am a nazir and nazir.” If he said, “these are for nezirut.” But if he said, “these are for my nezirut; those are for the other nezirut,” in this case the second cannot be used for the first. Rebbi Eleazar said, if he finished the first nezirut, as soon as he brought a sacrifice and shaved, the first is credited for the second. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa commanded the colleagues: If you hear anything formulated by Rebbi Eleazar, you should know that Rebbi Joḥanan disagrees: not unless he brings all his sacrifices, following the rabbis; but following Rebbi Simeon even if he brings only one sacrifice. If he dedicated both together, he has only one in his hand. If he dedicated each of them separately or brought each of them for the other, he did not acquit himself [of his obligation]. This means that as far as holiness goes, they became holy. But did not Rebbi Ḥiyya state: “His sacrifice to the Eternal for his nezirut,” i. e., that his vow of nazir should precede his sacrifice, rather than that his sacrifice precede his vow of nazir. It is different, because he still is in nezirut. One understands the second for the first. The first for the second? Rebbi Jehudah said, this supports Rebbi Eleazar. But did not Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa command the colleagues: If you hear anything formulated by Rebbi Eleazar, you should know that Rebbi Joḥanan disagrees; not unless he brings all his sacrifices. They wanted to say, following the rabbis. But here, we hold with Rebbi Simeon. Rebbi Ḥinena in the name of Rebbi Phineas: Explain it for his nezirut and the nezirut he pledged for his son. In that, the second can be used for the first. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, did we not argue about one who said, “I am a nazir”? He really should be a nazir only once. You were severe with him and obligated him to be a nazir twice. Is it not enough that you were severe with him and obligated him to be a nazir twice, that now you say, he has nothing in his hands?

HALAKHAH: “One is guilty for wine separately, for grapes separately,” etc. It is written: “Also grapes, fresh or dried, he shall not eat.” One understands, since it said “grapes”, do we not know that they are fresh? Why does the verse say, “grapes, fresh or dried”? To declare guilty for either one separately. This parallels what Ḥizqiah stated: Since at a place where He did not treat the waste of fruits like fruits, He treated fresh and dried equally, here, where He treated the waste of fruits like fruits, would it not be logical that we treat fresh and dried equally? The verse said, “fresh or dried”, to declare guilty for either one separately. This parallels what Rebbi Hila said: “One may not impound the movable and the fixed part of a flour-mill. “One understands, since it said “the fixed part”, do we not know that the entire mill is understood? Why does the verse say, “the movable and the fixed part”? To declare guilty for either part separately.

HALAKHAH: “One is guilty for wine separately, for grapes separately,” etc. It is written: “Also grapes, fresh or dried, he shall not eat.” One understands, since it said “grapes”, do we not know that they are fresh? Why does the verse say, “grapes, fresh or dried”? To declare guilty for either one separately. This parallels what Ḥizqiah stated: Since at a place where He did not treat the waste of fruits like fruits, He treated fresh and dried equally, here, where He treated the waste of fruits like fruits, would it not be logical that we treat fresh and dried equally? The verse said, “fresh or dried”, to declare guilty for either one separately. This parallels what Rebbi Hila said: “One may not impound the movable and the fixed part of a flour-mill. “One understands, since it said “the fixed part”, do we not know that the entire mill is understood? Why does the verse say, “the movable and the fixed part”? To declare guilty for either part separately.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody brings a bill of divorce from overseas,” etc. One understands “it was written before me” but not “it was signed before me”, but “it was signed before me” but not “it was written before me”? Is not a bill of divorce validated by its signatures? That must follow Rebbi Jehudah, for Rebbi Jehudah invalidates forms. Following Rebbi Jehudah outside the Land as for one who divorces in the Land of Israel. Are there forms of bills of divorce outside the Land for divorces outside the Land? It is necessary for him to know that it is a bill of divorce and that he be appointed as an agent; he would not know that it was a bill of divorce unless it was written completely before him. Rebbi Ḥanin stated: It is permitted that he enter and leave.

Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: “Full and partial damages are collected from encumbered property.” One understands full damages. Are partial damages not collected from the animal’s body? Rebbi Yose said, explain it when it was a docile ox which did damage and then his owner went and sold it. Its body already was encumbered to the injured party. The rabbis of Caesarea said, explain it if he converted it into a loan. Then it should be foreclosed only by average quality land! Since the debt originated in a damage claim, he may collect from best quality.

After Rebbi Eliezer’s death, four Elders assembled to object to Rebbi Eliezer’s words: Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah, Rebbi Yose the Galilean, Rebbi Tarphon, and Rebbi Aqiba. Rebbi Joshua told them, one does not contradict the lion after his death. Rebbi Tarphon objected: If he said to her, you are permitted to any man except Mr. X; she went and married [the latter’s brother who] died childless; how can she contract the levirate marriage? Does it not turn out that he stipulated against what is written in the Torah, and anybody’s condition contradicting what is written in the Torah is invalid. Then nobody should be permitted to marry his brother’s daughter, lest he come to stipulate against what is written in the Torah. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, one understands the reason. There, the Torah forbade her to him. But here, he forbids to him! Rebbi Ḥananiah objected in the name of Rebbi Phineas: Should one not state “sixteen women” following Rebbi Eliezer? Rebbi Mana said, the reason was already explained: there, the Torah forbade her to him. But here, he forbids to him! Rebbi Jeremiah asked: If he said to her, you are permitted to any man except Mr. X; she went and married the latter’s brother who died childless, how can the latter permit what the first forbade? His words imply that death and divorce permit what the first [husband] prohibited. Rebbi Jeremiah said, he said only death and divorce; therefore, not marriage.

HALAKHAH: “A Hebrew slave is acquired by money,” etc. It is written: “If your Hebrew brother or sister be sold to you,” he bracketed the male Hebrew with the female. Since the female Hebrew can be acquired by money or contract, also the male Hebrew can be acquired by money or contract. One understands money since it is written: “She leaves gratis, without money [due].” From where by contract? The female Hebrew is inferred from the free woman, and the male Hebrew from the female. This is a combination of inferences. That follows Rebbi Aqiba who accepts combination of inferences. Following Rebbi Ismael who rejects combination of inferences? It was found that Rebbi Ismael stated: In the case of the word חֻפְשָׁה, “free” is inferred from חֻפְשָׁה. Everywhere Rebbi Ismael rejects combination of inferences and here, he accepts combination of inferences? Rebbi Ismael stated it in the name of the Sages. From where is it derived for Rebbi Ismael? “Sending away, sending away.” Since “sending away” mentioned there means by a contract, also “sending away” here means by a contract. But it does not compare. There it is to gain autonomy, here it is to be acquired by others! Rebbi Mattaniah said, “sale, sale”. Since “sale” mentioned there means by a contract, “sale” here also means by a contract. But since there it is possible by possession, then here it should be possible by possession. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, the male Hebrew is like the female Hebrew.

Rebbi Yose asked: When they remained until the time of indicators, does he retroactively become a man or from that time onward? For Rebbi Abun it is obvious that he becomes a man retroactively, so certainly also for the future, for he explains the position of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish by Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah. Why does Rebbi Yose not explain the position of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish by Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah since he asked, when they remained until the time of indicators, does he retroactively become a man or from that time onward? Rebbi Mana said, because he had difficulty. Rebbi Yose asked before me: When they remained until the time of indicators, does he retroactively become a man or from that time onward? One understands the case of a widow. But a divorcee? Explain it if he copulated with her after he became an adult and divorced her. Ḥalîṣah? Explain it if he copulated with her, died, and the [adult] brothers performed ḥalîṣah; she had ḥalîṣah because of him. In that case, even if he was younger than nine [years]! Rebbi Samuel ben Eudaimon said, that is correct. But because in all cases one stated “nine”, one stated this with them.

“As a slave girl.” Only as a slave girl: this teaches that he may sell her on condition that he not have the right of allotment over her, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, he did not do anything, for he stipulated against what is written in the Torah, “and the stipulation of anybody who stipulates against what is written in the Torah is invalid.” But does Rebbi Meïr not agree that “the stipulation of anybody who stipulates against what is written in the Torah is invalid”? He accepts it if it is impossible to keep the stipulation in the end, but here it is possible to keep the stipulation in the end. Do the rabbis not agree about a stipulation which it is possible to keep in the end? They agree to it in money matters, but this is a personal matter. But did we not state: A person may marry a woman and stipulate with her that she have no claim on him for food, clothing, or marital relations? One understands food and clothing. But are marital relations not a personal matter? Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, explain it for an underage girl. How can that Tanna explain “as a slave girl”? He may sell her as a widow to the High Priest, as a divorcee or one who received ḥălîṣah to a common priest. How can that Tanna explain “as a servant”? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, explain it by a widow from preliminary marriage. But was it not stated: A person may sell his daugher into marriage and repeat, into servitude and repeat, into marriage after servitude, but not into servitude after marriage? Rebbi Joḥanan said, these are different Tannaïm. He who states “a widow to the High Priest” agrees to servitude after marriage; he who does not state “a widow to the High Priest” does not agree to servitude after marriage. How does the latter Tanna explain “as a servant”? Rebbi Mattaniah said, explain it if [the master] was married to her sister.

Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rav: “ ‘Be preliminarily married to me by this tetradrachma after thirty [days].’ Even if she spent it within the thirty [days], she is preliminarily married; also Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar will agree to this.” What is the difference between this and a loan? A loan was not given for preliminary marriage, while this was given from the start for preliminary marriage. 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 not left, she should be preliminarily married! 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 Eleazar said, it follows Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar, as it was stated: “Be preliminarily married to me by the deposit you hold for me; if she went and found that it was stolen or lost, if there was a peruṭah’s worth left, she is preliminarily married; otherwise, she is not preliminarily married. By the loan you are holding from me, if she went and found that it was stolen or lost, even if there was no peruṭah’s worth left, she is preliminarily married. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon says in the name of Rebbi Meïr, a loan is like a deposit: If there was a peruṭah’s worth left, she is preliminarily married; otherwise, she is not preliminarily married.” Rebbi Eleazar said, Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar follows Rebbi Meïr. Just as Rebbi Meïr said that anybody who deviates from the orders of the owner is called a robber, so Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says here, anybody who deviates from the orders of the owner is called a robber. For he explains it to be for a loan when the lender said, buy wheat for me, but he bought barley for him. That is difficult: can one pay for a preliminary marriage with robbed money? Rebbi Yose asked: One understands that a person may invest a peruṭah to gain a denar; would he invest a peruṭah to gain a perutah? Some Tannaïm state: One may preliminarily marry with a robbed item; some Tannaïm state: One cannot preliminarily marry with a robbed item. Rebbi Mana said, the one who said that one may preliminarily marry with a robbed item refers to an item which he has a chance to recoup from her hand. The one who said that one cannot preliminarily marry with a robbed item refers to an item which he has no chance to remove from her hand. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: the one who said that one may preliminarily marry with a robbed item refers to an item which the owner gave up hope to recover. The one who said that one cannot preliminarily marry with a robbed item refers to an item which the owner did not give up hope to recover.

One understands “Cohen and he turns out to be a Levite.” “Levite and he turns out to be a Cohen”? She may say, I do not want one who is haughty towards me. One understands “from a walled city” and he turned out to be a villager; “from a village” and he turned out to be from a walled city? She may say, I want to be in a quiet place. “On condition that my house be close to the public baths” and it turned out to be far. One understands “close and it turned out to be far.” “Far and it turned out to be close”? She can say, I want to take a walk going and returning. “On condition that I have a daughter or slave-girl hairdresser” and it turned out that he had none, that one understands. “On condition that I have” and it turned out that he did not have? Think of it, if he had one at the end of the world! Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, so is the Mishnah: “A daughter to dress your hair, and a slave-girl to serve you.”

One understands “Cohen and he turns out to be a Levite.” “Levite and he turns out to be a Cohen”? She may say, I do not want one who is haughty towards me. One understands “from a walled city” and he turned out to be a villager; “from a village” and he turned out to be from a walled city? She may say, I want to be in a quiet place. “On condition that my house be close to the public baths” and it turned out to be far. One understands “close and it turned out to be far.” “Far and it turned out to be close”? She can say, I want to take a walk going and returning. “On condition that I have a daughter or slave-girl hairdresser” and it turned out that he had none, that one understands. “On condition that I have” and it turned out that he did not have? Think of it, if he had one at the end of the world! Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, so is the Mishnah: “A daughter to dress your hair, and a slave-girl to serve you.”

One understands “Cohen and he turns out to be a Levite.” “Levite and he turns out to be a Cohen”? She may say, I do not want one who is haughty towards me. One understands “from a walled city” and he turned out to be a villager; “from a village” and he turned out to be from a walled city? She may say, I want to be in a quiet place. “On condition that my house be close to the public baths” and it turned out to be far. One understands “close and it turned out to be far.” “Far and it turned out to be close”? She can say, I want to take a walk going and returning. “On condition that I have a daughter or slave-girl hairdresser” and it turned out that he had none, that one understands. “On condition that I have” and it turned out that he did not have? Think of it, if he had one at the end of the world! Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, so is the Mishnah: “A daughter to dress your hair, and a slave-girl to serve you.”

One understands “Cohen and he turns out to be a Levite.” “Levite and he turns out to be a Cohen”? She may say, I do not want one who is haughty towards me. One understands “from a walled city” and he turned out to be a villager; “from a village” and he turned out to be from a walled city? She may say, I want to be in a quiet place. “On condition that my house be close to the public baths” and it turned out to be far. One understands “close and it turned out to be far.” “Far and it turned out to be close”? She can say, I want to take a walk going and returning. “On condition that I have a daughter or slave-girl hairdresser” and it turned out that he had none, that one understands. “On condition that I have” and it turned out that he did not have? Think of it, if he had one at the end of the world! Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, so is the Mishnah: “A daughter to dress your hair, and a slave-girl to serve you.”

HALAKHAH: “If somebody preliminarily marries a woman and her daughter,” etc. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, one understands from this five rules: One understands that five women can be preliminarily married simultaneously. That a woman may receive her own wedding gift and that of her companion. And one may use the spoils of robbery for a preliminary marriage. And one may preliminarily marry using produce acquired by a prohibited act. And preliminary marriage is impossible in incest situations.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody preliminarily marries a woman and her daughter,” etc. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, one understands from this five rules: One understands that five women can be preliminarily married simultaneously. That a woman may receive her own wedding gift and that of her companion. And one may use the spoils of robbery for a preliminary marriage. And one may preliminarily marry using produce acquired by a prohibited act. And preliminary marriage is impossible in incest situations.

One understands “the daughter of an Israel to a bastard or a Gibeonite,” for it is written: “A bastard shall not come into the Eternal’s congregation.” Why does the verse say: “of his shall not come”? To disqualify. Rebbi Abbu said, what means ממזר? “A strange defect.” This disagrees with what Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi said, “God installs singles as heads of families,” even if there is a male bastard at one end of the world and a female bastard at the other, the Holy One, praise to Him, brings them and copulates them with one another. Rav Huna said, a bastard does not live more than thirty days. In the days of Rebbi Berekhiah, a Babylonian immigrated here; he was informed that this was a bastard. He said to him, support me. He told him, tomorrow you will stand up in the community and I shall look for an allowance for you. He came and sat during the sermon. When he finished the sermon, he said, our brothers, support this man for he is a bastard. After the congegration had left, he said to him, rabbi, I requested material support from you but you destroyed this man’s life. He answered, by your life, life I gave you for Rebbi Abba, Rav Huna, said in the name of Rav: A bastard lives only thirty days. When? If he is not publicly known. But when he is publicly known, he survives.

“Desecrated priest.” Following “from the sons of Cohanim, the family Ḥavaya, the family Haqqoṣ . . . they tried to find their genealogical documents; but they were not found and they were freed from priesthood. And the tiršata told them.” Why was he called hattiršata? Because they permitted him to drink of the wine. Hatiršata, “I was the king’s cup bearer.” “That they should not eat from what was dedicated as holy.” Therefore, from outside holy food they might eat? Rebbi Yose said, great is the permanence of the status quo ante Since they were used to eat there, they may also eat here. One understands there, as it is written: “Put up signposts for yourself.” What can one say here? Following him who said, they accepted tithes voluntarily. “Until a priest will be appointed for urim and tummim.” But were there any urim and tummim then, in the Second Temple? But [he is] like a person who says until the dead will be resurrected, until David’s son will come.

[“The dedicated ones”]. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, because of: “At that moment Joshua dedicated them as hewers of wood and drawers of water for the congregation.” One understands “for the congregation.” But “for the Eternal’s altar”? But Joshua kept them in limbo. He said, I shall not include nor exclude them. But he who sometime in the future will build the Temple, if he wants to include them he may include, exclude them he may exclude. David came and excluded them as it is said: “But the Gibeonites are not part of the Children of Israel.” Why did he exclude them? Because “ there was a famine in David’s time, three years year after year.” David said, for four sins the rains are locked away. For the sins of foreign worship, incest and adultery, murder, and the sins of those who publicly promise money for welfare but do not pay. From where for the sin of foreign worship? “ Beware, lest you be seduced” etc. What is written afterwards? “The Eternal’s rage will be inflamed against you and he locks the sky, etc.” From where for the sins of the incestuous and adulterers? “ You distorted the Land by your immorality and your evil deeds.” What is the punishment? “Rainshowers were withheld, there was no late rain,” etc. From where because of the murderers? “ Because blood will distort the Land.” From where for the sins of those who publicly promise money for welfare but do not pay? “ Clouds and wind but no rain means the man who prides himself by lying gifts.” David checked his entire generation and did not find one of these. He turned to ask the urim and tummim. That is what is written: “ David asked before the Eternal” by urim and tummim. Rebbi Eleazar said, “Ask the Eternal, all the meek of the Land, who execute His Law.” What means “Whose Law is Work”? He enforces His Law and this is His Action. “ The Eternal said, because of Saul and the House of blood guilt.” “Because of Saul,” whom you did not grant the last favor, “and because of the House of blood guilt, for he had killed the Gibeonites.” David sent and called them, what is between you and the house of Saul? They told him, because he killed seven of our men, two hewers of wood, two drawers of water, a religious leader, a scribe, and a beadle. He asked them, what do you want now? They said to him: “ May there be given to us seven men of his sons and we shall hang them before the Eternal on the hill of Saul, the elected of the Eternal.” He said to them, what use is it for you that they be killed? Take silver and gold for yourselves! But they answered, “there is no money for us from Saul and his house.” He said, maybe they are afraid; he separated them and spoke to each one separately, trying to mollify him by himself, and asked him: What use is it for you that they be killed? Take gold and silver! But he said, “there is no money for us from Saul and his house.” It is written “for me”. At this moment, David said that the Holy One gave three good gifts to Israel: They are merciful, decent, and charitable. From where that they are merciful? “He gave you mercy.” From where that they are decent? “That His fear should be on your faces.” This is a sign, for a decent person does not sin. About anybody indecent it is clear that his ancestors did not stand on Mount Sinai. From where that they are charitable? “The Eternal, your God, kept for you covenant and charity.” But these, nothing of this in found in them. Immediately he went to exclude them as it is said: “But the Gibeonites are not of the Children of Israel.” And Ezra also excluded them, as it is said: “And the dedicated ones dwelt in the Ophel.” Also in the future the Holy One, praise to Him, will exclude them as it is written: “One crossing the city they cause to be lost.”

Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: If “the bull” had not been written, I would have inferred the bull from the pit. Since for the pit, which is not usually moving, one has to pay full damages, not so much more for the bull which usually is moving? Either since for the pit one pays full damages, also the bull pays full damages, or since the bull pays half damages, also for the pit one should have to pay half damages. If “the bull” had not been written, I would have inferred the bull from the pit; if “the pit” had not been written, I would have inferred the bull from the pit. Why was it stated here? Because there are many things. Similarly, the seat is not like the bed and the bed is not like the seat. One understands that the seat is not like the bed. The seat a square ṭephaḥ large can become impure; the bed four ṭephaḥim large can become impure. Because He declared a bed four ṭephaḥim large as impure, would a seat a square ṭephaḥ large become impure? If the seat had not been written, I would have inferred seat from bed. Why was it stated here? Because there are many things to be stated. Similarly, the paragraph on lighting the candles is not like the paragraph about exiling the impure and the paragraph on exiling the impure is not like the paragraph about lighting the candles. If the paragraph about exiling the impure had not been written, I would have inferred the rules of the paragraph on exiling the impure from the paragraph on lighting the candles. Why was it stated here? Because there are many things to be stated. So what is equal about them is that they are “command” here and in future generations, so everything by “command” is for here and for future generations. Rebbi La said, it is necessary that all be written; and the bull teaches that the owners have to deal with the cadaver. But it is written, “and the cadaver shall be his”, and it is written for the pit, “and the cadaver shall be his”! Rebbi Ismael said, this excludes real estate which cannot be moved; it excludes a human because there can be no usufruct from him in death. But the fire teaches for all of them that one is responsible for accidents.

Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Fetuses do not gain freedom by ‘tooth and eye.’ One understands “eye”. Tooth? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, so is the baraita: Fetuses do not gain freedom by their mother’s ‘tooth and eye.’

“Pitchers of wine and pitchers of oil he has to make public.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, if it was like a tripod one does not have to make it public. What means, like a tripod? For example, a corral belonging to three people. Since one does not know to whom to return it, he does not have to make it public. Rebbi Yose said, one understands from here that if a person went behind Rebbi Ḥalafta and a denar fell down from them, since one does not know to whom to return it, he does not have to make it public. Simeon bar Abba was walking behind Rebbi Eleazar; a denar fell down from him. Simeon bar Abba presented it to him. He answered, I already had given up hope about this. They said, Rebbi Eleazar only intended it for Rebbi Simeon bar Abba because he was poor.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody deposits coins with another person,” etc. Rebbi Yose said: One understands from this that in case a man gave plyṭvryn to another in the market place and that one handed it over to his underage son or daughter, if they were stolen or lost he is not liable since I say that nobody is in the market place because of plyṭvryn.

HALAKHAH: “Somebody who rented a donkey,” etc. One understands on the mountain, but he led it in the valley. In the valley, but he led it on the mountain? Rebbi Simeon ben Yaqim said, if it died because of the air. Rebbi Dositheos ben Yannai said, if it was bitten by a snake. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is Rebbi Meïr’s who said, anybody who deviates from the owner’s instructions is called a robber.

HALAKHAH: “One who contracts with another for a field,” etc. One understands that for barley he may not sow wheat; for wheat, may he not sow barley? It follows Rebbi La or is the opinion of everybody at a place where the yield of barley is not twice that of wheat. But at a place where barley produces twice as much as wheat he may sow barley.

HALAKHAH: “One who contracts with another for a field,” etc. One understands that for wheat he may not sow flax. For flax may he not sow wheat? Flax damages the soil for three years and you say so? Rebbi Menaḥem, the brother of Rebbi Gorion, explained before Rebbi La: It is better to sow flax after flax but not barley after barley.

Rebbi Abbahu said, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqush disagreeed. One said, one builds and afterwards one dedicates. The other one said, one dedicates and afterwards one builds. For him who says, one builds and afterwards one dedicates, one does not say that the partitions are as if built up. If one desires to add to the Temple Hall, by which means does one add? By the two loaves. Does one dedicate on a holiday? Then by the Shew Bread. Does one dedicate on the Sabbath? Then in the night. Does one dedicate in the night? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, with a baked flour offering. One understands that on their return from the diaspora they sacrificed and then dedicated. When they entered the Land, with what did they dedicate? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, with two thanksgiving sacrifices coming from Nob and Gibeon.

HALAKHAH: “The High Priest judges and one judges him,” etc. One understands that he judges. Why does one judge him? Can he not appoint a plenipotentiary? Think of it, if an oath should be imposed on him, may a plenipotentiary take the oath? His monetary suits are heard by how many? By 23, as we understand from the following: “The king may not sit in the Synhedrion, neither king nor High Priest may participate in intercalations.” Rebbi Ḥanina and Rabbi Mana, one said the king does not sit in the Synhedrion because of suspicion; he cannot participate in intercalations because of suspicion. Neither king nor High Priest may participate in intercalations since it is not to the king’s honor to sit with seven, so much less with three. This implies that his monetary suits are heard by 23.

Can he forever disqualify and have the other appoint [a replacement]? Rebbi Zeˋira said, they taught this about subsidiaries. Rebbi La said, what Rebbi Eleazar said about “one said in Tiberias, but the other said in Sepphoris,” is about those who live at the same place, from where to [Sepphoris] it is seven mil, but from there to [Tiberias] it is nine mil. Rebbi Yose said, one understands from this, that if two people had a case in Tiberias; one of them said in the permanent court, but the other said in an ad hoc court; one listens to the one who said in the permanent court.

Rebbi Yose said, one understands from here: If three sat in judgment and one of them died, two sign and note: Even though we are two who sign, we were three in judging. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, a Mishnah implies this: “The judges sign at the bottom or the witnesses.” Does one learn court documents from prozbol? It was found stated: This about court documents he inferred from the rules of prozbol.

It is written: At that moment Joshua dedicated them as hewers of wood and drawers of water for the congregation. One understands “for the congregation.” But “for the Eternal’s altar”? But Joshua kept them in limbo. He said, I shall [neither] exclude nor include them. But he who sometime in the future will build the Temple, if he wants to include he may include, if he wants to exclude he may exclude. David came and excluded them as it is said: But the Gibeonites are not part of the Children of Israel. Why did he exclude them? Because there was a famine in David’s time, three years year after year. David said, for three sins the rains are locked away: Foreign worship, incest and adultery, and murder. Foreign worship, as it is written: Beware, lest you be seduced and next to it, He locks the sky up. Incest and adultery, as it is written Rain-showers were withheld, there was no late rain, for you had the forehead of a whoring woman. Murder, as it is written: Because blood will distort the Land. Some say, also those who publicly promise money for welfare but do not pay, as it is written: Clouds and wind but no rain means the man who boasts with lying gifts. David checked on all his ways and did not find any of them. He turned to ask the Urim and Tummim. That is what is written: David asked before the Eternal. Rebbi Eleazar said, it is written: Ask the Eternal, all the meek of the Land, who execute His Law, etc. The Eternal said, because of Saul and the House of blood-guilt, for he had killed the Gibeonites. Because of Saul, whom you did not grant the last favor, and because of the House of blood-guilt, for he had killed the Gibeonites. David sent and called them. He asked them, what is between you and the House of Saul? They told him, because he killed seven of our men, two hewers of wood, two drawers of water, a scribe, a religious leader, and a beadle. He asked them, what do you want now? They said to him, May there be given to us seven men … and we shall hang them before the Eternal in Gibeon. He said to them, what use is it to you that they be killed? Take silver and gold for yourselves! But they answered, there is no silver or gold for us from Saul and his house. He said, maybe they are afraid one of the other; he dealt which each of them separately, trying to mollify him by himself, but nobody accepted it. That is what is written, there is no silver or gold for us, it is written for me. At this moment, David said that the Holy One gave three good gifts to Israel: They are decent, merciful, and charitable. Decent, for it is written: that His fear be on your faces. Merciful, for it is written: He gave you mercy, had mercy on you and increased you. Charitable, for it is written: The Eternal, your God, kept for you covenant and charity. But these, nothing of this is found in them; he excluded them: But the Gibeonites are not of the Children of Israel. And Ezra also excluded them, as it is said: And the dedicated ones dwelt in the Ophel; Ziha and Gishpa were of the dedicated ones. Also in the future, the Holy One, praise to Him, will exclude them as it is written: The city worker will cultivate it, from all tribes of Israel. He will eliminate them from all tribes of Israel.

Rebbi Yose said, it was necessary that his aunt be mentioned separately, to exclude his mother’s brother’s wife. What is the reason? It is said here his aunt, and it is said there, either his uncle or his uncle’s son shall freehim. Since by his uncle mentioned there, the verse understands his father’s paternal brother, also by his aunt mentioned here, the verse speaks of his father’s paternal brother’s wife. Also his brother’s wife can be inferred from his aunt. Since by his aunt mentioned there, the verse speaks of his father’s paternal brother’s wife, also by his brother’s wife mentioned here, the verse speaks of his paternal brother’s wife. So far following Rebbi Aqiba. Following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Ismael stated: It is said here his brother’s wife and it is said there, a man who would take his brother’s wife, she is niddah. Since a menstruating woman will be permitted after being forbidden, also his [paternal] brother’s wife may be permitted [after being forbidden.] This excludes his maternal brother’s wife, who cannot be permitted after being forbidden.

We have it stated here, we have it stated in Keritut. One understands in Keritut that he brings one sacrifice and then has to bring a second. What can you say in Sanhedrin? That he is stoned and then stoned again? Rebbi Yudan, Rebbi Mattaniah’s father, said: explain it for warnings. For if they warned him because of the father’s wife, he is hit, because of the mother, he is hit. Could they not also warn him because of a married woman? Rebbi Abun said, explain it if she was unmarried.

If he hit him on his hand and it withered. The physicians said, if his hand is amputated he will live. Does he have to pay for the hand? Let us hear from the following: If people quarrel, if people brawl. Is not brawl quarrel? Why does the verse say, if people quarrel, if people brawl? To apply the rules of the intended to the unintended and of the unintended to the intended. One understands from the intended to the unintended. Of the unintended to the intended? It must be the following: If he hit him on his hand and it withered. The physicians said, if his hand is amputated he will live. Does he have to pay for the hand? Since you say there, it is an extraordinary decree of Scripture that he pay for the hand, so here it is an extraordinary decree of Scripture that he pay for the hand.

It was stated: Rebbi Neḥemiah says, one understands it from what was said My Spirit shall not judge man forever. Rebbi Jehudah says, My Spirit shall not judge him, for I shall not give My Spirit into them when I shall give My Spirit into people. Rebbi Simeon says, My Spirit shall not judge him, for I shall not give My Spirit into them when I shall distribute the rewards of the just. Others say, My Spirit shall not judge him, I shall not bring it back into its sheath. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, mainly their scalding was parboiling. What is the reason? At the time when they were scalded they shrank; in its heat they disappear from their place. What is in its heat? In their boiling. Rebbi Joḥanan said, every single drop which the Holy One, praise to Him, rained on them, He brought to a boil in Hell and rained it on them. That is what is written, in its heat they disappear from their place. Jehudah ben Rebbi Ḥizqiah and Rebbi said, the Holy One, praise to Him, judges the evildoers in Hell for twelve months. First He brings the itch on them; then He brings them into fire and they say woe, woe; after that He brings them into snow and they say wai, wai. What is the reason? He brought me up from the noisy pit, from miry mud. What is from יָוֶן mud? From a place where one says woe. Why could they not receive their punishment and then take part in the World to Come? Because the scoffer will not hear rebuke.

The band of Korah will not have part in the Future World and not be resurrected in the future. What is the reason? The desert covered them, in this world; they were lost from among the congregation, in the future. It was stated: Rebbi Jehudah ben Bathyra says, one understands from what is said, I erred like a lost sheep; look after Your servant, that just as the lost object mentioned there at the end will be searched for, so also the lost object mentioned here at the end will be searched for.

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.

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.

HALAKHAH: “There are two kinds of oaths which are four kinds,” etc. One understands “that I shall eat, or that I shall not eat.” “That I ate, or that I did not eat”? Where do we stand? If it is known that he ate and he swore that he did not eat, it is a false oath. But if he was of the opinion that he ate and swore that he did not eat? Rebbi Abba, Rav Jehudah in the name of Rav: If he is inadvertent for its sacrifice or intentional for its sacrifice. But “I was of the opinion that this is not an oath” is permitted. But it must be that he was intentional in the deed but in error about the sacrifice. Did not Rebbi Abbahu say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Intentional about fat and in error about the sacrifice, one warns him, he is flogged and has to bring a sacrifice. This is impossible, as Rebbi La said in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: So did Rebbi Ismael answer Rebbi Aqiba: Do we find a situation where one is liable if intentional because of a false oath and in oblivion because of blurting? Should not Rebbi Aqiba retort, we find a situation where one is liable if intentional because of a false oath and he brings a sacrifice? But we deal here with the case that he was sure that he ate, and he swore, and it turned out that he had not eaten. Not about him who said that this is not an oath? There, if he says this is not an oath; but here if he knows that this is an oath but he errs because of something else.

Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi Meïr is the one who says that out of a negative one understands a positive. “May He not punish you if you come and testify for me.” Therefore, if you do not come and testify for me He shall punish you. There is not only an imprecation accompanied by an oath. From where one not accompanied by an oath be like one which is accompanied by an oath? The verse says, and heard an imprecation, and heard a voice, to make one without imprecation like one with an imprecation. Therefore not an imprecation without an oath. Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: There is no difference; an imprecation without oath is the same as an oath without an imprecation.

Rebbi La: Both Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both are saying, there is no ”witnesses “here. Why? Because they might die. But might not a document be lost? Therefore, the reason can only be that they might forget their testimony. There, we have stated: “Where is my ox? He told him, it is lost. I want you to swear, he said, Amen. But witnesses testify that he ate it. He has to pay the value. If he confessed himself, he has to pay the value, and the fifth, and the reparation sacrifice.” The Mishnah [applies] if he does not know that there are witnesses. He comes to tell you, even if he knows that there are witnesses. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah says so: “If there were two groups of witnesses, if the first group reneged and after this the second, both are liable.” One understands that the first group becomes liable. Why the second? Not because they might forget their testimony? [Here also, because they (are commanded) to forget their testimony.]

HALAKHAH: “All who must swear by Torah standards,” etc. One understands from what is said, an oath before the Eternal shall be between them, would we not know that if he does not swear, he has to pay? Why does the verse say, its owner shall take it, and he does not have to pay? But from the moment the owner accepted his oath, he does not have to pay. Rebbi Ḥaggai asked before Rebbi Yose: Is this only following Rebbi Meїr or even following the rabbis? Did not Rebbi Assi say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi Meїr is the one who says that out of a negative one understands a positive? Its owner shall take it, and he does not have to pay, therefore if he does not swear, he has to pay. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: The unpaid and the paid trustees may stipulate to be like a borrower. Rebbi Ḥanina said, everybody agrees that in the language of the Torah out of a negative one understands a positive; where do they disagree? In everyday speech.

HALAKHAH: “All who must swear by Torah standards,” etc. One understands from what is said, an oath before the Eternal shall be between them, would we not know that if he does not swear, he has to pay? Why does the verse say, its owner shall take it, and he does not have to pay? But from the moment the owner accepted his oath, he does not have to pay. Rebbi Ḥaggai asked before Rebbi Yose: Is this only following Rebbi Meїr or even following the rabbis? Did not Rebbi Assi say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi Meїr is the one who says that out of a negative one understands a positive? Its owner shall take it, and he does not have to pay, therefore if he does not swear, he has to pay. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: The unpaid and the paid trustees may stipulate to be like a borrower. Rebbi Ḥanina said, everybody agrees that in the language of the Torah out of a negative one understands a positive; where do they disagree? In everyday speech.

HALAKHAH: “All who must swear by Torah standards,” etc. One understands from what is said, an oath before the Eternal shall be between them, would we not know that if he does not swear, he has to pay? Why does the verse say, its owner shall take it, and he does not have to pay? But from the moment the owner accepted his oath, he does not have to pay. Rebbi Ḥaggai asked before Rebbi Yose: Is this only following Rebbi Meїr or even following the rabbis? Did not Rebbi Assi say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi Meїr is the one who says that out of a negative one understands a positive? Its owner shall take it, and he does not have to pay, therefore if he does not swear, he has to pay. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: The unpaid and the paid trustees may stipulate to be like a borrower. Rebbi Ḥanina said, everybody agrees that in the language of the Torah out of a negative one understands a positive; where do they disagree? In everyday speech.

One understands “to lend;” “to borrow” from them? Because he increases his reputation. One understands “to give them loans;” “to ask them for loans”? Because he increases his reputation. One understands “to pay debts to them;” “to accept payment from them”? That he should not say, his pagan worship had helped him. Rebbi Abba bar Tevelai in the name of Rav: If it was a loan in danger of being lost it is permitted. It was stated thus: A loan in danger of being lost, by witnesses. A loan not in danger of being lost, by document. Even a loan by document is in danger of being lost, for not at all times does a person succeed in liquidating his debt. How is this? A loan not in danger of being lost, by pledge. A loan in danger of being lost, not by pledge. It was found following the former [opinion]: A loan in danger of being lost, by witnesses. A loan not in danger of being lost, by document.

One understands “to lend;” “to borrow” from them? Because he increases his reputation. One understands “to give them loans;” “to ask them for loans”? Because he increases his reputation. One understands “to pay debts to them;” “to accept payment from them”? That he should not say, his pagan worship had helped him. Rebbi Abba bar Tevelai in the name of Rav: If it was a loan in danger of being lost it is permitted. It was stated thus: A loan in danger of being lost, by witnesses. A loan not in danger of being lost, by document. Even a loan by document is in danger of being lost, for not at all times does a person succeed in liquidating his debt. How is this? A loan not in danger of being lost, by pledge. A loan in danger of being lost, not by pledge. It was found following the former [opinion]: A loan in danger of being lost, by witnesses. A loan not in danger of being lost, by document.

One understands “to lend;” “to borrow” from them? Because he increases his reputation. One understands “to give them loans;” “to ask them for loans”? Because he increases his reputation. One understands “to pay debts to them;” “to accept payment from them”? That he should not say, his pagan worship had helped him. Rebbi Abba bar Tevelai in the name of Rav: If it was a loan in danger of being lost it is permitted. It was stated thus: A loan in danger of being lost, by witnesses. A loan not in danger of being lost, by document. Even a loan by document is in danger of being lost, for not at all times does a person succeed in liquidating his debt. How is this? A loan not in danger of being lost, by pledge. A loan in danger of being lost, not by pledge. It was found following the former [opinion]: A loan in danger of being lost, by witnesses. A loan not in danger of being lost, by document.

HALAKHAH: “Outside a town with pagan worship,” etc. Therefore inside it is forbidden. Because in it there is one statue all of it should be forbidden? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish says, they taught this about a fair. What is the difference between inside and the surroundings? Inside where it profits from the toll it is forbidden. Outside it is permitted because it does not profit from the toll, but if outside it also profits from the toll it is forbidden. But was it not stated: “One goes to fairs and buys there slaves, slave girls, and animals.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, not only Jewish slaves but even Gentiles, because he brings them under the wings of the Shekhina. But was it not stated: If he bought there a garment, it should be burned, an animal should be castrated, coins should be brought to the Dead Sea? One understands that a garment should be burned, coins should be brought to the Dead Sea. An animal should be castrated? But was it not stated: One goes to fairs and buys there slaves, slave girls, and animals.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, not only Jewish slaves but even Gentiles, because he brings them under the wings of Heaven? Explain it, Israel, Israel. But was it not stated: If somebody sells his slave to Gentiles the proceeds are forbidden. Again explain it, Israel, Israel. One buys from an Israel who goes to a fair because he is like one salvaging from their hands. On his return it is forbidden since he profits from pagan worship. But from Gentiles it is permitted whether they are going or coming. Rebbi Abba the son of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If it was a hostelry it is permitted. Rebbi Ze‘ira asked: at a fair it is forbidden, in a hostelry it is permitted? Maybe Rebbi Joḥanan said this about merchandise. Rebbi Abba the son of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba came in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If it was a hostelry, merchandise is permitted, said Rebbi Joḥanan.

Rebbi Yose ben Shaul understands it from the following occurrence. It happened that a woman loved to do good deeds but her husband hated good deeds. There came a poor man and she gave him to eat. While he was eating she noticed her husband; she made him climb and hid him in the upper floor. She returned to her husband who ate and fell asleep. There came a snake and ate from what was before him; her husband awoke from his sleep and wanted to eat. The one in the upper floor started to talk. That means if he was sleeping it is permitted. It was used to it. But is it not forbidden because of being alone? For they committed adultery, blood is on their hands. Since he is not suspected of one he is not suspected of the other.

They said before the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya: Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai stated thus: Food you shall buy from them with money and eat, etc. As water is not changed from its natural state, so anything which was not changed from its natural state. They objected: Are there not their dry beans, פנקריסין and קובטיות, roasted grain, and hot water permitted? One understands all of these because they can be soaked and return to their former state. But roasted grain? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav: Any food which can be eaten alone raw is not in the category of Gentile cooking. (With bread it is in the category of Gentile cooking.) How does Rebbi Ḥiyya explain food you shall buy from them? You shall buy with food. If you fed him you bought him. If he causes you trouble buy him with food or otherwise trade (ply him) with him money. They said, that is what Rebbi Jonathan did. When a superior came to [his] town, he sent him an honor gift, that if a suit involving an orphan or a widow came he would have a way to mollify him.

But the Halakah is not in agreement with any of these teachings, but with that which Rab Nahman said : A minor who understands to Whom we say Grace is to be included for Zimmun.

R. 'Ami further said: What is the meaning of the verse (Eccl., 10.11): "If the serpent bite before it is charmed, then the charmer hath no advantage"? When thou seest a generation over whom the heavens are rust-colored like copper and do not let down dew or rain, it is because there are no whisperers in that generation. What is their remedy? They should turn to one who understands to whisper and he shall whisper. But if he who understands to whisper is unwilling to do it—what benefit will there accrue to him? Again, if he does whisper and obtains his desire, but then becomes presumptuous, he brings wrath upon the world, as it is said (Job, 36.33): "The cattle also concerning the storm that cometh up."

R. 'Ami further said: What is the meaning of the verse (Eccl., 10.11): "If the serpent bite before it is charmed, then the charmer hath no advantage"? When thou seest a generation over whom the heavens are rust-colored like copper and do not let down dew or rain, it is because there are no whisperers in that generation. What is their remedy? They should turn to one who understands to whisper and he shall whisper. But if he who understands to whisper is unwilling to do it—what benefit will there accrue to him? Again, if he does whisper and obtains his desire, but then becomes presumptuous, he brings wrath upon the world, as it is said (Job, 36.33): "The cattle also concerning the storm that cometh up."