verse

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.

HALAKHAH: “If one intended to hit someone on his hips,” etc. Ḥizqiah asked: If one threw a deadly stone which killed one person and broke another’s vessels, did the verse give the law for one but not for the other? Ḥizqiah asked: If one threw a stone which was not deadly but which killed one person and broke another’s vessels, did the verse give the law for one but not for the other?

HALAKHAH: “If one intended to hit someone on his hips,” etc. Ḥizqiah asked: If one threw a deadly stone which killed one person and broke another’s vessels, did the verse give the law for one but not for the other? Ḥizqiah asked: If one threw a stone which was not deadly but which killed one person and broke another’s vessels, did the verse give the law for one but not for the other?

Rebbi Matthew ben Ḥarash asked Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah in the Academy. He told him, did you hear the four types of Atonement which Rebbi Ismael explained? He answered him, there are three in addition to repentance. One verse says, return, naughty children, I shall heal your waywardness. But another verse says, for on that day, He shall pardon you, to cleanse you. And another verse says, I shall visit their crime with the rod, and their iniquity with plagues. And another verse says, the iniquity of this people shall not be atoned for until you die. How is this? If somebody violates a positive commandment and repents, immediately before he moves from there the Holy One, praise to Him, would forgive him. About this one it says, return, naughty children, I shall heal your waywardness. If one transgresses a prohibition, repentance suspends judgment, and the Day of Atonement pardons. About this one it says, for on that day, He shall pardon you, etc. If one intentionally transgressed [sins punishable by] extirpations or death penalties, repentance and the Day of Atonement pardon half, and sufferings pardon half. About this one it says, I shall visit their crime with the rod, etc. But by whom the Name of Heaven was desecrated, there is no power in repentance to suspend judgment, nor in the Day of Atonement to pardon, nor in sufferings to scour; but repentance and the Day of Atonement pardon a third, and suffering a third, and death scours a third. About this one it says, the iniquity of this people shall not be atoned for until you die. From this we learn that death scours.

Rebbi Matthew ben Ḥarash asked Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah in the Academy. He told him, did you hear the four types of Atonement which Rebbi Ismael explained? He answered him, there are three in addition to repentance. One verse says, return, naughty children, I shall heal your waywardness. But another verse says, for on that day, He shall pardon you, to cleanse you. And another verse says, I shall visit their crime with the rod, and their iniquity with plagues. And another verse says, the iniquity of this people shall not be atoned for until you die. How is this? If somebody violates a positive commandment and repents, immediately before he moves from there the Holy One, praise to Him, would forgive him. About this one it says, return, naughty children, I shall heal your waywardness. If one transgresses a prohibition, repentance suspends judgment, and the Day of Atonement pardons. About this one it says, for on that day, He shall pardon you, etc. If one intentionally transgressed [sins punishable by] extirpations or death penalties, repentance and the Day of Atonement pardon half, and sufferings pardon half. About this one it says, I shall visit their crime with the rod, etc. But by whom the Name of Heaven was desecrated, there is no power in repentance to suspend judgment, nor in the Day of Atonement to pardon, nor in sufferings to scour; but repentance and the Day of Atonement pardon a third, and suffering a third, and death scours a third. About this one it says, the iniquity of this people shall not be atoned for until you die. From this we learn that death scours.

Rebbi Matthew ben Ḥarash asked Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah in the Academy. He told him, did you hear the four types of Atonement which Rebbi Ismael explained? He answered him, there are three in addition to repentance. One verse says, return, naughty children, I shall heal your waywardness. But another verse says, for on that day, He shall pardon you, to cleanse you. And another verse says, I shall visit their crime with the rod, and their iniquity with plagues. And another verse says, the iniquity of this people shall not be atoned for until you die. How is this? If somebody violates a positive commandment and repents, immediately before he moves from there the Holy One, praise to Him, would forgive him. About this one it says, return, naughty children, I shall heal your waywardness. If one transgresses a prohibition, repentance suspends judgment, and the Day of Atonement pardons. About this one it says, for on that day, He shall pardon you, etc. If one intentionally transgressed [sins punishable by] extirpations or death penalties, repentance and the Day of Atonement pardon half, and sufferings pardon half. About this one it says, I shall visit their crime with the rod, etc. But by whom the Name of Heaven was desecrated, there is no power in repentance to suspend judgment, nor in the Day of Atonement to pardon, nor in sufferings to scour; but repentance and the Day of Atonement pardon a third, and suffering a third, and death scours a third. About this one it says, the iniquity of this people shall not be atoned for until you die. From this we learn that death scours.

Rebbi Matthew ben Ḥarash asked Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah in the Academy. He told him, did you hear the four types of Atonement which Rebbi Ismael explained? He answered him, there are three in addition to repentance. One verse says, return, naughty children, I shall heal your waywardness. But another verse says, for on that day, He shall pardon you, to cleanse you. And another verse says, I shall visit their crime with the rod, and their iniquity with plagues. And another verse says, the iniquity of this people shall not be atoned for until you die. How is this? If somebody violates a positive commandment and repents, immediately before he moves from there the Holy One, praise to Him, would forgive him. About this one it says, return, naughty children, I shall heal your waywardness. If one transgresses a prohibition, repentance suspends judgment, and the Day of Atonement pardons. About this one it says, for on that day, He shall pardon you, etc. If one intentionally transgressed [sins punishable by] extirpations or death penalties, repentance and the Day of Atonement pardon half, and sufferings pardon half. About this one it says, I shall visit their crime with the rod, etc. But by whom the Name of Heaven was desecrated, there is no power in repentance to suspend judgment, nor in the Day of Atonement to pardon, nor in sufferings to scour; but repentance and the Day of Atonement pardon a third, and suffering a third, and death scours a third. About this one it says, the iniquity of this people shall not be atoned for until you die. From this we learn that death scours.

It is written: For he showed contempt for the Eternal’s Word. Not only if he was contemptuous of the teachings of the Torah, from where if he denied one verse, one Aramaic expression, one argument de minore ad majus? The verse says, His command he violated. One verse, Lotan’s sister was Timna`. One Aramaic expression, Laban called it Yegar Sahadu̅ta̅. One argument de minore ad majus: For Cain would be avenged sevenfold, etc..

It is written: For he showed contempt for the Eternal’s Word. Not only if he was contemptuous of the teachings of the Torah, from where if he denied one verse, one Aramaic expression, one argument de minore ad majus? The verse says, His command he violated. One verse, Lotan’s sister was Timna`. One Aramaic expression, Laban called it Yegar Sahadu̅ta̅. One argument de minore ad majus: For Cain would be avenged sevenfold, etc..

It is written: For he showed contempt for the Eternal’s Word. Not only if he was contemptuous of the teachings of the Torah, from where if he denied one verse, one Aramaic expression, one argument de minore ad majus? The verse says, His command he violated. One verse, Lotan’s sister was Timna`. One Aramaic expression, Laban called it Yegar Sahadu̅ta̅. One argument de minore ad majus: For Cain would be avenged sevenfold, etc..

So what did Aḥab do? It is written: If it would have been too easy to follow the sins of Jeroboam ben Nevat. Are not the light sins of Aḥab the serious sins of Jeroboam? Why was Jeroboam counted first? Because he started the misconduct. What did Aḥab do? He adorned himself every day and stood before his army commander Ḥiel, asking him, for how much am I good today? He answered him, so and so much; then he donated its value to foreign worship. That is what is written Because you sold yourself to do evil in the Eternal’s eyes. Rebbi Levi continued for six months to explain the following verse to shame There never was anyone like Aḥab who sold himself to do evil in the Eternal’s eyes. He came to him at night and asked him, how did I sin against you, what did I do before you? You have the first part of the verse, but you do not have the end of the verse: whom his wife Jezebel had misguided. He continued for six months to explain it as praise, only one should not be like Aḥab … whom his wife Jezebel had misguided.

So what did Aḥab do? It is written: If it would have been too easy to follow the sins of Jeroboam ben Nevat. Are not the light sins of Aḥab the serious sins of Jeroboam? Why was Jeroboam counted first? Because he started the misconduct. What did Aḥab do? He adorned himself every day and stood before his army commander Ḥiel, asking him, for how much am I good today? He answered him, so and so much; then he donated its value to foreign worship. That is what is written Because you sold yourself to do evil in the Eternal’s eyes. Rebbi Levi continued for six months to explain the following verse to shame There never was anyone like Aḥab who sold himself to do evil in the Eternal’s eyes. He came to him at night and asked him, how did I sin against you, what did I do before you? You have the first part of the verse, but you do not have the end of the verse: whom his wife Jezebel had misguided. He continued for six months to explain it as praise, only one should not be like Aḥab … whom his wife Jezebel had misguided.

So what did Aḥab do? It is written: If it would have been too easy to follow the sins of Jeroboam ben Nevat. Are not the light sins of Aḥab the serious sins of Jeroboam? Why was Jeroboam counted first? Because he started the misconduct. What did Aḥab do? He adorned himself every day and stood before his army commander Ḥiel, asking him, for how much am I good today? He answered him, so and so much; then he donated its value to foreign worship. That is what is written Because you sold yourself to do evil in the Eternal’s eyes. Rebbi Levi continued for six months to explain the following verse to shame There never was anyone like Aḥab who sold himself to do evil in the Eternal’s eyes. He came to him at night and asked him, how did I sin against you, what did I do before you? You have the first part of the verse, but you do not have the end of the verse: whom his wife Jezebel had misguided. He continued for six months to explain it as praise, only one should not be like Aḥab … whom his wife Jezebel had misguided.

It is written: In his days did Ḥiel from Bet-El build Jericho; with his first-born Aviram he set the foundation and with his youngest son Seguv he put in the doors. Ḥiel is from the descendants of Josaphat, Jericho is in the territory of Benjamin. Only that good deeds are put in the hands of the worthy and bad deeds in the hands of the unworthy; therefore, it is said, with his first-born Aviram he set the foundation and with his youngest son Seguv he put in the doors. If it was not appropriate for him to learn from his firstborn Aviram, should he not have learned from the wicked Seguv? Because they wanted to make more money, the curse ruled over them and they were continuously weakened to confirm what was said, following the word of the Eternal, the God of Israel, which He had spoken through Joshua ben Nun. It is written: Elijah the Tisbite, from the inhabitants of Gilead, said to Aḥab: By the Living Eternal, the God of Israel, before Whom I stood, there will not be dew or rain in the coming years except by my word. What is the connection between these? The Holy One, praise to Him, had said to Elijah: this Ḥiel is an important personality, go and pay a visit of condolence. He answered, I do not want to go. He asked, why? He said, for if I go and they say things that enrage You, I shall not be able to bear it. He told him, If they say anything that would enrage Me, anything that you decide I shall fulfill. He went and found them discussing the verse: At that time, Joshua imprecated as follows: Cursed be the man before the Eternal who would build this town, Jericho; with his first-born he shall put in the foundation and with his youngest set the doors. He said, praised be the God of the just, Who fulfills the words of the just. Aḥab also was there. Aḥab said to them, who is greater, Moses or Joshua? They told him, Moses. He said to them, in Moses’s Torah it is written: Watch yourselves, lest your hearts be seduced, you deviate, and worship other powers and bow down before them. What is written next? The rage of the Eternal will burn against you, He will lock up the sky and there will be no rain. But I did not leave any strange worship that I would not have worshipped, and all good and comforting things came in my generation. He did not uphold the words of Moses; would He uphold Joshua’s words? Elijah told him, it is as you say, by the Living Eternal, the God of Israel, before Whom I stood, there will not be dew or rain in the coming years except by my word. When he heard this, he started crying. That is what is written: When Aḥab heard these words, he tore his garments, put sackcloth on his flesh, fasted, slept in sackcloth and went at. How long did he fast? He fasted for three hours. If he was used to eat at 6 o’clock, he ate at noontime. If he was used to eat at noontime, he ate at three p.m. He went at. What is at? Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, he went barefoot. It is written: The word of the Eternal went to Elijah the Tisbite as follows: Did you see that Aḥab surrendered before me? The Holy One, praise to Him, said to Elijah: See the good part which I put in My world. A person may sin greatly before Me, but if he repents I am accepting him. That is what is written, did you see that Aḥab surrendered before Me? You saw that Aḥab repented. Because Aḥab surrendered before me, I shall not bring the evil in his days; in his son’s days I shall bring the evil over his dynasty.

What did Manasse do? It is written: In these days, Hezekias became critically ill, etc., for you will die, you will not live. For you will die, in this world, you will not live, in the Future World. He asked him, why? He answered him, because you did not want to have children. He asked him, why do you not want to have children? He answered him, I saw that I will have an evil son; therefore, I do not want to have children. He told him, marry my daughter, maybe descending from me and you he will become a good person. Nevertheless the result was only a bad person. That is what is written, but my vessels, his vessels are bad. He told him, I am not listening to you, I only am jumping on what my ancestor said, who told me, if you see bad dreams or bad visions do jump onto three things and you will be saved. These are: prayer, giving alms, and repentance. All three from one verse: If My people, over whom My Name is called, are subdued and they will pray, that refers to prayer, and they will ask before me, that refers to giving alms, as you say, I, by giving alms, shall see Your Face, I shall be satiated in waking by Your image. They shall repent their evil ways, that is repentance. If they did this, what is written there? I shall listen from Heaven, forgive their sins, and heal their land. Immediately, he turned, as is written.

It is written: The Eternal spoke to Manasse and to his people but they did not listen. He brought over them the generals of the king[ ]; they caught Manasse in ḥo̅ḥîm. What are ḥo̅ḥîm? Handcuffs. Rebbi Levi said, they made a bronze mule for him, put him inside, and started heating it from below. When he realized that he was in real trouble, he did not forget any strange worship but appealed to it. Since this did not help him any, he said, I remember that my father let me read the following verse in the synagogue: When you are in straits,and all these things will find you in the future,then return to the Eternal,your God, and listen to His voice. For the Eternal, your God,is a merciful power. He will not let you slacken,He will not destroy you,nor will He forget the covenant of your forefathers which He concluded with them. I shall call to Him. If He hears me, it is good; otherwise all faces are the same. The angels on duty closed all windows that Manasse’s prayer should not ascend before the Holy One, praise to Him. The angels on duty said to the Holy One, praise to Him: Master of the Universe, would You receive in repentance a man who worshipped other powers and put up an idol in the Temple Hall? He told them, If I would not receive his repentance, I would close the door in front of all repenting sinners. What did the Holy One, praise to Him, do for him? He dug out a tunnel under His Seat of Glory and accepted his supplication. That is what is written: He prayed to Him,He had mercy on him, He accepted his supplication, and He returned him. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon said, in Arabia a tunnel is called ˋatharta. He returned him to Jerusalem, to his kingship. How did He return him? Samuel bar Bina in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: He returned him by the wind, as one says, “He returns wind.” At that moment, Manasse said, there is judgment and there is a judge.

Aḥitophel was a man great in Torah. It is written: David again assembled all young men in Israel, 30’000. Rebbi Berekhiah in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Cahana: Ninety thousand Elders did David ordain on one day, but he did not ordain Aḥitophel with them. That is what is written: David again assembled all young men in Israel, 30’000. He added, 30’000. Again, 30’000, and the simple sense of the verse, 30’000; together 90’000. You find that at the moment when David came to carry the Ark of the Eternal’s Covenant, he did not carry it following the Torah. They moved the Ark of God’s Covenant on a new car, etc. The Ark lifted the Cohanim up and tore them down to the ground; lifted the Cohanim up and tore them down to the ground. David sent and brought Aḥitophel. He told him, can you not tell me why the Ark lifted the Cohanim up and tore them down to the ground, lifted the Cohanim up and tore them down to the ground? He answered, send and ask all the wise men whom you ordained. David said, any man who knows how to put this in order but does not put it in order should end up strangled. He said something in front of it and it was steadied. That is what is written: It was when the carriers of the Eternal’s Ark took six steps that he sacrificed a bull and a fattened calf. Rebbi Ḥanina and Rebbi Mana, one said, for every step a bull and a fattened calf and at the end seven oxen and seven rams; but the other said, for every step seven oxen and seven rams and at the end a bull and a fattened calf. The Holy One, praise to Him, said to Aḥitophel: Something which the schoolchildren say every day in assembly you did not say to him: to the Bene Qehat he did not give; for the service of the holy [vessels] is on them, they should carry on the shoulder. But so you told him. Similarly you find that when David started to excavate the foundations of the Temple, he dug down fifteen hundred cubits and did not find the abyss. At the end he found a clay pot and wanted to lift it. It told him, you cannot lift me. We asked, why? It answered, because I am here suppressing the abyss. He asked it, since when are you here? It answered, from the Moment that the Merciful spoke on Sinai: I am the Eternal, your God, the earth trembled and sank down, and I was put here to suppress the abyss. Nevertheless, he did not listen to it; when he lifted it the abyss rose and threatened to flood the world. Aḥitophel was standing there. He said, now David will be strangled and I shall rule. David said, any Sage who knows how to put this in order but does not put it in order should end up strangled. He said what he said and it was steady. David started to sing a song of ascent, a song for a rise of 100 [cubits]. For each hundred cubits he composed a song. Nevertheless, he ended up strangled. Rebbi Yose said, that is what the proverb says, a person has to worry about the curse of a rabbi, even if it is for nothing. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: The scroll which Samuel handed over to David, Aḥitophel composed it by the Holy Spirit. What did Aḥitophel do? If anybody asked for his counsel in anything and he gave his advice, he said go and do such and such, and if you do not believe me ask the Urim and Tummim. He went, asked, and found it correct. That is what is written: The counsel of Aḥitophel which he gave in those days, etc. Man is read but not written; the verses could not call him “a man.”

Totally, for the Eternal. your God. Nothing of what should be destroyed shall stick to your hands. It was stated: Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says, they did not rebuild it but built another town. After it was built, you are permitted to dwell there. Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥa say, why does the verse say, who would build this town, Jericho? That one may not build another town and call it Jericho, or Jericho and call it another town. And so He says, you shall not continue to return on this way, you may not return for dwelling; you may return for peddling, business, or to conquer the land.

HALAKHAH: “The Elder who rebels,” etc. Halakhah 4: “If he returned to his town, repeated and taught as was his custom,” etc. It is written: If something is being distinguished for you in law, this shows that the verse speaks about the distinguished member of the court. For you, this is counsel. Something is sermonizing. Whether blood and blood, whether menstrual blood or blood of virginity; whether menstrual blood, blood of flux, or blood of skin disease. Whether case or case, between those who are stoned, or burned, or decapitated, or strangled. Whether defect or defect, between a quarantined sufferer from skin disease or an absolute one; whether defect or defect, between defects of humans or of garments or of houses. Words, that is the drinking of the suspected adulteress, breaking the neck of the calf, and the purification of the sufferer from skin disease. Quarrels, these are estimations, bans, and dedications. You shall get up, from the court, and rise, this is the ascent.

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

HALAKHAH: “In any case where there is knowledge at the start,” etc. From where that we require knowledge at the start and at the end but forgetting in between? The verse says, it was forgotten, it was forgotten two times; this implies that he had knowledge at the start and at the end but forgetting in between. So far for Rebbi Aqiba; following Rebbi Ismael? For Rebbi Ismael [argues] like Rebbi. As Rebbi said, it was forgotten by him, this implies that he knows. “But he knew,” there is knowledge two times. Hence Rebbi Ismael [argues] like Rebbi, and Rebbi like Rebbi Ismael. This comes even according to Rebbi Aqiba; it is the same for knowledge and forgetting about the impurity of the Sanctuary as for knowledge and forgetting about the impurity of sancta. But some want to understand it from the following: He knew and felt guilty. Was it not already said, he became impure and felt guilty? But if it does not refer to knowledge at the beginning, let it refer to knowledge at the end.

Rebbi Bun asked, if he did not know at the end, how could be bring a sacrifice? But if it does not refer to knowledge at the end, let it refer to knowledge at the beginning. They objected: Is it not written, or his transgression came to his knowledge, he has to bring? Then if it does not refer to knowledge at the beginning, let it refer to knowledge at the end! Explain it as referring to those who are obligated for certain purification and reparation offerings for which the Day of Atonement has passed who have to bring after the day of Atonement, while those obligated for suspended reparation sacrifices are no longer liable. The verse says, or his transgression came to his knowledge, he has to bring even after the Day of Atonement.

And from where that it speaks only about the impurity of the Sanctuary and its sancta? He warned and punished about impurity and required a sacrifice about impurity. Since punishment and warning spelled out later on refer to impurity of the Sanctuary and its sancta, also when He made liable for a sacrifice it is about impurity of the Sanctuary and its sancta. Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob says, since it says, I did not eat from it in my deep mourning, I could think that an Israel who ate tithe in deep mourning should bring a sacrifice. The verse says, from thes e. For some of these he is liable, for some of these he is not liable. I will exclude tithe which is not a deadly sin but will not exclude heave which is a deadly sin as it is said, they would die from it for they desecrated it. The verse says from thes e; for some of these he is liable, for some of these he is not liable. Or since there [one speaks about] heave, also here heave. But did you not learn it from foreign worship? Since foreign worship teaches about all transgressions in the Torah, to say that as foreign worship is special that one is liable for extirpation if done intentionally and for a sacrifice if done unintentionally. This excludes heave which only is a deadly sin.

And from where that it speaks only about the impurity of the Sanctuary and its sancta? He warned and punished about impurity and required a sacrifice about impurity. Since punishment and warning spelled out later on refer to impurity of the Sanctuary and its sancta, also when He made liable for a sacrifice it is about impurity of the Sanctuary and its sancta. Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob says, since it says, I did not eat from it in my deep mourning, I could think that an Israel who ate tithe in deep mourning should bring a sacrifice. The verse says, from thes e. For some of these he is liable, for some of these he is not liable. I will exclude tithe which is not a deadly sin but will not exclude heave which is a deadly sin as it is said, they would die from it for they desecrated it. The verse says from thes e; for some of these he is liable, for some of these he is not liable. Or since there [one speaks about] heave, also here heave. But did you not learn it from foreign worship? Since foreign worship teaches about all transgressions in the Torah, to say that as foreign worship is special that one is liable for extirpation if done intentionally and for a sacrifice if done unintentionally. This excludes heave which only is a deadly sin.

Rebbi Ḥanina said before Rebbi Mana: Did you learn this from foreign worship? Then one should learn from foreign worship that for everything one needs one knowledge! He told him, foreign worship requires a fixed value [sacrifice] but the impurity of the Sanctuary and its sancta an increasing or decreasing one. One cannot infer about a fixed value [sacrifice] from an increasing and decreasing one, nor for an increasing or decreasing from a fixed value one. How did you understand to say that the verse speaks about impurity of Sanctuary sancta? It is said here an impure animal and it is said further on an impure animal. Since an impure animal mentioned there is about impurity of Sanctuary sancta, so an impure animal mentioned here is about impurity of Sanctuary sancta. Not only Sanctuary sancta; from where the impurity of the Sanctuary? “The verse says: his impurity is on him. How did you understand to explain it? About an impure person who ate pure [meat], or a pure person who ate impure [meat]? The verse says: his impurity is on him. Impurity of the body, not impurity of the meat. Rebbi says, he ate, his impurity is on him. Impurity of the body, not impurity of the meat. Rebbi Ḥiyya says, sancta are mentioned in the plural but impurity is mentioned in the singular. How can I uphold his impurity is on him? Impurity of the body, not impurity of the meat. Rebbi Meїr says, the verse only speaks of one from whom impurity separates. This excludes meat from which impurity does not separate.”

Rebbi Ḥanina said before Rebbi Mana: Did you learn this from foreign worship? Then one should learn from foreign worship that for everything one needs one knowledge! He told him, foreign worship requires a fixed value [sacrifice] but the impurity of the Sanctuary and its sancta an increasing or decreasing one. One cannot infer about a fixed value [sacrifice] from an increasing and decreasing one, nor for an increasing or decreasing from a fixed value one. How did you understand to say that the verse speaks about impurity of Sanctuary sancta? It is said here an impure animal and it is said further on an impure animal. Since an impure animal mentioned there is about impurity of Sanctuary sancta, so an impure animal mentioned here is about impurity of Sanctuary sancta. Not only Sanctuary sancta; from where the impurity of the Sanctuary? “The verse says: his impurity is on him. How did you understand to explain it? About an impure person who ate pure [meat], or a pure person who ate impure [meat]? The verse says: his impurity is on him. Impurity of the body, not impurity of the meat. Rebbi says, he ate, his impurity is on him. Impurity of the body, not impurity of the meat. Rebbi Ḥiyya says, sancta are mentioned in the plural but impurity is mentioned in the singular. How can I uphold his impurity is on him? Impurity of the body, not impurity of the meat. Rebbi Meїr says, the verse only speaks of one from whom impurity separates. This excludes meat from which impurity does not separate.”

Rebbi Ḥanina said before Rebbi Mana: Did you learn this from foreign worship? Then one should learn from foreign worship that for everything one needs one knowledge! He told him, foreign worship requires a fixed value [sacrifice] but the impurity of the Sanctuary and its sancta an increasing or decreasing one. One cannot infer about a fixed value [sacrifice] from an increasing and decreasing one, nor for an increasing or decreasing from a fixed value one. How did you understand to say that the verse speaks about impurity of Sanctuary sancta? It is said here an impure animal and it is said further on an impure animal. Since an impure animal mentioned there is about impurity of Sanctuary sancta, so an impure animal mentioned here is about impurity of Sanctuary sancta. Not only Sanctuary sancta; from where the impurity of the Sanctuary? “The verse says: his impurity is on him. How did you understand to explain it? About an impure person who ate pure [meat], or a pure person who ate impure [meat]? The verse says: his impurity is on him. Impurity of the body, not impurity of the meat. Rebbi says, he ate, his impurity is on him. Impurity of the body, not impurity of the meat. Rebbi Ḥiyya says, sancta are mentioned in the plural but impurity is mentioned in the singular. How can I uphold his impurity is on him? Impurity of the body, not impurity of the meat. Rebbi Meїr says, the verse only speaks of one from whom impurity separates. This excludes meat from which impurity does not separate.”

Rebbi Ḥanina said before Rebbi Mana: Did you learn this from foreign worship? Then one should learn from foreign worship that for everything one needs one knowledge! He told him, foreign worship requires a fixed value [sacrifice] but the impurity of the Sanctuary and its sancta an increasing or decreasing one. One cannot infer about a fixed value [sacrifice] from an increasing and decreasing one, nor for an increasing or decreasing from a fixed value one. How did you understand to say that the verse speaks about impurity of Sanctuary sancta? It is said here an impure animal and it is said further on an impure animal. Since an impure animal mentioned there is about impurity of Sanctuary sancta, so an impure animal mentioned here is about impurity of Sanctuary sancta. Not only Sanctuary sancta; from where the impurity of the Sanctuary? “The verse says: his impurity is on him. How did you understand to explain it? About an impure person who ate pure [meat], or a pure person who ate impure [meat]? The verse says: his impurity is on him. Impurity of the body, not impurity of the meat. Rebbi says, he ate, his impurity is on him. Impurity of the body, not impurity of the meat. Rebbi Ḥiyya says, sancta are mentioned in the plural but impurity is mentioned in the singular. How can I uphold his impurity is on him? Impurity of the body, not impurity of the meat. Rebbi Meїr says, the verse only speaks of one from whom impurity separates. This excludes meat from which impurity does not separate.”

“He shall atone for the Sanctuary from the impurities of the Children of Israel, etc. In this aspect I have three impurities. The impurity of foreign worship as it is said, to defile My Sanctuary. Sexual offenses as it is said, not to act in the rules of abominations. Spilling of blood as it is said, do not defile the Land. I could think that this he-goat atones for all these impurities, the verse says, from the impurities, not all impurities. We find that the verse treated the impurity of the Sanctuary and its sancta separately; also here we treat only the impurity of the Sanctuary and its sancta separately, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Simeon says, from its place it is decided, as it is said, he shall atone for the Sanctuary from the impurities of the Children of Israel, any impurity in the Sanctuary. I could think that this he-goat atones for these impurities, the verse says, and their crimes. These are the rebellions, for so it says, the king of Moab rebelled against me.

“He shall atone for the Sanctuary from the impurities of the Children of Israel, etc. In this aspect I have three impurities. The impurity of foreign worship as it is said, to defile My Sanctuary. Sexual offenses as it is said, not to act in the rules of abominations. Spilling of blood as it is said, do not defile the Land. I could think that this he-goat atones for all these impurities, the verse says, from the impurities, not all impurities. We find that the verse treated the impurity of the Sanctuary and its sancta separately; also here we treat only the impurity of the Sanctuary and its sancta separately, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Simeon says, from its place it is decided, as it is said, he shall atone for the Sanctuary from the impurities of the Children of Israel, any impurity in the Sanctuary. I could think that this he-goat atones for these impurities, the verse says, and their crimes. These are the rebellions, for so it says, the king of Moab rebelled against me.

“He shall atone for the Sanctuary from the impurities of the Children of Israel, etc. In this aspect I have three impurities. The impurity of foreign worship as it is said, to defile My Sanctuary. Sexual offenses as it is said, not to act in the rules of abominations. Spilling of blood as it is said, do not defile the Land. I could think that this he-goat atones for all these impurities, the verse says, from the impurities, not all impurities. We find that the verse treated the impurity of the Sanctuary and its sancta separately; also here we treat only the impurity of the Sanctuary and its sancta separately, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Simeon says, from its place it is decided, as it is said, he shall atone for the Sanctuary from the impurities of the Children of Israel, any impurity in the Sanctuary. I could think that this he-goat atones for these impurities, the verse says, and their crimes. These are the rebellions, for so it says, the king of Moab rebelled against me.

HALAKHAH: “If there is no knowledge at the start,” etc. What can you see to say? Does the one inside suspend and the one outside atone, or the one outside suspend and the one inside atone, or both of them suspend, or both of them atone? What about it? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, I saw something. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish was asking before Rebbi Joḥanan and asked him, what are the differences in atoning? I do not know what he answered him. Rebbi Ze`ira said to him, maybe it is the following: How did you understand to explain it? About an impure person who ate pure [meat], or a pure person who ate impure [meat]? The verse says: his impurity is on him. Impurity of the body, not impurity of the meat. Or both of them atone? What about it? He should over it confess sins, these are intentional sins, their crimes, these are rebellions, their mistakes, these are unintentional sins. Then He said, he will atone. Rebbi Immi said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, the he-goat will carry all their sins, he grabbed intentional sins and left out unintentional sins, to indicate that just as intentional sins do not carry the obligation of a sacrifice, so those unintentional sins which do not carry the obligation of a sacrifice. And why did they come here? Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Yasa, for suspension. Would it be understood to suspend for those who eat abominations and crawling things? Rebbi Samuel in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira: Their mistakes, their mistakes. Since their mistakes mentioned there are those which carry the obligation of a sacrifice, also their mistakes mentioned here are those which carry the obligation of a sacrifice. This excludes intentional sins which do not carry the obligation of a sacrifice. What is left out by the he-goat brought inside the Day of Atonement suspends. What did it leave out? If there is no knowledge at the start but there is knowledge at the end.

Rebbi Matthew ben Ḥarash asked Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah in the Academy, did you hear the four types of Atonement which Rebbi Ismael explained? He answered him, there are three in addition to repentance. One verse says, return, naughty children, etc. But another verse says, for on that day, He shall pardon you, etc. And another verse says, I shall visit their crime with the rod, etc. And another verse says, the iniquity of this people shall not be atoned for until you die. How is this? If somebody violates a positive commandment and repents, before he moves from there it will be forgiven to him. About this one it says, return, naughty children, etc. If one transgresses a prohibition and immediately repents, repentance suspends judgment, and the Day of Atonement pardons. About this one it says, for onthat day, He shall pardon you. If one intentionally transgressed [sins punishable by] extirpations or death penalties, repentance and the Day of Atonement atone half, and sufferings atone half. About this one it says, I shall visit their crime with the rod, and their iniquities with plagues. But by whom the Name of Heaven was desecrated, there is no power in repentance to suspend judgment, nor in the Day of Atonement to pardon, nor in sufferings to scour; but repentance and the Day of Atonement suspend, and death scours with sufferings. About this one it says, the iniquity of this people shall not be atoned for until you die. From this we learn that death scours.

Rebbi Matthew ben Ḥarash asked Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah in the Academy, did you hear the four types of Atonement which Rebbi Ismael explained? He answered him, there are three in addition to repentance. One verse says, return, naughty children, etc. But another verse says, for on that day, He shall pardon you, etc. And another verse says, I shall visit their crime with the rod, etc. And another verse says, the iniquity of this people shall not be atoned for until you die. How is this? If somebody violates a positive commandment and repents, before he moves from there it will be forgiven to him. About this one it says, return, naughty children, etc. If one transgresses a prohibition and immediately repents, repentance suspends judgment, and the Day of Atonement pardons. About this one it says, for onthat day, He shall pardon you. If one intentionally transgressed [sins punishable by] extirpations or death penalties, repentance and the Day of Atonement atone half, and sufferings atone half. About this one it says, I shall visit their crime with the rod, and their iniquities with plagues. But by whom the Name of Heaven was desecrated, there is no power in repentance to suspend judgment, nor in the Day of Atonement to pardon, nor in sufferings to scour; but repentance and the Day of Atonement suspend, and death scours with sufferings. About this one it says, the iniquity of this people shall not be atoned for until you die. From this we learn that death scours.

Rebbi Matthew ben Ḥarash asked Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah in the Academy, did you hear the four types of Atonement which Rebbi Ismael explained? He answered him, there are three in addition to repentance. One verse says, return, naughty children, etc. But another verse says, for on that day, He shall pardon you, etc. And another verse says, I shall visit their crime with the rod, etc. And another verse says, the iniquity of this people shall not be atoned for until you die. How is this? If somebody violates a positive commandment and repents, before he moves from there it will be forgiven to him. About this one it says, return, naughty children, etc. If one transgresses a prohibition and immediately repents, repentance suspends judgment, and the Day of Atonement pardons. About this one it says, for onthat day, He shall pardon you. If one intentionally transgressed [sins punishable by] extirpations or death penalties, repentance and the Day of Atonement atone half, and sufferings atone half. About this one it says, I shall visit their crime with the rod, and their iniquities with plagues. But by whom the Name of Heaven was desecrated, there is no power in repentance to suspend judgment, nor in the Day of Atonement to pardon, nor in sufferings to scour; but repentance and the Day of Atonement suspend, and death scours with sufferings. About this one it says, the iniquity of this people shall not be atoned for until you die. From this we learn that death scours.

Rebbi Matthew ben Ḥarash asked Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah in the Academy, did you hear the four types of Atonement which Rebbi Ismael explained? He answered him, there are three in addition to repentance. One verse says, return, naughty children, etc. But another verse says, for on that day, He shall pardon you, etc. And another verse says, I shall visit their crime with the rod, etc. And another verse says, the iniquity of this people shall not be atoned for until you die. How is this? If somebody violates a positive commandment and repents, before he moves from there it will be forgiven to him. About this one it says, return, naughty children, etc. If one transgresses a prohibition and immediately repents, repentance suspends judgment, and the Day of Atonement pardons. About this one it says, for onthat day, He shall pardon you. If one intentionally transgressed [sins punishable by] extirpations or death penalties, repentance and the Day of Atonement atone half, and sufferings atone half. About this one it says, I shall visit their crime with the rod, and their iniquities with plagues. But by whom the Name of Heaven was desecrated, there is no power in repentance to suspend judgment, nor in the Day of Atonement to pardon, nor in sufferings to scour; but repentance and the Day of Atonement suspend, and death scours with sufferings. About this one it says, the iniquity of this people shall not be atoned for until you die. From this we learn that death scours.

HALAKHAH: “If one became impure in the Temple courtyard,” etc. Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: One verse says, he defiled the dwelling place of the Eternal, another verse says, he defiled the Sanctuary of the Eternal. Why is this? To state a difference between one who became inside and one who became outside. If he became impure (inside) not unless he bring his head and most of his body inside; if he became impure (outside) not unless he stay for prostrating. If he became impure inside and entered further inside? Let us hear from the following: “If he prostrated himself, or tarried that he could have prostrated himself.” If he tarried, is that not as if he brought his head and most of his body inside, but you are saying, “he tarried that he could have prostrated himself.” And here, not unless he tarried that he could have prostrated himself. How is that? About which of them does he become liable? About the first or the last? The colleagues say, about the first. Rebbi Yose told them, one says to him, leave, and you say about the first? But we must hold about the last.

HALAKHAH: “If one became impure in the Temple courtyard,” etc. Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: One verse says, he defiled the dwelling place of the Eternal, another verse says, he defiled the Sanctuary of the Eternal. Why is this? To state a difference between one who became inside and one who became outside. If he became impure (inside) not unless he bring his head and most of his body inside; if he became impure (outside) not unless he stay for prostrating. If he became impure inside and entered further inside? Let us hear from the following: “If he prostrated himself, or tarried that he could have prostrated himself.” If he tarried, is that not as if he brought his head and most of his body inside, but you are saying, “he tarried that he could have prostrated himself.” And here, not unless he tarried that he could have prostrated himself. How is that? About which of them does he become liable? About the first or the last? The colleagues say, about the first. Rebbi Yose told them, one says to him, leave, and you say about the first? But we must hold about the last.

HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Eliezer says,” etc. Ḥizqiah says, there is disagreement between them. Rebbi Joḥanan said, interpreting the verse is between them; there are Tannaim who state, he is liable for forgetting impurity but is not liable for forgetting the Sanctuary, and there are Tannain who state, he is liable for forgetting the crawling animal but is not liable for forgetting the Sanctuary. The argument of Rebbi Eliezer seems inverted. There he says, even if he did not know. But here he says, not unless he knew. There, by which he sinned, not unless he knew by what he became liable. Here, while he was impure, in all cases. Rebbi Ḥinena said, here “by what” is not written. The argument of Rebbi Joshua seems inverted. There he says, while he was impure, not unless he knew by what he became liable. Here, by which he sinned, in any case. How does Rebbi Eliezer uphold by what? This excludes the one who is occupied.

MISHNAH: Whether matters of himself, or matters of others, or material matters, or immaterial matters. How is this? An oath that I shall give to X, or that I shall not give, that I gave, or that I did not give, that I shall sleep, or that I shall not sleep, that I slept, or that I did not sleep, that I shall throw a pebble into the sea, or that I shall not throw, that I threw, or that I did not throw. Rebbi Ismael said, he is liable only for the future, for it is said to cause evil or cause good. Rebbi Aqiba said to him, if it is so then this refers only to matters of causing evil or good; from where matters which do not refer to causing evil or good? He answered him, from the additional text of the verse. He answered, just as the additional text of the verse is for this, the additional text of the verse is for the other.

MISHNAH: Whether matters of himself, or matters of others, or material matters, or immaterial matters. How is this? An oath that I shall give to X, or that I shall not give, that I gave, or that I did not give, that I shall sleep, or that I shall not sleep, that I slept, or that I did not sleep, that I shall throw a pebble into the sea, or that I shall not throw, that I threw, or that I did not throw. Rebbi Ismael said, he is liable only for the future, for it is said to cause evil or cause good. Rebbi Aqiba said to him, if it is so then this refers only to matters of causing evil or good; from where matters which do not refer to causing evil or good? He answered him, from the additional text of the verse. He answered, just as the additional text of the verse is for this, the additional text of the verse is for the other.

MISHNAH: Whether matters of himself, or matters of others, or material matters, or immaterial matters. How is this? An oath that I shall give to X, or that I shall not give, that I gave, or that I did not give, that I shall sleep, or that I shall not sleep, that I slept, or that I did not sleep, that I shall throw a pebble into the sea, or that I shall not throw, that I threw, or that I did not throw. Rebbi Ismael said, he is liable only for the future, for it is said to cause evil or cause good. Rebbi Aqiba said to him, if it is so then this refers only to matters of causing evil or good; from where matters which do not refer to causing evil or good? He answered him, from the additional text of the verse. He answered, just as the additional text of the verse is for this, the additional text of the verse is for the other.

HALAKHAH: He wants to teach himself a pretext. “Whether matters of himself,” etc. Rebbi Abba in the name of Samuel: “An oath that X gave a mina to Y,” and it turns out that he did not give, since it was not in his power for the future, it is not in his power for the past. Rebbi Yose objected, about phylacteries there is nothing about the future but there is about the past! He told him, phylacteries came from another source. To cause evil or cause good; just as doing good is optional so doing bad is optional; this excludes anything involving a prohibition or anything involving a permission. Anything which one will blurt out, excluding a minor. A person in an oath, excluding a person not acting at his own will. And it will be forgotten by him, he will be oblivious of the oath. Or could I think that the object was forgotten by him? The verse says, in an oath and it was forgotten by him; he is liable for forgetting the oath; he is not liable for forgetting the object. Could one not add forgetting the object to forgetting the oath so that he should be liable? What is the difference between this and forgetting impurity and forgetting the Sanctuary so that he should be liable twice following Rebbi Ismael, who said forgetting impurity and forgetting the Sanctuary? There it is written it was forgotten by him, it was forgotten by him twice. Here it is written it was forgotten by him once. I could think that one who swears to the detriment of others should be liable: the verse says, to cause evil or cause good; just as doing good is optional so doing bad is optional. I shall exclude one who swears to the detriment of another that he should not be liable. For example, if one swears that he will not provide food for another. He saw him in convulsions and gave to him.

HALAKHAH: He wants to teach himself a pretext. “Whether matters of himself,” etc. Rebbi Abba in the name of Samuel: “An oath that X gave a mina to Y,” and it turns out that he did not give, since it was not in his power for the future, it is not in his power for the past. Rebbi Yose objected, about phylacteries there is nothing about the future but there is about the past! He told him, phylacteries came from another source. To cause evil or cause good; just as doing good is optional so doing bad is optional; this excludes anything involving a prohibition or anything involving a permission. Anything which one will blurt out, excluding a minor. A person in an oath, excluding a person not acting at his own will. And it will be forgotten by him, he will be oblivious of the oath. Or could I think that the object was forgotten by him? The verse says, in an oath and it was forgotten by him; he is liable for forgetting the oath; he is not liable for forgetting the object. Could one not add forgetting the object to forgetting the oath so that he should be liable? What is the difference between this and forgetting impurity and forgetting the Sanctuary so that he should be liable twice following Rebbi Ismael, who said forgetting impurity and forgetting the Sanctuary? There it is written it was forgotten by him, it was forgotten by him twice. Here it is written it was forgotten by him once. I could think that one who swears to the detriment of others should be liable: the verse says, to cause evil or cause good; just as doing good is optional so doing bad is optional. I shall exclude one who swears to the detriment of another that he should not be liable. For example, if one swears that he will not provide food for another. He saw him in convulsions and gave to him.

How does Rebbi Ismael explain the verse? Or a person, if he would swear blurting out with his lips, a general statement. To cause evil or cause good, a detail. A general statement followed by a detail; the general statement contains only what is in the detail. But the detail only contains matters of causing evil or good! But it is so: To cause evil or cause good, a detail. Anything which a person will blurt out, a general statement. A detail followed by a general statement, everything is included; this adds matters directed towards the past. But it is so: Or a person, if he would swear blurting out with his lips, a general statement. To cause evil or cause good, a detail. Anything which a person will blurt out, a general statement. A general statement followed by a detail followed by a general statement, you only argue in the pattern of the detail. Since the detail is explicit, matters of causing evil or good, from where matters not causing evil or good? “He answered him, from the additional text of the verse. He answered, just as the verse added for this, the verse added for the other.” You cannot, as Rebbi Hila said in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: So did Rebbi Ismael answer Rebbi Aqiba. Do we find cases where one is liable for intentional action because of a false oath but if in oblivion because of a blurted oath? Could he not have objected, do we find cases where one is liable for intentional action because of a false oath and he has to bring a sacrifice? He said to him, do you agree that there are cases which are not matters of causing evil or good, even if they are not written? He told him, even though I accept cases which are not matters of causing evil or good, are they only written if they be matters of causing evil or good? Therefore never for the past.

How does Rebbi Ismael explain the verse? Or a person, if he would swear blurting out with his lips, a general statement. To cause evil or cause good, a detail. A general statement followed by a detail; the general statement contains only what is in the detail. But the detail only contains matters of causing evil or good! But it is so: To cause evil or cause good, a detail. Anything which a person will blurt out, a general statement. A detail followed by a general statement, everything is included; this adds matters directed towards the past. But it is so: Or a person, if he would swear blurting out with his lips, a general statement. To cause evil or cause good, a detail. Anything which a person will blurt out, a general statement. A general statement followed by a detail followed by a general statement, you only argue in the pattern of the detail. Since the detail is explicit, matters of causing evil or good, from where matters not causing evil or good? “He answered him, from the additional text of the verse. He answered, just as the verse added for this, the verse added for the other.” You cannot, as Rebbi Hila said in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: So did Rebbi Ismael answer Rebbi Aqiba. Do we find cases where one is liable for intentional action because of a false oath but if in oblivion because of a blurted oath? Could he not have objected, do we find cases where one is liable for intentional action because of a false oath and he has to bring a sacrifice? He said to him, do you agree that there are cases which are not matters of causing evil or good, even if they are not written? He told him, even though I accept cases which are not matters of causing evil or good, are they only written if they be matters of causing evil or good? Therefore never for the past.

How does Rebbi Ismael explain the verse? Or a person, if he would swear blurting out with his lips, a general statement. To cause evil or cause good, a detail. A general statement followed by a detail; the general statement contains only what is in the detail. But the detail only contains matters of causing evil or good! But it is so: To cause evil or cause good, a detail. Anything which a person will blurt out, a general statement. A detail followed by a general statement, everything is included; this adds matters directed towards the past. But it is so: Or a person, if he would swear blurting out with his lips, a general statement. To cause evil or cause good, a detail. Anything which a person will blurt out, a general statement. A general statement followed by a detail followed by a general statement, you only argue in the pattern of the detail. Since the detail is explicit, matters of causing evil or good, from where matters not causing evil or good? “He answered him, from the additional text of the verse. He answered, just as the verse added for this, the verse added for the other.” You cannot, as Rebbi Hila said in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: So did Rebbi Ismael answer Rebbi Aqiba. Do we find cases where one is liable for intentional action because of a false oath but if in oblivion because of a blurted oath? Could he not have objected, do we find cases where one is liable for intentional action because of a false oath and he has to bring a sacrifice? He said to him, do you agree that there are cases which are not matters of causing evil or good, even if they are not written? He told him, even though I accept cases which are not matters of causing evil or good, are they only written if they be matters of causing evil or good? Therefore never for the past.

How does Rebbi Ismael explain the verse? Or a person, if he would swear blurting out with his lips, a general statement. To cause evil or cause good, a detail. A general statement followed by a detail; the general statement contains only what is in the detail. But the detail only contains matters of causing evil or good! But it is so: To cause evil or cause good, a detail. Anything which a person will blurt out, a general statement. A detail followed by a general statement, everything is included; this adds matters directed towards the past. But it is so: Or a person, if he would swear blurting out with his lips, a general statement. To cause evil or cause good, a detail. Anything which a person will blurt out, a general statement. A general statement followed by a detail followed by a general statement, you only argue in the pattern of the detail. Since the detail is explicit, matters of causing evil or good, from where matters not causing evil or good? “He answered him, from the additional text of the verse. He answered, just as the verse added for this, the verse added for the other.” You cannot, as Rebbi Hila said in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: So did Rebbi Ismael answer Rebbi Aqiba. Do we find cases where one is liable for intentional action because of a false oath but if in oblivion because of a blurted oath? Could he not have objected, do we find cases where one is liable for intentional action because of a false oath and he has to bring a sacrifice? He said to him, do you agree that there are cases which are not matters of causing evil or good, even if they are not written? He told him, even though I accept cases which are not matters of causing evil or good, are they only written if they be matters of causing evil or good? Therefore never for the past.

HALAKHAH: “An oath about testimony,” etc. Rams, the minimum of rams are two. Why does the verse say two? That they be equal.

Sheep, the minimum of sheep are two. Then why does the verse say two? That both be equal.

The minimum of birds are two. Then why does the verse say two? that both be equal.

The minimum of trumpets are two. Then why does the verse say two? that both be equal.

Rebbi Ḥaggai objected to Rebbi Yose. Is there not written: The two men shall stand? Now, is not two the minimum of “men”? Why does the verse say two? That both be equal? But it is written: Do not bend the lawsuit of the proselyte, the orphan, … That means that a proselyte can have a lawsuit against one who is not a proselyte, an orphan may have a lawsuit against one who is not an orphan, a widow against a married woman. Then why is there written two? It is free to be combined and to infer from it an equal cut. It is said here two and it is said there two men were left. Since there one speaks of men but not women nor underaged, also here men but not women nor underaged. From this we learn that a woman may not be a judge; consequently a woman may not be a witness.

Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun, Rebbi Huna in the name of Rebbi Yose. It is said here two and it is said there by the mouth of two witnesses. Since there it must be by the testimony of two witnesses, also here by the testimony of two witnesses. Then why does the verse say two? Lest one of them be standing while the other be sitting; one says everything he has to say, but to the other one says, make your statement short. With one he puts up, to the other he is unfriendly.

It is written: Fathers shall not be killed because of sons. Is it not already written, each one should be killed for his own crime? Why does the verse say, fathers shall not be killed because of sons? Fathers shall not be killed on the testimony of sons, and sons shall not be killed on testimony of fathers. From here that witnesses shall not be relatives of the accused.

“Before the court.” To exclude a single witness. If they told him that they would accept his word as if there were two witnesses, from where? The verse says, if he was a witness, had seen or known; if he does not tell he shall bear his punishment. One who is qualified to testify according to biblical standards; this excludes a single witness who is not qualified to testify.

From where two witnesses? And he is a witness, this makes two. Following Rebbi Ismael, who said, any place where the Torah mentions a witness without further determination it implies two witnesses; unless the verse informs you that a single witness is meant. It was found stated in the name of Rebbi Ismael: “Two witnesses.” Can a single witness be found guilty of a blurted oath? Since it is possible to say that one person could team up with him, then he would be subject to the oath of testimony, you could find him liable for an oath of testimony. How could you find him guilty of a blurted oath?

Rebbi Jeremiah asked: If he made him swear five times in his own words and let him swear five times by the mouth of others, what? Since Rebbi Meїr considered “in his own words” as if in court, would they determine the sacrifice on the first occasion, even without request? It should come like the following: “Why do you go after us? An oath that we do not know any testimony relevant for you. Should they be liable? The verse says, and he heard the voice of an imprecation. Only one who hears an imprecation. This excludes those who did not hear a voice.” Would he be liable from his own mouth for real estate? From his own mouth would he be liable for fines? From his own mouth would he be liable for a variable value sacrifice?

HALAKHAH: “I am putting an oath on you,” etc. It was stated: Rebbi Yose the Galilean says, why does the verse say, and he is a witness, or saw, or knew, etc.? I said this only for testimony which may be accepted about knowing without seeing, or seeing without knowing. How is knowing without seeing in monetary claims? “Give me my 200 zuz which you are holding.” “I do not have anything of yours.” “But did you not confess before X and Y”? “They should testify and I shall pay.” This refers to knowing without seeing. They came and said, whether he confessed to him or whether he robbed him, we do not know. Whether he gave him a loan we do not know. How is seeing without knowing in monetary claims? “Give me my 200 zuz which you are holding.” “I do not have anything of yours.” “But did I not count them for you in a meeting with X and Y”? “They should testify and I shall pay.” This refers to seeing without knowing. They came and said, whether he counted for him or whether he robbed him, we do not know. Whether he took a loan from him, we do not know. “Give me the fine for my daughter which you owe me.” But he says, “I never in my life was found liable for a fine.” Witnesses testify that he was found liable for a fine, but we do not know whether the fine was for his daughter or the fine for another woman. “You raped or you seduced my daughter.” But he says, “I never in my life did rape or seduce a woman.” Witnesses testify that he raped a woman, but we do not know whether it was his daughter or another woman. “You killed my ox and cut down my orchard.” But he says, “I do not know.” He is liable. “You told me to kill and cut down,” one follows the majority of orchards. What means, one follows the majority of orchards? Rebbi Ḥaggai said, if his ox was goring, he would have told him; if the orchard was barren, he would have told him. Rebbi Yudan said, in matters of monetary claims, since he may tell him, you told me to kill and cut down, even if he told him “I did not kill, I did not cut down,” he is not liable.

HALAKHAH: “If he sent through his slave,” etc. Rebbi Eleazar said, why does the verse say, if he does not tell, he has to carry his iniquity? Not, from the mouth of the claimant. Our Mishnah needs what Rebbi Eleazar said, and what Rebbi Eleazar said needs our Mishnah. If we had stated but Rebbi Eleazar had not stated, we would have said that they are liable if they had heard from the claimant but had sworn to the defendant. Therefore what Rebbi Eleazar said is necessary. If Rebbi Eleazar had stated but we had not stated, we would have instructed that they are liable if they heard it from the defendant but had sworn to the claimant. Therefore one needs our Mishnah and needs what Rebbi Eleazar said, only if they heard from the claimant and swore to the claimant.

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.

HALAKHAH: “You raped or seduced my daughter,” etc. Rebbi Ze`ira, Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The words of Rebbi Simeon [imply that] the main claim is for the fine, which is not so for the words of the Sages. Rebbi Illa said, the words of Rebbi Simeon if he claims the fine, shame and diminution; the words of the Sages if he claims shame, diminution, and fine. The rabbis say, the words of Rebbi Simeon if he advances three claims; the words of the Sages if he advances one claim. Rebbi Ze`ira asked before Rebbi Yasa, did you hear explicitly from Rebbi Joḥanan, or from his word? Rebbi Yasa said, for he is of the rabbis’ opinion. Rebbi Mana said, even if he is of Rebbi Illa’s opinion, the words of Rebbi Simeon if he advances one claim; the words of the Sages if he advances three claims. “Not only matters for which he has to pay the capital, from where double payment, quadruple and quintuple payment, the rapist, and the seducer, and the calumniator? The verse says, everything about which one would swear falsely.” Is the calumniator’s not a fine? Rebbi Jeremiah says, this is Rebbi Simeon’s who said, all depends on the collection.

HALAKHAH: “A judicial oath,” etc. The claim, the House of Shammai say, an obolos, but the House of Hillel say, two oboloi. The argument of the House of Shammai seems inverted. There, they say, “silver” is a denar, but here, they say that “silver” is an obolos. The argument of the House of Hillel seems inverted. There, they say that “money” is a peruṭah but here, they say that “money” is two oboloi. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: The House of Shammai learn from the initial sale of a Hebrew girl. Since her initial sale was by [at least] a denar, so her preliminary marriage is by [at least] a denar. The House of Hillel learn from the end of her diminution. Since the end of her diminution is a peruṭah, so her preliminary marriage is by a peruṭah. What is the reason of the House of Shammai? As it is said, she leaves gratis, without silver. Would we not know that it is without money? Why does the verse say, without silver? From there, that she is sold for more than silver. And what is more than silver? A denar. But maybe “silver” is a peruṭah, more than silver two peruṭot. The smallest silver coin is an obolos. So why is it not an obolos? Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Judah bar Pazi: For if she wants to diminish, she diminishes every year by an obolos and leaves. Could she not diminish by a peruṭah? Rebbi Abun said, think of it. If she wanted to compute the diminution at the start of the sixth year, there would be a peruṭah left. But the start of the diminution must be an obolos, the end of the diminution a peruṭah. If there is only one peruṭah left, can she not pay the diminished amount and leave? Just as the last diminished amount is a peruṭah, so her preliminary marriage should be a peruṭah! What is the reason of the House of Hillel? Since her last diminished amount is a peruṭah, you know that her preliminary marriage is by a peruṭah. Think of it, if there is only one peruṭah’s worth left, can she not pay the diminished amount and leave? Just as the last diminished amount is a peruṭah, so her preliminary marriage is by a peruṭah.

HALAKHAH: “One does not swear on the claim of a deaf-and-dumb person, an insane person, or a minor,” etc. It is written: If a man give to his neighbor, to exclude the minor. So far if a minor gave to him and the minor requested from him. If he gave it as a minor and requested it as an adult? The verse says, his neighbor; only if giving and requesting are equal. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, is that not obvious by what Rebbi Joḥanan said, one who claims a claim of theft in respect of his neighbor’s lost object is liable? “Where is my lost object?” He told him, it was stolen. Rebbi Abba said, explain it if he told him, you already asked me when you were underage and I was freed from swearing for you. An oath of the Eternal shall be between both of them, to exclude the heir. Rebbi Illa in the name of Rebbi Yasa: The baraita is about the heir.

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.

How does Rebbi Yose uphold this verse, bring your sacrifices in the morning, etc? The verse speaks about Jeroboam’s kingdom. When Jeroboam became king over Israel he started seducing Israel and said to them come, let us worship pagan worship. Pagan worship is lenient. This is what is written, let us go against Jehudah, cut it down, break it up, and appoint a king in it, the man from Ṭabeal. Rebbi Abba said, we checked all of Scripture but did not find a place named Ṭabeal. But it treats its worshippers well. The Torah said, selected him from all of the tribes of Israel to be a priest for Me. Pagan worship says, he made priests from the fringes of the people. Rebbi La said, from the thorns of the people, the rubbish of the people. The Torah said, the fat of My sacrifice shall not remain until the morning; but pagan worship said, bring your sacrifices in the morning. The Torah said, it should be eaten on the day of its slaughter and the next day; but pagan worship said, on the third day your tithes. The Torah said, do not sacrifice the blood of My sacrifice on leavened matter; but pagan worship said, and burn your thanksgiving offer of leavened matter. The Torah said, if you are vowing a vow to the Eternal, your God, do not tarry to fulfill it, but pagan worship said, pledge gifts, publicize them. Rebbi Yudan, Rebbi Mattaniah’s father, said, the verse only serves to mention the shame of Israel. The day of our king, the princes are sick from wine’s heat, he draws the mockers by his hand. On the day when Jeroboam became king over Israel, all of Israel came to him late in the evening and told him, come and worship pagan worship. He told them, it is late in the evening; I am drunk and not drunk. Everybody is drinking; but if you wish, go and come in the morning. That is what is written, for their heart is like an oven while they are lying in ambush; all night long their baker is sleeping. All night long their baker did not sleep. In the morning he is burning like fire of a conflagration. In the morning they came to him. He told them, I do understand what you want but I am afraid of your Synhedrion lest they kill me. They told him, we shall kill them; this is what is written, that all are glowing like an oven and eat their judges. Rebbi Levi said, they killed them, as is written, if a corpse is found. Rebbi La said, they deposed them; The day of our king, the princes are profaned from wine’s heat; the day when princes were profaned. From wine’s heat, they were addicted to wine. He draws the mockers by his hand: When he saw a serious person he placed two scoffers next to him who asked him, which generation was preferred over all generations? He told them, the generation of the Exodus. But did they not practice pagan worship? He answered them, because they were beloved they were not punished. But they told him, be quiet for the king wants to do the same. Not only that, but they made one and this one made two. He put the one up at Bethel; the other he gave to Dan.

How does Rebbi Yose uphold this verse, bring your sacrifices in the morning, etc? The verse speaks about Jeroboam’s kingdom. When Jeroboam became king over Israel he started seducing Israel and said to them come, let us worship pagan worship. Pagan worship is lenient. This is what is written, let us go against Jehudah, cut it down, break it up, and appoint a king in it, the man from Ṭabeal. Rebbi Abba said, we checked all of Scripture but did not find a place named Ṭabeal. But it treats its worshippers well. The Torah said, selected him from all of the tribes of Israel to be a priest for Me. Pagan worship says, he made priests from the fringes of the people. Rebbi La said, from the thorns of the people, the rubbish of the people. The Torah said, the fat of My sacrifice shall not remain until the morning; but pagan worship said, bring your sacrifices in the morning. The Torah said, it should be eaten on the day of its slaughter and the next day; but pagan worship said, on the third day your tithes. The Torah said, do not sacrifice the blood of My sacrifice on leavened matter; but pagan worship said, and burn your thanksgiving offer of leavened matter. The Torah said, if you are vowing a vow to the Eternal, your God, do not tarry to fulfill it, but pagan worship said, pledge gifts, publicize them. Rebbi Yudan, Rebbi Mattaniah’s father, said, the verse only serves to mention the shame of Israel. The day of our king, the princes are sick from wine’s heat, he draws the mockers by his hand. On the day when Jeroboam became king over Israel, all of Israel came to him late in the evening and told him, come and worship pagan worship. He told them, it is late in the evening; I am drunk and not drunk. Everybody is drinking; but if you wish, go and come in the morning. That is what is written, for their heart is like an oven while they are lying in ambush; all night long their baker is sleeping. All night long their baker did not sleep. In the morning he is burning like fire of a conflagration. In the morning they came to him. He told them, I do understand what you want but I am afraid of your Synhedrion lest they kill me. They told him, we shall kill them; this is what is written, that all are glowing like an oven and eat their judges. Rebbi Levi said, they killed them, as is written, if a corpse is found. Rebbi La said, they deposed them; The day of our king, the princes are profaned from wine’s heat; the day when princes were profaned. From wine’s heat, they were addicted to wine. He draws the mockers by his hand: When he saw a serious person he placed two scoffers next to him who asked him, which generation was preferred over all generations? He told them, the generation of the Exodus. But did they not practice pagan worship? He answered them, because they were beloved they were not punished. But they told him, be quiet for the king wants to do the same. Not only that, but they made one and this one made two. He put the one up at Bethel; the other he gave to Dan.

How does Rebbi Yose uphold this verse, bring your sacrifices in the morning, etc? The verse speaks about Jeroboam’s kingdom. When Jeroboam became king over Israel he started seducing Israel and said to them come, let us worship pagan worship. Pagan worship is lenient. This is what is written, let us go against Jehudah, cut it down, break it up, and appoint a king in it, the man from Ṭabeal. Rebbi Abba said, we checked all of Scripture but did not find a place named Ṭabeal. But it treats its worshippers well. The Torah said, selected him from all of the tribes of Israel to be a priest for Me. Pagan worship says, he made priests from the fringes of the people. Rebbi La said, from the thorns of the people, the rubbish of the people. The Torah said, the fat of My sacrifice shall not remain until the morning; but pagan worship said, bring your sacrifices in the morning. The Torah said, it should be eaten on the day of its slaughter and the next day; but pagan worship said, on the third day your tithes. The Torah said, do not sacrifice the blood of My sacrifice on leavened matter; but pagan worship said, and burn your thanksgiving offer of leavened matter. The Torah said, if you are vowing a vow to the Eternal, your God, do not tarry to fulfill it, but pagan worship said, pledge gifts, publicize them. Rebbi Yudan, Rebbi Mattaniah’s father, said, the verse only serves to mention the shame of Israel. The day of our king, the princes are sick from wine’s heat, he draws the mockers by his hand. On the day when Jeroboam became king over Israel, all of Israel came to him late in the evening and told him, come and worship pagan worship. He told them, it is late in the evening; I am drunk and not drunk. Everybody is drinking; but if you wish, go and come in the morning. That is what is written, for their heart is like an oven while they are lying in ambush; all night long their baker is sleeping. All night long their baker did not sleep. In the morning he is burning like fire of a conflagration. In the morning they came to him. He told them, I do understand what you want but I am afraid of your Synhedrion lest they kill me. They told him, we shall kill them; this is what is written, that all are glowing like an oven and eat their judges. Rebbi Levi said, they killed them, as is written, if a corpse is found. Rebbi La said, they deposed them; The day of our king, the princes are profaned from wine’s heat; the day when princes were profaned. From wine’s heat, they were addicted to wine. He draws the mockers by his hand: When he saw a serious person he placed two scoffers next to him who asked him, which generation was preferred over all generations? He told them, the generation of the Exodus. But did they not practice pagan worship? He answered them, because they were beloved they were not punished. But they told him, be quiet for the king wants to do the same. Not only that, but they made one and this one made two. He put the one up at Bethel; the other he gave to Dan.

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

If it had a defect. The verse says that they sacrifice defectives in pagan worship. If you present a blind one to be sacrificed, is there nothing bad? This says that they sacrifice defectives in pagan worship.

MISHNAH: Rebbi Jehudah said, Rebbi Ismael asked Rebbi Joshua when they were walking on a road, why did they forbid Gentiles’ cheeses? He told him, because they make them with stomach of cadaver. He answered him, is not the stomach of an elevation offering more serious than the stomach of a cadaver and they said, a Cohen who is not repulsed may burn it raw; they did not agree to this but said one has no usufruct but does not commit larceny. He gave a second argument and said, because they curd it with stomach content of calves for pagan worship. He retorted, then why did they not forbid it for usufruct? He deflected him to an other subject and said to him, my brother Ismael, how do you read, for your (m.) friends are better than wine, or for your (f.) friends are better than wine? He told him, for your (f.) friendship is better. He answered, it is not so since the next verse implies it, by the scent of your (m.) good oils.

One verse says, they abandoned their idols; David and his men carried them away. But another verse says, David gave orders and they were burned in the.fire. Rebbi Yose [ben Rebbi] Ḥalafta and the rabbis. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥalafta says, what was of metal, David and his men carried them away. And what was of wood, David gave orders and they were burned in the fire. But the rabbis say, what Itai from Gat annulled, David and his men carried them away. And what he did not annul, David gave orders and they were burned in fire. How does Rebbi Yose [ben Rebbi] Ḥalafta confirm David and his men carried them away? They took them by their rims.

One verse says, they abandoned their idols; David and his men carried them away. But another verse says, David gave orders and they were burned in the.fire. Rebbi Yose [ben Rebbi] Ḥalafta and the rabbis. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥalafta says, what was of metal, David and his men carried them away. And what was of wood, David gave orders and they were burned in the fire. But the rabbis say, what Itai from Gat annulled, David and his men carried them away. And what he did not annul, David gave orders and they were burned in fire. How does Rebbi Yose [ben Rebbi] Ḥalafta confirm David and his men carried them away? They took them by their rims.

HALAKHAH: “If Gentiles worship mountains,” etc. Rebbi Zeˋira, Rebbi Yasa, Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: One verse says, do not covet silver or gold on them and take for yourself. And one verse says, silver and gold which is with them. If on them why with them, and if with them why on them? Since on them refers to something which is particular for them and an adornment for them, also with them refers to something which is particular for them and an adornment for them.

HALAKHAH: “If Gentiles worship mountains,” etc. Rebbi Zeˋira, Rebbi Yasa, Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: One verse says, do not covet silver or gold on them and take for yourself. And one verse says, silver and gold which is with them. If on them why with them, and if with them why on them? Since on them refers to something which is particular for them and an adornment for them, also with them refers to something which is particular for them and an adornment for them.

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

What is a Mercurius? Any which borders the ocean or roads. The practice of Mercurius is by throwing. What if he bowed down before it? Rebbi Yose said, essentially is is called Mercurius only for bowing down, a maskit stone you shall not put up in your land to bow down on it. I could think that one may not put two stones next to one another and put his box down on them, the verse says to bow down on it, you do not bow down on it but you put your box down on it; you do not bow down on it but you bow down on the stones of the Temple.

An ox which was stoned. From the meaning of what was said, the ox shall be stoned would I not know that it cannot be eaten? Why does the verse say, it shall not be eaten? From here that it is forbidden for usufruct.

It was stated: “For thirty days he will not come.” What means “for thirty days he will not come”? Samuel said, if somebody gives a loan to a person without specifying details, he has no right to ask for payment until after 30 days. Rebbi Jehudah came and explained: The Sabbatical year, the remitting year, is close. Is not the Sabbatical year the remitting year? Why does the verse say, the Sabbatical year, the remitting year, is close? Lest you say, I am not permitted to ask for payment until after 30 days; after 30 days the debt will be remitted and I will not collect. Therefore, it must say, the Sabbatical year, the remitting year, is close. Did not Rebbi Abba bar Mamal, Rav Amram, Rav Mattanah say in the name of Rav: If somebody makes a loan to another person stipulating that he will not press for repayment, the Sabbatical will remit it? It was found stated by Rebbi Ismael: The Sabbatical year, the remitting year, is close. Is not the Sabbatical year the remitting year? Why does the verse say, the Sabbatical year, the remitting year, is close? Lest you say, the entire six years his vineyard is available, his field is available but after six years the debt is remitted and I cannot collect. Therefore, it must say, the Sabbatical year, the remitting year, is close.

It was stated: “For thirty days he will not come.” What means “for thirty days he will not come”? Samuel said, if somebody gives a loan to a person without specifying details, he has no right to ask for payment until after 30 days. Rebbi Jehudah came and explained: The Sabbatical year, the remitting year, is close. Is not the Sabbatical year the remitting year? Why does the verse say, the Sabbatical year, the remitting year, is close? Lest you say, I am not permitted to ask for payment until after 30 days; after 30 days the debt will be remitted and I will not collect. Therefore, it must say, the Sabbatical year, the remitting year, is close. Did not Rebbi Abba bar Mamal, Rav Amram, Rav Mattanah say in the name of Rav: If somebody makes a loan to another person stipulating that he will not press for repayment, the Sabbatical will remit it? It was found stated by Rebbi Ismael: The Sabbatical year, the remitting year, is close. Is not the Sabbatical year the remitting year? Why does the verse say, the Sabbatical year, the remitting year, is close? Lest you say, the entire six years his vineyard is available, his field is available but after six years the debt is remitted and I cannot collect. Therefore, it must say, the Sabbatical year, the remitting year, is close.

MISHNAH: Plotting witnesses cannot be executed unless judgment was rendered, for the Sadducees say, unless he was executed, for it says, a life for a life. The Sages told them, was it not already said, do to him as he plotted to do to his brother, does this not imply that his brother is alive? Then why does it say, a life for a life? I could think that they would be executed once they had testified, but the verse says, a life for a life; i. e., they cannot be executed unless judgment was passed.

MISHNAH: By the words of two witnesses or three witnesses shall a death sentence be imposed. If testimony is confirmed by two, why did the verse mention three? Only to compare three to two. Since three may prove that two are plotters, two also may prove that three are plotters. And from where even a hundred? The verse says “witnesses”. Rebbi Simeon says, since two are executed only if both are plotters, so three are executed only if all three are plotters. And from where even a hundred? The verse says “witnesses”. Rebbi Aqiba says, the third is only mentioned to punish him harshly and to identify his judgment with that of the others. If the verse in this way punished the accessory of criminals like criminals, so much more it will reward the accessory to one who keeps the commandments as one who keeps the commandments. Since the testimony of two [witnesses] is invalid if one of them is found to be a relative or a disqualified person, the same holds for three if one of them is found to be a relative or a disqualified person. From where even for a hundred? The verse says, witnesses. Rebbi Yose said, when has this been said? In criminal trials, but in civil trials the testimony should be upheld by the remaining [witnesses]. Rebbi says, both in criminal and in civil trials, if they warned them. But if they did not warn them, what should two brothers do who were eye-witnesses to a murder?

MISHNAH: By the words of two witnesses or three witnesses shall a death sentence be imposed. If testimony is confirmed by two, why did the verse mention three? Only to compare three to two. Since three may prove that two are plotters, two also may prove that three are plotters. And from where even a hundred? The verse says “witnesses”. Rebbi Simeon says, since two are executed only if both are plotters, so three are executed only if all three are plotters. And from where even a hundred? The verse says “witnesses”. Rebbi Aqiba says, the third is only mentioned to punish him harshly and to identify his judgment with that of the others. If the verse in this way punished the accessory of criminals like criminals, so much more it will reward the accessory to one who keeps the commandments as one who keeps the commandments. Since the testimony of two [witnesses] is invalid if one of them is found to be a relative or a disqualified person, the same holds for three if one of them is found to be a relative or a disqualified person. From where even for a hundred? The verse says, witnesses. Rebbi Yose said, when has this been said? In criminal trials, but in civil trials the testimony should be upheld by the remaining [witnesses]. Rebbi says, both in criminal and in civil trials, if they warned them. But if they did not warn them, what should two brothers do who were eye-witnesses to a murder?

MISHNAH: By the words of two witnesses or three witnesses shall a death sentence be imposed. If testimony is confirmed by two, why did the verse mention three? Only to compare three to two. Since three may prove that two are plotters, two also may prove that three are plotters. And from where even a hundred? The verse says “witnesses”. Rebbi Simeon says, since two are executed only if both are plotters, so three are executed only if all three are plotters. And from where even a hundred? The verse says “witnesses”. Rebbi Aqiba says, the third is only mentioned to punish him harshly and to identify his judgment with that of the others. If the verse in this way punished the accessory of criminals like criminals, so much more it will reward the accessory to one who keeps the commandments as one who keeps the commandments. Since the testimony of two [witnesses] is invalid if one of them is found to be a relative or a disqualified person, the same holds for three if one of them is found to be a relative or a disqualified person. From where even for a hundred? The verse says, witnesses. Rebbi Yose said, when has this been said? In criminal trials, but in civil trials the testimony should be upheld by the remaining [witnesses]. Rebbi says, both in criminal and in civil trials, if they warned them. But if they did not warn them, what should two brothers do who were eye-witnesses to a murder?

MISHNAH: By the words of two witnesses or three witnesses shall a death sentence be imposed. If testimony is confirmed by two, why did the verse mention three? Only to compare three to two. Since three may prove that two are plotters, two also may prove that three are plotters. And from where even a hundred? The verse says “witnesses”. Rebbi Simeon says, since two are executed only if both are plotters, so three are executed only if all three are plotters. And from where even a hundred? The verse says “witnesses”. Rebbi Aqiba says, the third is only mentioned to punish him harshly and to identify his judgment with that of the others. If the verse in this way punished the accessory of criminals like criminals, so much more it will reward the accessory to one who keeps the commandments as one who keeps the commandments. Since the testimony of two [witnesses] is invalid if one of them is found to be a relative or a disqualified person, the same holds for three if one of them is found to be a relative or a disqualified person. From where even for a hundred? The verse says, witnesses. Rebbi Yose said, when has this been said? In criminal trials, but in civil trials the testimony should be upheld by the remaining [witnesses]. Rebbi says, both in criminal and in civil trials, if they warned them. But if they did not warn them, what should two brothers do who were eye-witnesses to a murder?

MISHNAH: By the words of two witnesses or three witnesses shall a death sentence be imposed. If testimony is confirmed by two, why did the verse mention three? Only to compare three to two. Since three may prove that two are plotters, two also may prove that three are plotters. And from where even a hundred? The verse says “witnesses”. Rebbi Simeon says, since two are executed only if both are plotters, so three are executed only if all three are plotters. And from where even a hundred? The verse says “witnesses”. Rebbi Aqiba says, the third is only mentioned to punish him harshly and to identify his judgment with that of the others. If the verse in this way punished the accessory of criminals like criminals, so much more it will reward the accessory to one who keeps the commandments as one who keeps the commandments. Since the testimony of two [witnesses] is invalid if one of them is found to be a relative or a disqualified person, the same holds for three if one of them is found to be a relative or a disqualified person. From where even for a hundred? The verse says, witnesses. Rebbi Yose said, when has this been said? In criminal trials, but in civil trials the testimony should be upheld by the remaining [witnesses]. Rebbi says, both in criminal and in civil trials, if they warned them. But if they did not warn them, what should two brothers do who were eye-witnesses to a murder?

HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Yose said, when has this been said?” It should have been said for civil trials and would not have been needed for criminal trials. If it had been said for civil trials, not for criminal trials, I would have said that in the relaxed standards of civil trials three [witnesses] may prove two [witnesses] to be plotting but two may not prove three to be plotting. From where even a hundred? The verse says, witnesses. Or if it had been said for criminal trials, not for civil trials, I would have said that according to the stringent standards of criminal trials two [witnesses] may prove three [witnesses] to be plotting; three may not prove two to be plotting. From where even a hundred? The verse says, witnesses.

HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Yose said, when has this been said?” It should have been said for civil trials and would not have been needed for criminal trials. If it had been said for civil trials, not for criminal trials, I would have said that in the relaxed standards of civil trials three [witnesses] may prove two [witnesses] to be plotting but two may not prove three to be plotting. From where even a hundred? The verse says, witnesses. Or if it had been said for criminal trials, not for civil trials, I would have said that according to the stringent standards of criminal trials two [witnesses] may prove three [witnesses] to be plotting; three may not prove two to be plotting. From where even a hundred? The verse says, witnesses.

HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah says,” etc. Rebbi Hoshaia stated: The following verse is said about two groups of witnesses. If an oppressive witness arises against a man, a plotting witness who answers to a man. Answering him, not his testimony. Do plotting witnesses have to be warned? Rebbi Isaac bar Tevlai in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Plotting witnesses do not have to accept warning. Rebbi Abbahu said, we do not take notice of this. Rebbi Jacob bar Dassai said, and there are very cunning people who even if they see their comrades being led out to be killed do not say anything.

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

HALAKHAH: “Criminal courts apply in the Land,” etc. “Criminal courts apply in the Land and outside the Land, as it is written: This shall be for you a law statute for your generations, in all your dwellings. And why does the verse say, judges and marshals you shall appoint for yourself in all your gates, in the towns of the Land of Israel. Only that in the Land of Israel one installs judges in every town and outside the Land one appoints them by circuits.” It was stated: “Rebbi Dositheos ben Rebbi Yannai says, there is an obligation for every tribe to judge his own tribe, as it is written: Judges and marshals you shall appoint for yourself in all your gates which the Eternal, your God, gives you for your tribes.”

HALAKHAH: “The father is exiled for the son,” etc. Rebbi Zeˋira said that Rebbi Shila bar Binah stated: Even though it be written, the redeemer of the blood himself shall kill the murderer, nevertheless if somebody smote his son, his second son does not become the redeemer of the blood to kill his father. But if a brother smote his brother, the second brother becomes the redeemer of the blood to kill his brother. Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob stated: Even though it be written, the redeemer of the blood himself shall kill the murderer, nevertheless if somebody smote his son, his second son becomes the redeemer of the blood to kill his father. But if a brother smote his brother, the second brother does not become the redeemer of the blood to kill his brother. And from where even if he said, I cannot face him, the verse says, when he comes upon him he shall kill him.

“And the blind person.” Rebbi Abba said, who stated “the blind person”? Rebbi Jehudah, for Rebbi Jehudah frees him from all obligations of the Torah, as we have stated there: “Rebbi Jehudah said, anyone who never saw light in his life may not cover the Shemaˋ.” Therefore, if he saw once he may cover. And both of them explained the same verse, without seeing. Rebbi Meïr says, to include the blind person. Rebbi Jehudah says, excluding the blind person. The argument of Rebbi Meïr seems inverted. There he says, excluding, but here he says, to include. Rebbi Ḥanina the son of Rebbi Hillel said, the Mishnah is about one sitting in a dark house. So we are saying, “one sitting in a dark house may not cover the Shemaˋ.” But here, without seeing, to include the blind person. How do the rabbis read without seeing? To include one who smites in the night.

“If any of them collapsed, one rebuilds it from the same tribe. And from where also from other tribes? The verse says, six. That they should be parallel and receiving like the earlier ones.”

MISHNAH: How does one flog him? One binds both his hands on both sides of a pillar. The beadle grabs his clothing. If it tore, it tore; if it unravelled, it unravelled, until he uncovers his heart. A stone is put behind him on which the beadle stands with a strip of calf’s leather in his hand, folded one into two and two into four, and two strips go up and down in it. The handle is one hand-breadth long; its width is one hand-breadth, and it reaches to his belly. He flogs him one third on his front and two thirds on his back. He flogs him neither standing nor sitting but bending down as it is written, the judge shall make him fall and flog him on his front etc. The person who flogs, flogs with one hand with full force. The reader reads if you will not observe to fulfill all the words of this Torah etc.; the Eternal will your flogging exemplary, etc. and returns to the beginning of the verse. If he died under his hand, he is not liable. If he added a single strip and he died, he is exiled because of him. If he dirtied himself whether by feces or by urine, he is no longer liable. Rebbi Jehudah says, a man by feces, a woman by urine.

In the opinion of Rebbi Ismael, who does not refer this verse to those obligated for purification sacrifices and certain reparation sacrifices for whom the Day of Atonement had passed, it is understandable. But what is the opinion of Rebbi Aqiba, who refers this verse to those obligated for purification sacrifices and certain reparation sacrifices for whom the Day of Atonement had passed, as we have stated: From where that those obligated for purification sacrifices and certain reparation sacrifices for whom the Day of Atonement had passed, are obligated to bring them after the Day of Atonement, but those obligated for suspended reparation offerings are no longer liable? The verse says, or his transgression in which he sinned was made known to him; he has to bring, even after the Day of Atonement. From the following: A person who would transgress; one would transgress; acting he would transgress; these are restrictions: the person depending on himself is liable, {but one dependent} on the Court is not liable.

In the opinion of Rebbi Ismael, who does not refer this verse to those obligated for purification sacrifices and certain reparation sacrifices for whom the Day of Atonement had passed, it is understandable. But what is the opinion of Rebbi Aqiba, who refers this verse to those obligated for purification sacrifices and certain reparation sacrifices for whom the Day of Atonement had passed, as we have stated: From where that those obligated for purification sacrifices and certain reparation sacrifices for whom the Day of Atonement had passed, are obligated to bring them after the Day of Atonement, but those obligated for suspended reparation offerings are no longer liable? The verse says, or his transgression in which he sinned was made known to him; he has to bring, even after the Day of Atonement. From the following: A person who would transgress; one would transgress; acting he would transgress; these are restrictions: the person depending on himself is liable, {but one dependent} on the Court is not liable.

In the opinion of Rebbi Ismael, who does not refer this verse to those obligated for purification sacrifices and certain reparation sacrifices for whom the Day of Atonement had passed, it is understandable. But what is the opinion of Rebbi Aqiba, who refers this verse to those obligated for purification sacrifices and certain reparation sacrifices for whom the Day of Atonement had passed, as we have stated: From where that those obligated for purification sacrifices and certain reparation sacrifices for whom the Day of Atonement had passed, are obligated to bring them after the Day of Atonement, but those obligated for suspended reparation offerings are no longer liable? The verse says, or his transgression in which he sinned was made known to him; he has to bring, even after the Day of Atonement. From the following: A person who would transgress; one would transgress; acting he would transgress; these are restrictions: the person depending on himself is liable, {but one dependent} on the Court is not liable.

“And a single person went and acted inadvertently following their pronouncement.” Is there an intentional inadvertent action concerning an instruction by the Court? Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Our Mishnah, for example, if Simeon ben Azzai was sitting before them. Where do we hold? If he knows the entire Torah but does not know this detail, he is not Simeon ben Azzai. If he knows this particular subject but not the entire Torah, he is Simeon ben Azzai for this particular subject. But we must hold that he knows the entire Torah and knows the particular subject, but he errs to believe that the Torah said, after them, after them. If he errs to believe that the Torah said, after them, after them, he is not Simeon ben Azzai. As we have stated, I could think that if they tell you about right that it is left, and about left that it is right, you should listen to them? The verse says, “to go to the right or to the left;” that they should tell you about the right that it is right, and about the left that it is left. What about it? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Hila: Because everywhere for an inadvertent sin one is not liable but for an intentional one is liable, and here even intentionally he is not liable.

Samuel spoke about the Mishnah: “I still am saying, if a minority acted they are liable because the Court will not bring a bull for them. The verse says, [from] the people of the Land. Even [all of them] (part of them), even most of them.” Rebbi Joḥanan explains the Mishnah: I still am saying, if a minority acted without ruling they are liable because with instruction the Court will not bring a bull. Samuel said, but they bring a female sheep or goat. Rebbi Joḥanan said, they do not bring a female sheep or goat. According to Samuel, who infers liability from liability, it is understandable. According to Rebbi Joḥanan, who infers liability from exemption? The statement of a baraita disagrees with Samuel. Or his transgression in which he sinned was made known to him; this excludes the apostate. A baraita disagrees with Samuel, “A person who would transgress; one would transgress; acting he would transgress; these are restrictions: the person depending on himself is liable, but one dependent on the Court is not liable.” This disagrees with Samuel and cannot be confirmed.