y

Y6obal (Jubal) and Tébalkin (Tubal-Cain), the two brethren, the sons of Lamech, the blind man, who killed Cain, invented and made all kinds of instruments of music. Jébal made reed instruments, and harps, and flutes, and whistles, and the devils went and dwelt inside them. When men blew into the pipes, the devils sang inside them, and sent out sounds from inside them. Tébalkin made cymbals, and sistra, and tambourines (or drums). And lasciviousness and fornication increased among the children of Cain, and they had nothing to occupy them except fornication—now they had no obligation [to pay] tribute, and they had neither prince nor governor—and eating, and drinking, and lasciviousness, and drunkenness, and dancing and singing to instruments of music, and the wanton sportings of the devils, and the laughter which affordeth pleasure to the devils, and the sounds of the furious lust of men neighing after women. And Satan, finding [his] opportunity in this work of error, rejoiced greatly, because thereby he could compel the sons of Seth to come down from that holy mountain. There they had been made to occupy the place of that army [of angels] that fell [with Satan], there they were beloved by God, there they were held in honour by the angels, and were called ‘‘ sons of God,” even as the blessed David saith in the psalm, “I have said, Ye are gods, and all of you sons of the Most High.” (Ps. Ixxxii. 6.)

And when the children of Seth heard the noise, and uproar, and shouts of laughter in the camp of the children of Cain, about one hundred of them who were mighty men of war gathered together, and set their faces to go down to the camp of the children of Cain. When Y4Aréd heard their words and knew their intention, he became sorely afflicted, and he sent and called them to him, and said unto them, “ By the holy blood of Abel, I will have you swear that not one of you shall go down from this holy mountain. Remember ye the oaths which our fathers Seth, and Anésh, and Kainan, and Mahlalail made you to swear.” And Enoch also said unto them, “ Hearken, O ye children of Seth, no man who shall transgress the commandment of Yaréd, and [break] the oaths of our fathers, Into these Satan himself entered, and made the music which came from them. Gunnun made corn spirit, and established drinking booths, in which men assembled and drank and ate fruit.. Then Satan taught Gunnun to make weapons of war out of iron, and when men were drunk they killed each other with them. Next Satan taught men how to dye ‘their garments crimson and purple, and they arrayed themselves in gaudy attire, and began to race their horses. Little by little the children of Seth began to wish to join the sons of Cain, and when the devils had shown them a way down the mountain, one hundred of them went down to the plain, and were led astray by the women whose hands and feet were stained with bright colours and whose faces had tattoo marks on them. When the Sethites tried to return to the top of the mountain, the stones turned into coals of fire, and they could not pass over them. Company after company of the children of Seth went down to the plain, and at length only Yaréd and a few others remained on the mountain.

And when Yaréd had lived nine hundred and sixty years, and the day of his departure approached, and came nigh, and arrived, all the Patriarchs gathered themselves together and came unto him, viz. Enoch, his first-born, and Methuselah, and Lamech, and Noah, they and their wives and their children, and were blessed by him. And he prayed over them, and said unto them, ‘“‘ I will make you to swear by the holy blood of Abel that ye will not go down from this holy mountain; for I know that God will not allow you to remain very much longer in this holy country. Inasmuch as ye have transgressed the commandment of your fathers, ye shall surely be cast out into that outer country, and ye shall no longer have your habitation on the skirts [of the mountain] of Paradise. And take ye good heed to this. Let him that is among you who shall go forth from that holy country take with him 'the body of our father Adam, and the offerings [of gold, frankincense, and myrrh} that are in the Cave of Treasures, and let him carry away and deposit the body in the place wherein he shall be commanded by God to set it down. And thou, my son Enoch, depart thou not from before the body of Adam, but minister before God purely and holily all the days of thy life.’ And Y4réd died, [being] nine hundred and sixty-two years old, on the thirteenth day of the month of Iyar (May), on the day of the Eve of the Sabbath (Friday), at sunset, in the three hundred and sixty-sixth year of the life of Noah. And Enoch his son embalmed him, and buried him in the Cave of Treasures; and they made mourning for him forty days.

Remain ye in peace, O ye ministers of God, Kainan, and Mahlalail, and Y4aréd, and Methuselah, and Lamech, and Enoch! Cry out in sorrow on our behalf.

And after the death of Noah Shem did as his father had commanded him. And he went into the Ark by night, and brought out the body of Adam therefrom, and he sealed the Ark with his father’s seal, and no man perceived [what he had done]. And he called Ham and Japhet, and said unto them, “ My brethren, my father commanded me to go up and travel over the earth, even to the sea (i.e. the Mediterranean), and I am to see what the rivers are like, and then return unto you. And behold, my wife and the children of my house are with you (i.e. in your care); let your eyes be upon them.”’ And his brethren said unto him, “ Take with thee a company of men from the camp, for the land is a desert waste, and is shorn of inhabitants, and there are wild beasts therein.” And Shem said unto them, “‘ The Angel of the Lord shall go up with me, and he shall save me from every evil thing’’; and his brethren said unto him, “Go in peace, and may the Lord God of our Fathers be with thee.’”’ And Shem said unto Malakh (the brother of Shalah (Salah), the sonof [{Cainan] and [grand]son of Arphaxad), the father of Melchisedek, and Y6zadhak, his mother, “Give ye me Melchisedek, that he may go up with me, and be a consolation for me on the road.”’ And Malakh and Yézadhak, his mother, said unto Shem, ‘‘ Take [him] and go in peace.”” And Shem gave commands unto his brethren, and said unto them, ‘‘ My brethren, my father made me swear that neither I, nor any of your descendants, should go into the Ark,” and he sealed the Ark with his seal, and said unto them, “ Let no man go near it.”

And after the death of Noah Shem did as his father had commanded him. And he went into the Ark by night, and brought out the body of Adam therefrom, and he sealed the Ark with his father’s seal, and no man perceived [what he had done]. And he called Ham and Japhet, and said unto them, “ My brethren, my father commanded me to go up and travel over the earth, even to the sea (i.e. the Mediterranean), and I am to see what the rivers are like, and then return unto you. And behold, my wife and the children of my house are with you (i.e. in your care); let your eyes be upon them.”’ And his brethren said unto him, “ Take with thee a company of men from the camp, for the land is a desert waste, and is shorn of inhabitants, and there are wild beasts therein.” And Shem said unto them, “‘ The Angel of the Lord shall go up with me, and he shall save me from every evil thing’’; and his brethren said unto him, “Go in peace, and may the Lord God of our Fathers be with thee.’”’ And Shem said unto Malakh (the brother of Shalah (Salah), the sonof [{Cainan] and [grand]son of Arphaxad), the father of Melchisedek, and Y6zadhak, his mother, “Give ye me Melchisedek, that he may go up with me, and be a consolation for me on the road.”’ And Malakh and Yézadhak, his mother, said unto Shem, ‘‘ Take [him] and go in peace.”” And Shem gave commands unto his brethren, and said unto them, ‘‘ My brethren, my father made me swear that neither I, nor any of your descendants, should go into the Ark,” and he sealed the Ark with his seal, and said unto them, “ Let no man go near it.”

And Shem said unto Melchisedek, ‘‘ Thou shalt be the priest of the Most High God, because thou alone hath God chosen to minister before Him in this place. And thou shalt sit (i.e. dwell) here continually, and shalt not depart from this place all the days of thy life. Thou shalt not take a wife, thou shalt not shave thy head, and thou shalt not pour out blood in this place. Thou shalt not offer up wild beasts nor feathered fowl, but thou shalt offer up bread and wine always; and thou shalt not build a building in this place. And behold, the Angel of the Lord shall come down to thee and visit thee continually.”” And Shem embraced and kissed Melchisedek, and blessed him, and he returned to his brethren. And Malakh, the father of Melchisedek,-and Y6zadhak, his mother, said [unto Shem], ‘‘ Where is the young man?” And he said, ‘“‘ He died-on the journey, and I buried him there” (i.e. where he died); and they mourned for him greatly.

And Sisan, the king, found a spring of water in Dréghin, and he made a white horse and set it over it, and those who bathed in the water used to worship the horse. And from that time the Persians began to worship that (sic) horse. And Nimrod went to Y6ékdé6ra of Nédh, and when he arrived at the Lake (or Sea) of Atras, he found there Y6nt6n, the son of Noah. And Nimrod went down and bathed in the Lake, and he came to Y6ontén and did homage unto him. And Yonton said, “ Thou art a king; doest thou homage unto me?” And Nimrod said unto him, “‘ It is because of thee that I have come down here’”’; and he remained with him for three years. And Yont6n taught Nimrod wisdom, and the art of revelation (divining?), and he said unto him, ‘“‘ Come not back again to me.” And when Nimrod went up from the east, and began to practise the art of divining, very many men marvelled at him. And when IdhAshir (Ardeshir?), the priest who ministered to the fire that ascended from the earth, saw that Nimrod was practising these exalted courses, he entreated the devil, who appeared in connection with that fire, to teach him the wisdom of Nimrod. And as the devils were in the habit of destroying those who came nigh unto them by sin, the devil said unto the priest, “A man cannot become a priest and a Magian until he hath known carnally his mother, and his daughter, and his sister.” And idhdshir the priest did this, and from that time the priests, and the Magians, and the Persians take their mothers, and their sisters, and their daughters [to wife]. And this Idhdshir, the Magian, was the first to begin to study the Signs of the Zodiac, and [omens concerning] luck, and fate, and happenings, and motions of the eyes and eyelids, as well as all the other arts of the learning of the Chaldees. Now, all this learning is the error of devils, and those who practise it shall receive, together with the devils, the doom of the Judgment. And because this art of divination, which was employed by Nimrod, was taught to him by Yéntén, none of the orthodox doctors have suppressed it; nay, they have even practised it. Now the Persians call it “ Gelyana ” (i.e. Astronomy”). But that [knowledge] which the Magians have, viz. astrology, is sorcery and the teaching of devils. There are some who say that it doth indeed [teach concerning] luck, and happenings (i.e. future events), and fate, but these are in error. Now Nimrod builded Strong cities in the east, Babel, and N ineveh, and R4sdn (Ras ‘Ain), and Selik (Seleucia), and Ctesiphon, and Adhorbaighan; and he made three fortresses.

And Sisan, the king, found a spring of water in Dréghin, and he made a white horse and set it over it, and those who bathed in the water used to worship the horse. And from that time the Persians began to worship that (sic) horse. And Nimrod went to Y6ékdé6ra of Nédh, and when he arrived at the Lake (or Sea) of Atras, he found there Y6nt6n, the son of Noah. And Nimrod went down and bathed in the Lake, and he came to Y6ontén and did homage unto him. And Yonton said, “ Thou art a king; doest thou homage unto me?” And Nimrod said unto him, “‘ It is because of thee that I have come down here’”’; and he remained with him for three years. And Yont6n taught Nimrod wisdom, and the art of revelation (divining?), and he said unto him, ‘“‘ Come not back again to me.” And when Nimrod went up from the east, and began to practise the art of divining, very many men marvelled at him. And when IdhAshir (Ardeshir?), the priest who ministered to the fire that ascended from the earth, saw that Nimrod was practising these exalted courses, he entreated the devil, who appeared in connection with that fire, to teach him the wisdom of Nimrod. And as the devils were in the habit of destroying those who came nigh unto them by sin, the devil said unto the priest, “A man cannot become a priest and a Magian until he hath known carnally his mother, and his daughter, and his sister.” And idhdshir the priest did this, and from that time the priests, and the Magians, and the Persians take their mothers, and their sisters, and their daughters [to wife]. And this Idhdshir, the Magian, was the first to begin to study the Signs of the Zodiac, and [omens concerning] luck, and fate, and happenings, and motions of the eyes and eyelids, as well as all the other arts of the learning of the Chaldees. Now, all this learning is the error of devils, and those who practise it shall receive, together with the devils, the doom of the Judgment. And because this art of divination, which was employed by Nimrod, was taught to him by Yéntén, none of the orthodox doctors have suppressed it; nay, they have even practised it. Now the Persians call it “ Gelyana ” (i.e. Astronomy”). But that [knowledge] which the Magians have, viz. astrology, is sorcery and the teaching of devils. There are some who say that it doth indeed [teach concerning] luck, and happenings (i.e. future events), and fate, but these are in error. Now Nimrod builded Strong cities in the east, Babel, and N ineveh, and R4sdn (Ras ‘Ain), and Selik (Seleucia), and Ctesiphon, and Adhorbaighan; and he made three fortresses.

And Sisan, the king, found a spring of water in Dréghin, and he made a white horse and set it over it, and those who bathed in the water used to worship the horse. And from that time the Persians began to worship that (sic) horse. And Nimrod went to Y6ékdé6ra of Nédh, and when he arrived at the Lake (or Sea) of Atras, he found there Y6nt6n, the son of Noah. And Nimrod went down and bathed in the Lake, and he came to Y6ontén and did homage unto him. And Yonton said, “ Thou art a king; doest thou homage unto me?” And Nimrod said unto him, “‘ It is because of thee that I have come down here’”’; and he remained with him for three years. And Yont6n taught Nimrod wisdom, and the art of revelation (divining?), and he said unto him, ‘“‘ Come not back again to me.” And when Nimrod went up from the east, and began to practise the art of divining, very many men marvelled at him. And when IdhAshir (Ardeshir?), the priest who ministered to the fire that ascended from the earth, saw that Nimrod was practising these exalted courses, he entreated the devil, who appeared in connection with that fire, to teach him the wisdom of Nimrod. And as the devils were in the habit of destroying those who came nigh unto them by sin, the devil said unto the priest, “A man cannot become a priest and a Magian until he hath known carnally his mother, and his daughter, and his sister.” And idhdshir the priest did this, and from that time the priests, and the Magians, and the Persians take their mothers, and their sisters, and their daughters [to wife]. And this Idhdshir, the Magian, was the first to begin to study the Signs of the Zodiac, and [omens concerning] luck, and fate, and happenings, and motions of the eyes and eyelids, as well as all the other arts of the learning of the Chaldees. Now, all this learning is the error of devils, and those who practise it shall receive, together with the devils, the doom of the Judgment. And because this art of divination, which was employed by Nimrod, was taught to him by Yéntén, none of the orthodox doctors have suppressed it; nay, they have even practised it. Now the Persians call it “ Gelyana ” (i.e. Astronomy”). But that [knowledge] which the Magians have, viz. astrology, is sorcery and the teaching of devils. There are some who say that it doth indeed [teach concerning] luck, and happenings (i.e. future events), and fate, but these are in error. Now Nimrod builded Strong cities in the east, Babel, and N ineveh, and R4sdn (Ras ‘Ain), and Selik (Seleucia), and Ctesiphon, and Adhorbaighan; and he made three fortresses.

And Sisan, the king, found a spring of water in Dréghin, and he made a white horse and set it over it, and those who bathed in the water used to worship the horse. And from that time the Persians began to worship that (sic) horse. And Nimrod went to Y6ékdé6ra of Nédh, and when he arrived at the Lake (or Sea) of Atras, he found there Y6nt6n, the son of Noah. And Nimrod went down and bathed in the Lake, and he came to Y6ontén and did homage unto him. And Yonton said, “ Thou art a king; doest thou homage unto me?” And Nimrod said unto him, “‘ It is because of thee that I have come down here’”’; and he remained with him for three years. And Yont6n taught Nimrod wisdom, and the art of revelation (divining?), and he said unto him, ‘“‘ Come not back again to me.” And when Nimrod went up from the east, and began to practise the art of divining, very many men marvelled at him. And when IdhAshir (Ardeshir?), the priest who ministered to the fire that ascended from the earth, saw that Nimrod was practising these exalted courses, he entreated the devil, who appeared in connection with that fire, to teach him the wisdom of Nimrod. And as the devils were in the habit of destroying those who came nigh unto them by sin, the devil said unto the priest, “A man cannot become a priest and a Magian until he hath known carnally his mother, and his daughter, and his sister.” And idhdshir the priest did this, and from that time the priests, and the Magians, and the Persians take their mothers, and their sisters, and their daughters [to wife]. And this Idhdshir, the Magian, was the first to begin to study the Signs of the Zodiac, and [omens concerning] luck, and fate, and happenings, and motions of the eyes and eyelids, as well as all the other arts of the learning of the Chaldees. Now, all this learning is the error of devils, and those who practise it shall receive, together with the devils, the doom of the Judgment. And because this art of divination, which was employed by Nimrod, was taught to him by Yéntén, none of the orthodox doctors have suppressed it; nay, they have even practised it. Now the Persians call it “ Gelyana ” (i.e. Astronomy”). But that [knowledge] which the Magians have, viz. astrology, is sorcery and the teaching of devils. There are some who say that it doth indeed [teach concerning] luck, and happenings (i.e. future events), and fate, but these are in error. Now Nimrod builded Strong cities in the east, Babel, and N ineveh, and R4sdn (Ras ‘Ain), and Selik (Seleucia), and Ctesiphon, and Adhorbaighan; and he made three fortresses.

Ahaziah his son reigned after him, and he was twenty-two years old when [he began] to reign; he lived for one year in Jerusalem, and did evil things before God in that year. Because of the wickedness and iniquity which he wrought, God delivered him into the hands of his enemies and they killed him. When he was dead his mother [Athaliah] killed all the royal children of the house of David, imagining that she would uproot the children of the Jews. The only person of the seed of the royal house whom she did not slay was Joash, whom Yéshba‘ (Jehosheba), the daughter of Joram, the son of Jehosaphat, carried away secretly and hid with her in her house.

And Cyrus took to wife the daughter of Salathiel, the sister of Zerubbabel, and he took her to wife according to the law of the Persians, and made her [his] queen. And she entreated Cyrus to bring about the return of the children of Israel [to Jerusalem]. And inasmuch as Zerubbabel was her brother, she was veryinsistent about the return [to Jerusalem] of those who had been led away into captivity. Now Cyrus loved his wife as he loved himself, and he did for her what she wished. And he sent forth heralds into all the land of Babel, ordering all the children of Israel to gather themselves together. And when they were gathered together Cyrus said unto Zerubbabel, his wife’s brother, “ Rise up, and take with thee all the children of thy people, and go up to Jerusalem in peace; and [re|build the city of thy fathers, and dwell and reign therein. And because Cyrus brought about the return of the children of Israel [to Jerusalem], God said, “ I have taken my servant Cyrus by his right hand”’ (Isa. xliv. 28; xlv. 1). And the name of Cyrus was called ‘‘ My shepherd, the anointed of the Lord,’ because his seed was received into the seed of David through Meshayyanath, the sister of Zerubbabel, whom he had taken to wife. And the children of Israel went up from Babel, and Zerubbabel became king over them; and Joshua, the son of Y6zadak, the son of Aaron, was high priest, even as the angel showed Zechariah the prophet, and said unto him, “‘ These are the sons of the oil of consecration.”

And that same fire which was found in the pit became the holy fire in the house of the Lord. And Zerubbabel reigned in Jerusalem, and Joshua, the son of Y6zadak, was high-priest, and Ezra was the scribe of the Law and the Prophets. And the children of Israel celebrated a Passover when they went up from Babel. These are the three Passovers which the children of Israel kept; the first was [kept] in Egypt in the days of Moses; the the second was [kept] in the reign of Josiah; the third was [kept] when they went up from the land of Babel. And now an end hath been made to the Passover for them for ever. From the first captivity of Jerusalem, that in which Daniel went down into captivity, to the reign of Cyrus the Persian, was seventy years according to the prophecy of Jeremiah. And the children of Israel began the [re]building of the Temple in the days of Zerubbabel, and Joshua, the son of Y6z4dék, and Ezra the scribe, and the building thereof was finished in six and forty years, even as it is written in the holy Gospel (John ii. 19).

And that same fire which was found in the pit became the holy fire in the house of the Lord. And Zerubbabel reigned in Jerusalem, and Joshua, the son of Y6zadak, was high-priest, and Ezra was the scribe of the Law and the Prophets. And the children of Israel celebrated a Passover when they went up from Babel. These are the three Passovers which the children of Israel kept; the first was [kept] in Egypt in the days of Moses; the the second was [kept] in the reign of Josiah; the third was [kept] when they went up from the land of Babel. And now an end hath been made to the Passover for them for ever. From the first captivity of Jerusalem, that in which Daniel went down into captivity, to the reign of Cyrus the Persian, was seventy years according to the prophecy of Jeremiah. And the children of Israel began the [re]building of the Temple in the days of Zerubbabel, and Joshua, the son of Y6z4dék, and Ezra the scribe, and the building thereof was finished in six and forty years, even as it is written in the holy Gospel (John ii. 19).

Abiud took to wife Zakhyath, the daughter of Joshua, the son of Y6zadak, the priest, and begot by her Eliakim.

Matthan took to wife Sebhrath, the daughter of Phinehas, and begot by her two sons at one conception, Jacob and Y6nakhir.

Terah took two wives, Y6na and Salmith; by Yona he begot Abraham, and by Salmiith he begot Sara (Sarah).

Matthan took to wife Sabhrath, the daughter of Phinehas, and begot Jacob and Y6onakhir.

SIGNS OF THE ZODIAC (The sign *Y placed before each name is the Meaning of the name. The Labourer The Star and the Bull of heaven. The Faithful Shepherd of heaven and the Great Twins. The Tortoise. The Great (Lion). Virgin with ear of corn The Scorpion. Enurta (the god) The Goat-fish The Great Star.

Now, thou must know, O my brother Nemesius, that, even as I have already told thee, all the men who were under the rule of Herod were [included] in that registration for taxation; and the registration was completed in fifty days. And it was not until this registration was completed and sealed, and until Herod had sealed it and sent it to Augustus in Rome, that the Messiah was searched for; up to that time no children had been slain. And it was during the commotion caused by that registration that Christ was born. When forty HEROD 217 days after His birth had been fulfilled, Christ went into the Temple of the Lord. And Simeon the Aged, the son of Joshua bar-Yézadhak, in whose days the captivity went up from Babel, took Him in his arms. Now, Simeon was five hundred years old when he took Christ in his arms.

“One does not recite the benediction over a lamp unless one has profited from its light.” Rav says y’utu, and Samuel says y‘utu. He who says y’utu, (Gen. 34:15) “But with this we shall be agreeable (nē’ôt) to you.” He who says y‘utu, (Is. 50:4) “To know, to inform (lā‘ût) the weary of wisdom.” There (Mishnah Erubin 5:1) we have stated: How does one complete cities? Rav says m’abbrin, and Samuel says m‘abberin. He who says me’abberin, one adds a limb (אבר) to it. And he who says me‘abberin, like a pregnant (עוברה) woman. There (Mishnah Avodah Zarah 1:1) we have stated: Before the holidays of the Gentiles. Rav says ‘êdêhen and Samuel says ’êdêhen. He who says ’êdêhen, (Deut. 32:35) “For the day of their misfortune (אידם) is near.” He who says ‘êdêhen, (Is.44:9) “They are their witnesses (עידיהם), may they neither see nor know, so that they may come to naught.” How does Samuel deal with Rav’s reason? They are their witnesses, in the future they will bring to naught their worshippers on the day of judgment.

“One does not recite the benediction over a lamp unless one has profited from its light.” Rav says y’utu, and Samuel says y‘utu. He who says y’utu, (Gen. 34:15) “But with this we shall be agreeable (nē’ôt) to you.” He who says y‘utu, (Is. 50:4) “To know, to inform (lā‘ût) the weary of wisdom.” There (Mishnah Erubin 5:1) we have stated: How does one complete cities? Rav says m’abbrin, and Samuel says m‘abberin. He who says me’abberin, one adds a limb (אבר) to it. And he who says me‘abberin, like a pregnant (עוברה) woman. There (Mishnah Avodah Zarah 1:1) we have stated: Before the holidays of the Gentiles. Rav says ‘êdêhen and Samuel says ’êdêhen. He who says ’êdêhen, (Deut. 32:35) “For the day of their misfortune (אידם) is near.” He who says ‘êdêhen, (Is.44:9) “They are their witnesses (עידיהם), may they neither see nor know, so that they may come to naught.” How does Samuel deal with Rav’s reason? They are their witnesses, in the future they will bring to naught their worshippers on the day of judgment.

“One does not recite the benediction over a lamp unless one has profited from its light.” Rav says y’utu, and Samuel says y‘utu. He who says y’utu, (Gen. 34:15) “But with this we shall be agreeable (nē’ôt) to you.” He who says y‘utu, (Is. 50:4) “To know, to inform (lā‘ût) the weary of wisdom.” There (Mishnah Erubin 5:1) we have stated: How does one complete cities? Rav says m’abbrin, and Samuel says m‘abberin. He who says me’abberin, one adds a limb (אבר) to it. And he who says me‘abberin, like a pregnant (עוברה) woman. There (Mishnah Avodah Zarah 1:1) we have stated: Before the holidays of the Gentiles. Rav says ‘êdêhen and Samuel says ’êdêhen. He who says ’êdêhen, (Deut. 32:35) “For the day of their misfortune (אידם) is near.” He who says ‘êdêhen, (Is.44:9) “They are their witnesses (עידיהם), may they neither see nor know, so that they may come to naught.” How does Samuel deal with Rav’s reason? They are their witnesses, in the future they will bring to naught their worshippers on the day of judgment.

“One does not recite the benediction over a lamp unless one has profited from its light.” Rav says y’utu, and Samuel says y‘utu. He who says y’utu, (Gen. 34:15) “But with this we shall be agreeable (nē’ôt) to you.” He who says y‘utu, (Is. 50:4) “To know, to inform (lā‘ût) the weary of wisdom.” There (Mishnah Erubin 5:1) we have stated: How does one complete cities? Rav says m’abbrin, and Samuel says m‘abberin. He who says me’abberin, one adds a limb (אבר) to it. And he who says me‘abberin, like a pregnant (עוברה) woman. There (Mishnah Avodah Zarah 1:1) we have stated: Before the holidays of the Gentiles. Rav says ‘êdêhen and Samuel says ’êdêhen. He who says ’êdêhen, (Deut. 32:35) “For the day of their misfortune (אידם) is near.” He who says ‘êdêhen, (Is.44:9) “They are their witnesses (עידיהם), may they neither see nor know, so that they may come to naught.” How does Samuel deal with Rav’s reason? They are their witnesses, in the future they will bring to naught their worshippers on the day of judgment.

They came back and asked him: What is that which is written (Deut. 4:8): “Where is a great people that has ĕlōhīm close to them?” He answered them, it is not written: “Like the Eternal, our ĕlōhīm, always when we call on them”, but “always when we call on Him.” His students told him: Teacher, these you pushed away with a stick, what can you answer us? He said to them, he is close in all kinds of closeness, as Rebbi Phineas said in the name of Rebbi Yehudah bar Simon: Idolatry seems close but is very far. What is the reason? (Is. 46:7) “They take it on the shoulder, carry it, etc.” Finally, his god is with him in the house and he cries until he dies but that one will not hear and not save him from his distress. But the Holy One, praise to Him, seems to be far away when there is no one closer than Him, as Levi said: From the earth to the (first) heaven is a distance of 500 years’ walk. From one heaven to the next is a distance of 500 years’ walk. The thickness of each heaven is a distance of 500 years’ walk. And Rebbi Berekhiah and Rebbi Ḥelbo in the name of Red Rebbi Abba said, also the toes of the heavenly Ḥayot are a length of 515 years’ walk, the number YŠRH. See how much higher He is than His world! But a person enters the synagogue, stands behind a pillar, prays in a whisper, and the Holy One, praise to Him, listens to his prayer, as it has been said (1Sam. 1:13): “Hannah spoke to herself, only her lips were moving, but her voice was not heard.” But the Holy One, praise to Him, listened to her prayer. And so it is with all His creatures, as it has been said (Ps. 102:1): “Prayer of the poor when he wraps himself up,” just like a man whispering into the ear of his friend and the latter understands. Can you have a God who is closer than that to His creatures, from mouth to ear?”

From where that non-guaranteed property may be acquired with guaranteed property, by money, document, or possession? Rebbi Yose in the name of Ḥizqiah; Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Ḥanina Tortaya in the name of Ḥizqiah, it is written (2Chr. 21:3): “Their father gave them many gifts, silver and gold and delicacies, with fortified cities in Jehudah.” So far real estate and movables were at the same place. If real estate was at one place and movables elsewhere? Rebbi Abin bar Ḥiyya said, let us hear from the following: Rebbi Eliezer said to them, it happened that a man from Madon was in Jerusalem, rich in movables. He wanted to distribute them, to give them as gifts. They said to him, you cannot do that except if you acquire real estate. What did he do? He went and bought a rock near Jerusalem and said: The Northern part I give to X with a hundred amphoras of wine, the Southern part I give to Y with a hundred amphoras of oil. The matter came before the Sages and they upheld his words. Rebbi Ḥananiah said before Rebbi Mana: But was he not bedridden? For in general a person might give property rights only in writing, and here even orally. In general, a person might give only if real estate and movables are at the same place, but here the real estate even was at one place and the movables elsewhere. He said to him: But is there a difference for Rebbi Eliezer? The sick person for Rebbi Eliezer is like the healthy person for the rabbis.

Rebbi Abba, Rav Huna in the name of Rav: They declared oral instructions by a bedridden person equal to written and delivered ones by a healthy person, on condition that he had died from that particular sickness and that he describes the property and says, give field X to Y. If he says, half of the field to X and half to Y, is that designated? Or only if he says: the Northern half, the Southern half?

Rebbi Abba, Rav Huna in the name of Rav: They declared oral instructions by a bedridden person equal to written and delivered ones by a healthy person, on condition that he had died from that particular sickness and that he describes the property and says, give field X to Y. If he says, half of the field to X and half to Y, is that designated? Or only if he says: the Northern half, the Southern half?

MISHNAH: A prozbol does not remit. This is one of the ordinances of Hillel the elder. When he saw that the people refrained from giving loans to one another and transgressed what is written in the Torah, as it is said (Deut. 15:9): “Guard yourself, lest there be in your heart an unworthy thought saying, etc.”, he instituted the prozbol. This is the essence of prozbol: I declare before you, judges X and Y at place Z, that I shall collect any debt due me any time I wish. The judges sign at the bottom or the witnesses.

Rebbi Binjamin bar Gidul and Rebbi Aḥa were sitting together and saying, is it not written (Neh. 10:39): “The Cohen, descendant of Aaron, will share with the Levites in the Levite’s tithe”? To give him heave of the tithe. But is it not written (Neh. 10:39): “The Levites shall bring [the tithe of] the tithe”? Rebbi Ḥuna and the colleagues, one of them said “to the descendants of Levi”. Why does the verse say (Num. 18:21): “And to the descendants of Levi”? From here that one gives tithes to Cohanim. The other said, even if it were only written “to the descendants” one would give tithes to Cohanim. If somebody would say, my son X shall take property Y [before distribution] and the rest of my properties my sons shall inherit, does he not participate with them?

Rebbi Jehudah ben Shalom, Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazy in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan. They formulated the symphon according to Rebbi Meïr in Qiddušin. Rebbi Jeremiah: Rebbi Ḥananiah, the colleague of the rabbis, asked: Why does it have to follow Rebbi Meïr but not also the rabbis? Did not Rebbi Abbahu say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The following is the contract text: “I, X son of Y, contract a preliminary marriage with you, Z, daughter of U, on condition that I shall give you property A and definitively marry you by day B. If that day should pass without me having taken you in, I shall have no claim on you.” Why can he not say “on condition” but not double his stipulation? If he did not double his stipulation, could this eliminate the preliminary marriage? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, everywhere Rebbi Meïr holds that from “no” you infer “yes”, except here? Rebbi Mattaniah said, one is more restrictive in matters of incest and adultery.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Yasa. Power was given to Moses’s voice and his voice went through the entire land of Egypt, a distance of 40 days of travel. What did he say? From place X to place Y one group, from place Z to place U one group. You should not be astonished. If about dust, which does not usually move, it is said, it will bedust in the entire land of Egypt, voice which usually is moving, not so much more? Rebbi Levi said, just as power was given to Moses’s voice, so power was given to Pharao’s voice, [and his voice went through the entire land of Egypt, a distance of forty days of travel.] What did he say? Get up, leave from the midst of my people. In the past you were servants of Pharao, from now on you are servants of the Eternal. At that moment, they were saying, Hallelujah, give praise, servants of the Eternal, but not servants of Pharao.

Rebbi Phineas in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ila`y. One verse says, he abandoned the dwelling at Shilo, but an other verse says, she brought him to the Eternal’s House at Shilo. How is this? A stone house below and the gobelins on top, and this was “rest.” Rebbi Ze`ira said, a minimum of ten hand-breadths, as in building a house. But was it not stated, just as the Tent of Meeting was erected so was the Tent at Shilo erected? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, its poles, its planks, its latches, its bases, and its columns. Its poles were visible inside like stars in the sky.

Is a single witness trustworthy in wartime? Let us hear from the following: A person was living in the times of Rebbi. They asked him about X; he said, he died. They asked him about Y; he said, he died. They asked him, are they all dead? He answered, if they were alive would they not have come? Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: The case came before Rebbi and he said, the ones married should stay married, the ones not married should not marry. Rebbi Ayvo bar Naggari said, it happened in wartime. That implies that a single witness is trustworthy in wartime.

MISHNAH: One testifies by the light of a candle or by the light of the moon and one permits to remarry on the basis of a disembodied voice. It happened that one stood on a hilltop and called out that the man X from place Y died. They went and found nobody but let his wife remarry. It also happened at Ṣalmon that somebody said, I am X, son of Y; a snake bit me and I am dying. They went there, did not recognize him, and let his wife remarry.

MISHNAH: One testifies by the light of a candle or by the light of the moon and one permits to remarry on the basis of a disembodied voice. It happened that one stood on a hilltop and called out that the man X from place Y died. They went and found nobody but let his wife remarry. It also happened at Ṣalmon that somebody said, I am X, son of Y; a snake bit me and I am dying. They went there, did not recognize him, and let his wife remarry.

Where do we hold? If about him who heard and did not know from whom he heard, it is like a bird flying by. If about him who heard and knew from whom he heard, it is a witness reporting the words of another witness. But here we deal with the case that X [heard] from Y and Y from Z; a word without foundation.

Where do we hold? If about him who heard and did not know from whom he heard, it is like a bird flying by. If about him who heard and knew from whom he heard, it is a witness reporting the words of another witness. But here we deal with the case that X [heard] from Y and Y from Z; a word without foundation.

Would they be trustworthy to say, we went out to collect unripe figs in the sabbatical year and heard X talking about his wife Y, or woman Z talking about her children?

It was stated: “That we ate in X or Y’s clipping.” What is clipping? If a man sold his inherited field, his relatives filled amphoras with roasted kernels and nuts and broke them before children. The children were collecting them and saying, X was clipped from his inheritance. When he bought it back, they were doing the same and saying, X returned to his inheritance. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, also if a man married an unsuitable woman, his realtives filled amphoras with roasted kernels and nuts and broke them before children. The children were collecting them and saying, X was clipped from his family. Whe he divorced her, they were doing the same and saying, X returned to his family.

Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: If they saw her putting on her underpants and the pedlar leaves her house, the thing is ugly, she should leave. There is slime on her bed, the thing is ugly, she should leave. There is slime on his bed, the thing is ugly, she should leave. His sandal is in front of her bed, the thing is ugly, she should leave. Her sandal is in front of his bed, the thing is ugly, she should leave. Both leave the same dark place, the thing is ugly, she should leave. They lift one another from the cistern, the thing is ugly, she should leave. Both of them clap on her thighs in the bathhouse, the thing is ugly, she should leave. Ḥanina bar Iqa in the name of Rebbi Jehudah, in all these cases, if she brings an explanation for her behavior she is believed. Rav Ada bar Aḥawa in the name of Rav: A case came before Rebbi and he said, what of it? They asked before him: Even if they saw him putting his mouth on her mouth? He said, this did happen, that they saw a man putting his mouth on her mouth. The case came befote Rebbi Yose, who said that she should leave without ketubah. Her relatives appealed the case and said, if she is deviant, she should leave without ketubah. If she is not deviant, she should take the entire ketubah. Rebbi Mana said to them, bring the ketubah that we may read it. They brought the ketubah and found written in it: If this X marries this Y as her husband and should no longer desire his company, she shall take half the ketubah sum. Rebbi Abun said, since she agreed that he should put his mouth on her mouth it is as if she hated him; she has only half the ketubah. She lies in his bosom or he lies in her bosom, she is deviant. If they embrace, she is deviant. If they kiss, she is deviant. If the door is locked, she is deviant. If it is blocked, that is a problem.

Rebbi Hillel bar Pazi asked before Rebbi Yose: If he sold and then she died? He said to him, his sale is invalid; it is as if a son sold during his father’s lifetime and then the father died. If she sold and then he died? He said to him, her sale is valid; it is as if a father sold during his son’s lifetime and then the son died. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Marius asked before Rebbi Jonah: What is the situation if she sold to her husband? He said, since Ḥizqiah said, practice follows Rebbi Judah, this implies that her sale is a sale. It was stated: “If somebody says, my property should be given to X, if X died to Y, [if Y died to Z]. If the first one died the properties should be given to the second, if the second died they should be given to the third. If the second one died during the first’s lifetime; since the second never acquired them, the third cannot acquire them.” He said to him, so did Rebbi Hoshaia, the father of the Mishnah, explain: After him to X, after him to Y; it is as if stated: if the third died during the second’s lifetime, since the second one did not acquire his heirs cannot acquire, one really could say: After him to X, after him to Y. It was stated: “Rebbi says, the first one may sell the real estate and buy movables. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, he has only the usufruct.” Ḥizqiah said, practice follows Rebbi. Rebbi Mana said, since Ḥizqiah said, practice follows Rebbi, that implies that he cannot dispose of it by a death-bed will. So said Rebbi Mana before Rebbi Yose: Since this woman’s upkeep is her husband’s responsibility, is it not like a gift of sick persons? He said to him, her upkeep is what is necessary for her: food, oil, and salt. But she wants to sell and buy chickens. This means that if the first one wanted to sell and buy chickens, he may sell. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, her burial is equal to her upkeep. Since you said there, he may sell real estate and buy food, so he may sell real estate and buy a burial.

Rebbi Hillel bar Pazi asked before Rebbi Yose: If he sold and then she died? He said to him, his sale is invalid; it is as if a son sold during his father’s lifetime and then the father died. If she sold and then he died? He said to him, her sale is valid; it is as if a father sold during his son’s lifetime and then the son died. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Marius asked before Rebbi Jonah: What is the situation if she sold to her husband? He said, since Ḥizqiah said, practice follows Rebbi Judah, this implies that her sale is a sale. It was stated: “If somebody says, my property should be given to X, if X died to Y, [if Y died to Z]. If the first one died the properties should be given to the second, if the second died they should be given to the third. If the second one died during the first’s lifetime; since the second never acquired them, the third cannot acquire them.” He said to him, so did Rebbi Hoshaia, the father of the Mishnah, explain: After him to X, after him to Y; it is as if stated: if the third died during the second’s lifetime, since the second one did not acquire his heirs cannot acquire, one really could say: After him to X, after him to Y. It was stated: “Rebbi says, the first one may sell the real estate and buy movables. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, he has only the usufruct.” Ḥizqiah said, practice follows Rebbi. Rebbi Mana said, since Ḥizqiah said, practice follows Rebbi, that implies that he cannot dispose of it by a death-bed will. So said Rebbi Mana before Rebbi Yose: Since this woman’s upkeep is her husband’s responsibility, is it not like a gift of sick persons? He said to him, her upkeep is what is necessary for her: food, oil, and salt. But she wants to sell and buy chickens. This means that if the first one wanted to sell and buy chickens, he may sell. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, her burial is equal to her upkeep. Since you said there, he may sell real estate and buy food, so he may sell real estate and buy a burial.

Rebbi Hillel bar Pazi asked before Rebbi Yose: If he sold and then she died? He said to him, his sale is invalid; it is as if a son sold during his father’s lifetime and then the father died. If she sold and then he died? He said to him, her sale is valid; it is as if a father sold during his son’s lifetime and then the son died. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Marius asked before Rebbi Jonah: What is the situation if she sold to her husband? He said, since Ḥizqiah said, practice follows Rebbi Judah, this implies that her sale is a sale. It was stated: “If somebody says, my property should be given to X, if X died to Y, [if Y died to Z]. If the first one died the properties should be given to the second, if the second died they should be given to the third. If the second one died during the first’s lifetime; since the second never acquired them, the third cannot acquire them.” He said to him, so did Rebbi Hoshaia, the father of the Mishnah, explain: After him to X, after him to Y; it is as if stated: if the third died during the second’s lifetime, since the second one did not acquire his heirs cannot acquire, one really could say: After him to X, after him to Y. It was stated: “Rebbi says, the first one may sell the real estate and buy movables. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, he has only the usufruct.” Ḥizqiah said, practice follows Rebbi. Rebbi Mana said, since Ḥizqiah said, practice follows Rebbi, that implies that he cannot dispose of it by a death-bed will. So said Rebbi Mana before Rebbi Yose: Since this woman’s upkeep is her husband’s responsibility, is it not like a gift of sick persons? He said to him, her upkeep is what is necessary for her: food, oil, and salt. But she wants to sell and buy chickens. This means that if the first one wanted to sell and buy chickens, he may sell. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, her burial is equal to her upkeep. Since you said there, he may sell real estate and buy food, so he may sell real estate and buy a burial.

Rebbi Hillel bar Pazi asked before Rebbi Yose: If he sold and then she died? He said to him, his sale is invalid; it is as if a son sold during his father’s lifetime and then the father died. If she sold and then he died? He said to him, her sale is valid; it is as if a father sold during his son’s lifetime and then the son died. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Marius asked before Rebbi Jonah: What is the situation if she sold to her husband? He said, since Ḥizqiah said, practice follows Rebbi Judah, this implies that her sale is a sale. It was stated: “If somebody says, my property should be given to X, if X died to Y, [if Y died to Z]. If the first one died the properties should be given to the second, if the second died they should be given to the third. If the second one died during the first’s lifetime; since the second never acquired them, the third cannot acquire them.” He said to him, so did Rebbi Hoshaia, the father of the Mishnah, explain: After him to X, after him to Y; it is as if stated: if the third died during the second’s lifetime, since the second one did not acquire his heirs cannot acquire, one really could say: After him to X, after him to Y. It was stated: “Rebbi says, the first one may sell the real estate and buy movables. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, he has only the usufruct.” Ḥizqiah said, practice follows Rebbi. Rebbi Mana said, since Ḥizqiah said, practice follows Rebbi, that implies that he cannot dispose of it by a death-bed will. So said Rebbi Mana before Rebbi Yose: Since this woman’s upkeep is her husband’s responsibility, is it not like a gift of sick persons? He said to him, her upkeep is what is necessary for her: food, oil, and salt. But she wants to sell and buy chickens. This means that if the first one wanted to sell and buy chickens, he may sell. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, her burial is equal to her upkeep. Since you said there, he may sell real estate and buy food, so he may sell real estate and buy a burial.

Rav said, if a dying person said, do not bury me, he is buried as a charge on public charity. Rebbi Immi asked, how could one think that others are provided for by his property and he is buried as a charge on public charity? The Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “Her heirs, the heirs of her ketubah, are obligated to bury her.” Explain it, if they inherited real estate. As it was stated: “If he left male and female slaves, mortgages, and movables, anybody who takes them first acquires them and he shall be buried by public charity.” Because he took it first. Therefore, if he did not take it first one removes from his hand. Explain it, if he said, bury me. As Rebbi Yose said in the name of the rabbis: If a dead person was buried who had not said “bury me”, even though others came and took [of his property] one removes from their hands. If they took real estate. In fact, what you say, one removes from their hands, if they took real estate. But if they took movables, one does not remove from their hands, if it was a loan by witnesses. But for a documented loan, whether they took real estate or movables one does not remove from their hands. For Rebbi Abba, the son of Rav Huna, said: They made the words of a bedridden person equal to those of a healthy person who wrote and delivered. But only if he died from that illness, not if he recovered. And if he was explicit and said, give field X to Y. If he said, give field X to Y? Is it as if he was explicit or only if he said, the Northern half, the Southern half? Rebbi Yudan asked: If he said, burn me by pagan rites and give half of field X to Y. Since they do not burn, do they give? Rebbi Ḥaggai asked: A sick person who said, my daughters shall be supported. Would the daughters not be supported anyway? No, it is necessary, for otherwise would they be supported from pledged real estate or would they be supported from movables? Rebbi Yudan [ ] there came a case before Rebbi Yose about a bedridden person who had said, my documents shall be given to X. He said to him, the bedridden can only transfer property which is acquired either by a document or by taking hold. But these are acquired by a document and by taking hold. As it was stated: “A ship is acquired by taking hold in the opinion of everybody. Rebbi Nathan says a ship and documents are acquired by a document and by taking hold. If he wrote and did not take hold, or took hold without writing [a transfer document] he did not do anything unless he both writes and takes hold.”

Rav said, if a dying person said, do not bury me, he is buried as a charge on public charity. Rebbi Immi asked, how could one think that others are provided for by his property and he is buried as a charge on public charity? The Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “Her heirs, the heirs of her ketubah, are obligated to bury her.” Explain it, if they inherited real estate. As it was stated: “If he left male and female slaves, mortgages, and movables, anybody who takes them first acquires them and he shall be buried by public charity.” Because he took it first. Therefore, if he did not take it first one removes from his hand. Explain it, if he said, bury me. As Rebbi Yose said in the name of the rabbis: If a dead person was buried who had not said “bury me”, even though others came and took [of his property] one removes from their hands. If they took real estate. In fact, what you say, one removes from their hands, if they took real estate. But if they took movables, one does not remove from their hands, if it was a loan by witnesses. But for a documented loan, whether they took real estate or movables one does not remove from their hands. For Rebbi Abba, the son of Rav Huna, said: They made the words of a bedridden person equal to those of a healthy person who wrote and delivered. But only if he died from that illness, not if he recovered. And if he was explicit and said, give field X to Y. If he said, give field X to Y? Is it as if he was explicit or only if he said, the Northern half, the Southern half? Rebbi Yudan asked: If he said, burn me by pagan rites and give half of field X to Y. Since they do not burn, do they give? Rebbi Ḥaggai asked: A sick person who said, my daughters shall be supported. Would the daughters not be supported anyway? No, it is necessary, for otherwise would they be supported from pledged real estate or would they be supported from movables? Rebbi Yudan [ ] there came a case before Rebbi Yose about a bedridden person who had said, my documents shall be given to X. He said to him, the bedridden can only transfer property which is acquired either by a document or by taking hold. But these are acquired by a document and by taking hold. As it was stated: “A ship is acquired by taking hold in the opinion of everybody. Rebbi Nathan says a ship and documents are acquired by a document and by taking hold. If he wrote and did not take hold, or took hold without writing [a transfer document] he did not do anything unless he both writes and takes hold.”

Rav said, if a dying person said, do not bury me, he is buried as a charge on public charity. Rebbi Immi asked, how could one think that others are provided for by his property and he is buried as a charge on public charity? The Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “Her heirs, the heirs of her ketubah, are obligated to bury her.” Explain it, if they inherited real estate. As it was stated: “If he left male and female slaves, mortgages, and movables, anybody who takes them first acquires them and he shall be buried by public charity.” Because he took it first. Therefore, if he did not take it first one removes from his hand. Explain it, if he said, bury me. As Rebbi Yose said in the name of the rabbis: If a dead person was buried who had not said “bury me”, even though others came and took [of his property] one removes from their hands. If they took real estate. In fact, what you say, one removes from their hands, if they took real estate. But if they took movables, one does not remove from their hands, if it was a loan by witnesses. But for a documented loan, whether they took real estate or movables one does not remove from their hands. For Rebbi Abba, the son of Rav Huna, said: They made the words of a bedridden person equal to those of a healthy person who wrote and delivered. But only if he died from that illness, not if he recovered. And if he was explicit and said, give field X to Y. If he said, give field X to Y? Is it as if he was explicit or only if he said, the Northern half, the Southern half? Rebbi Yudan asked: If he said, burn me by pagan rites and give half of field X to Y. Since they do not burn, do they give? Rebbi Ḥaggai asked: A sick person who said, my daughters shall be supported. Would the daughters not be supported anyway? No, it is necessary, for otherwise would they be supported from pledged real estate or would they be supported from movables? Rebbi Yudan [ ] there came a case before Rebbi Yose about a bedridden person who had said, my documents shall be given to X. He said to him, the bedridden can only transfer property which is acquired either by a document or by taking hold. But these are acquired by a document and by taking hold. As it was stated: “A ship is acquired by taking hold in the opinion of everybody. Rebbi Nathan says a ship and documents are acquired by a document and by taking hold. If he wrote and did not take hold, or took hold without writing [a transfer document] he did not do anything unless he both writes and takes hold.”

There, we have stated: “An oath that I shall not eat this loaf.” Something which would be forbidden for vows and is permitted for oaths. Not on that it was said but on the following: “Whether it was for himself or for others.” Rebbi Abba said in Samuel’s name: An oath that X gave a mina to Y. If it turns out that he had not given [a mina], since it is not in his hand for the future, it is not in his hand for the past.

MISHNAH: Every bill of divorce which was not written for a particular wife is invalid. How? If one was walking in the market and heard the scribes dictating “Mr. X divorces his wife Y from place Z” and said, these are mine and my wife’s names, it is invalid and cannot be used to divorce by. In addition, if he wrote [a bill] to divorce his wife but had second thoughts, and a fellow townsman came and said to him, my name is identical with yours and my wife’s name is identical with your wife’s, it is invalid and cannot be used to divorce by. In addition, if he had two wives with identical names and wrote a document to divorce the older one by, he cannot use it to divorce the younger. In addition, if he said to the scribe: write that I may divorce either one I wish, it is invalid and cannot be used to divorce either one.

MISHNAH: In earlier times, he could go to a court at another place and annul [the bill of divorce]; Rabban Gamliel the Elder instituted that one should not do that because of the public good. In earlier times, his name and her name and the names of his and her towns could change; Rabban Gamliel the Elder instituted that one should write Mr. X and all his names, Mrs. Y and all her names, because of the public good.

There, we have stated: “One writes a bill of divorce for a man even if his wife is not with him, and a receipt for a woman even if her husband is not with her, and the husband pays the fee.” Rebbi Abba said, he has to know both of them. Rebbi La said, he has to know the husband for the bill of divorce and the wife for her receipt. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi [ ]: Think of it, if he brought another woman and divorced by means of her. He said to him, let the witnesses come and testify. But did not Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish say that they considered witnesses who signed a document as if their testimony had been cross-examined in court? There, if they said, we did not sign at all. But here if they say, we signed this but not that. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Abba: “In earlier times, his name and her name and the names of his and her towns could change.” If he knows them, why would he change their names? There are people who know others by sight but do not know their names. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Ilai: “Rabban Gamliel the Elder instituted that one should write Mr. X and all his names, Mrs. Y and all her names, because of the public good.” The Mishnah about one who is forced to divorce, Rebbi Ila speaks about one who divorces on his initiative; some want to say if he divorces at another place.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody sells his slave to Gentiles,” etc. To a Gentile even in the Land. Who frees him? His original owner pays for him and the second frees him. “Or outside the Land,” even to a Jew. Let us say that if the second owner knew, both of them split the price; otherwise the first pays for him and the second frees him. “I X ben Y sold my slave Z to Antiochia”, he gains his freedom. But if he is in Lydda, he did not gain his freedom. It was stated: A slave goes outside the Land with his master. Therefore, if he sold him there, he is sold. If he came from outside the Land to the Land with the intention to return, one forces him to return. With the intention not to return, one does not force him to return. If he fled from outside the Land to the Land, he may return him. If he fled from the Land to outside the Land, Rebbi Joshia in the name of the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya said, it is permigtted. The great Rebbi Hoshaia said, it is permitted. Rebbi Marinos, the son of the great Rebbi Hoshaia said, it is forbidden. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, they do not disagree. He who says, it is permitted, if he is used to flee there. But he who says, it is forbidden, if he is not used to flee there. Rebbi Yose said, they do not disagree. He who says, it is permitted, if he can return him from there; but he who says, it is forbidden, if he cannot return him from there.

HALAKHAH: “If they said to him, shall we write a bill of divorce for your wife,” etc. If he said to two people, say to X that he shall write and to Y and Z that they shall sign. Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah, this happened in the days of Rebbi, and he said, such a thing should not be done in Israel. Samuel said, it certainly should be done. Rav Jeremiah asked Samuel: If he said to two people, say to X that he write and you sign. He said to him, that is a bill of divorce but it needs study. The opinion of Samuel seems inverted. There, he said, it certainly should be done, and here, he says so? There is a difference, because they changed their testimony.

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The following is the contract text: “I, X son of Y, contract a preliminary marriage with you, Z, daughter of U, on condition that I shall give you property A anddefinitively marry you by day B. If that day should pass without me having taken you in, I shall have no claim on you.” If anything intervened beyond his control? Rebbi Joḥanan said, matters beyond his control are as if he were inactive. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, matters outside his control are as if he had acted. In the opinion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, what would be necessary? “If that day should pass without you having taken me in, I shall have no claim on you.” When Rebbi Joḥanan was dying, he told his daughters to act following Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. He said, maybe in the future there might be a court which follows him; then his descendants might be in danger of bastardy.

HALAKHAH: “Anybody can supplement a bald document,” etc. From where that a document can be knotted? Rebbi Immi said, it is written: “I took the document,” etc. “And [the sealed]”, that is the knotted [document]. “And the open,” that is the simple, part of the knotted. “And the orders and the rules”; orders and rules differ between these, for one is with two {witnesses], the other with three; one in it, the other on its back. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah, on a simple document, the witnesses sign parallel, on a knotted one the witnesses sign lengthwise. Rebbi Idi said, the witnesses sign between any two knots, but it must be on top. But should one not be afraid that maybe he falsifies? Rav Naḥman wanted to argue that witnesses never sign below unless they first read before them: “I X son of Y accept everything written above.” But should one not be afraid that he erased and changed to falsify? Rav Huna is of the opinion that two times “I accept” makes it invalid. But should one not be afraid that he erased and changed to falsify? Does Rav Huna not consider that he might write another text, erase and change to falsify? Rav Huna is of the opinion that an erasure makes invalid even if the correction is certified.

Where do we hold? If he knotted and signed it inside, everybody agrees that it can be made simple. If he knotted and signed it outside, everybody agrees that it cannot be made simple. But we must deal with the case that he knotted it from the inside and then signed it on the outside; in that case Rebbi Ḥananiah ben Gamliel said that it can be made simple but the rabbis say, it cannot be made simple. {Rebbi objected to the statement of Ḥananiah ben Gamliel: “The body of the document.” If he knotted and signed it outside, everybody agrees that it cannot be made simple. But we must deal with the case that he knotted it from the inside and then signed it on the outside; in that case Rebbi Ḥananiah ben Gamliel said that it can be made simple, but the rabbis say, it cannot be made simple.) Rebbi objected to the statement of Rebbi Ḥananiah ben Gamliel: The body of the document shows whether it is simple or not simple. What is the body of the document? Rebbi Abba said, as Rav Huna said, witnesses never sign below unless they first read before them: “I X son of Y accept everything written above.” But did we not state: “That is the formula of a document”? Rebbi Mana said, that is the formula of a knotted document. Rebbi Abin said, even if you say it is the same for knotted and simple, for a knotted document it is a necessity, for a simple one it is not a necessity. Rebbi Aḥa said, if one adds to practice. A simple document [is witnessed] by two persons. If common usage is to have three, one makes it with three. A knotted document is signed on its back. If common usage is to sign it inside and out, one signs it inside and out.

HALAKHAH: “Five who wrote collectively a bill of divorce,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: “And I am greeting X,” one can assume that he signed regarding everything; “I am greeting X,” he signed only for the greeting. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, even if he said “I am greeting X,” one can assume that he signed regarding everything. What means “collectively” for Rebbi Joḥanan? X divorces Y and Z U. What means “collectively” for Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? We, X and Z, divorce our wives at place A. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, Rebbi Joḥanan agrees that if he mentions divorce for each one separately he needs a text and witnesses for each one separately. The strength of Rebbi Joḥanan is from the following: “ ‘That I shall not benefit, a qorbān for this one or that one’; each single one needs a separate opening.” Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “If he wrote a separate text for each of them and the witnesses signed at the end, [only] the one with which the witnesses are read is valid.” Samuel said, the detailed statement for Rebbi Meїr is the general statement for Rebbi Jehudah and the detailed statement for Rebbi Jehudah is the general statement for Rebbi Meїr. [Rebbi] Samuel said in the name of Rebbi Ze‘ira, the words of the rabbis show that the detailed statement for Rebbi Meїr is not the general statement for Rebbi Jehudah and the detailed statement for Rebbi Jehudah is not the general statement for Rebbi Meїr, since Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: “and I am greeting X,” one can assume that he signed regarding everything; “I am greeting X,” he signed only for the greeting. If you would say that the detailed statement for Rebbi Meїr is the general statement for Rebbi Jehudah, even if he said “and I am greeting X,” can one assume that he signed regarding everything? How is this? Rebbi Yose said, a Mishnah implies that the detailed statement for Rebbi Jehudah is not the general statement for Rebbi Meїr, as we have stated there: “Rebbi Meїr says, even ‘wheat, and barley, and spelt’ makes him guilty for each one separately”, but nobody says “even” unless he refers to an earlier statement. How is this? Rebbi Ḥanina said, in Rebbi Meїr’s opinion, [whether] he said “wheat, and barley, and spelt”, [or “wheat, barley, spelt] is a general statement and particulars. [In Rebbi Jehudah’s opinion,] if he said, “wheat grains, barley grains, and spelt grains”, it is a general statement without particulars.

If somebody contests the signature of the witnesses or the signature of the judges. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah: If he wants to certify it from the handwriting of the witnesses it is certified, from the handwriting of the judges it is certified; I am saying that even from one witness and one judge it is certified. If he gave permission to the scribe to write and to the witnesses to sign, Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jeremiah: The witnesses have to write: “This loan is from the first of Nisan but we wrote at a later date.” Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of Rav Hamnuna: The confirmation of the judges is valid even if it is at some distance. Rebbi Mana said, is that correct? Could he then not certify from one handwriting? Rav said: The judges have to write: We certified this in the presence of X and Y. Why? So they can be convicted of perjury. But then also on which date, at which time, at which place? A judgment was given before Rav and this was not written. Rebbi Ḥaggai said: The judges have to know the parties. It happened that they falsified.

MISHNAH: It is valid if some of the text remained and was written in the second column, with the witnesses signing below. If the witnesses signed on top of the page, or at the sides, or on the other side for a simple document, it is invalid. If [two bills of divorce] start at the same place and the witnesses are in the middle, both are invalid. If the start of one bill is next to the end of the other and the witnesses are at the end, the bill whose witnesses are read with the end is valid. A bill of divorce written in Hebrew with its witnesses signing in Greek, written in Greek with its witnesses signing in Hebrew, or one witness signing in Hebrew and one in Greek, or the scribe wrote with one witness, is valid. “X, witness” is valid. “The son of Y, witness” is valid. “X the son of Y”, but he did not write “witness”, is valid. If he wrote his or her surname, it is valid; that is how the punctilious in Jerusalem used to write.

MISHNAH: It is valid if some of the text remained and was written in the second column, with the witnesses signing below. If the witnesses signed on top of the page, or at the sides, or on the other side for a simple document, it is invalid. If [two bills of divorce] start at the same place and the witnesses are in the middle, both are invalid. If the start of one bill is next to the end of the other and the witnesses are at the end, the bill whose witnesses are read with the end is valid. A bill of divorce written in Hebrew with its witnesses signing in Greek, written in Greek with its witnesses signing in Hebrew, or one witness signing in Hebrew and one in Greek, or the scribe wrote with one witness, is valid. “X, witness” is valid. “The son of Y, witness” is valid. “X the son of Y”, but he did not write “witness”, is valid. If he wrote his or her surname, it is valid; that is how the punctilious in Jerusalem used to write.

Rebbi Eleazar said, it is everybody’s opinion. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is Rebbi Jehudah’s. Rebbi Yose said, you should not infer that the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan is that he differs, but he answered him following his argument. Lengthwise. That is what he said in the name of Rebbi Ze‘ira: Since pairing is infrequent, there was no pairing. So is the Mishnah: “If the scribe wrote with one witness, is it valid. “X” is valid. “The son of Y” is valid. “X the son of Y” but he did not write “witness”, is valid. If he wrote his or her surname, it is invalid. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, even if he wrote “he is it”, it is valid. Rebbi Abbahu wrote א. Rav Ḥisda wrote ס. Samuel wrote a palm branch.

Rebbi Eleazar said, it is everybody’s opinion. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is Rebbi Jehudah’s. Rebbi Yose said, you should not infer that the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan is that he differs, but he answered him following his argument. Lengthwise. That is what he said in the name of Rebbi Ze‘ira: Since pairing is infrequent, there was no pairing. So is the Mishnah: “If the scribe wrote with one witness, is it valid. “X” is valid. “The son of Y” is valid. “X the son of Y” but he did not write “witness”, is valid. If he wrote his or her surname, it is invalid. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, even if he wrote “he is it”, it is valid. Rebbi Abbahu wrote א. Rav Ḥisda wrote ס. Samuel wrote a palm branch.

The order of sale is the following: I X sold my daughter to Y. The order of preliminary marriage is the following: I X gave my daughter to Y in preliminary marriage. Rebbi Ḥaggai asked before Rebbi Yose: If he switched and said, I Y acquired X’s daughter, I Y took X’s daughter in preliminary marriage? He said to him, what is the difference? But if he changed the language of sale to that of preliminary marriage or vice-versa, he did not do anything.

The order of sale is the following: I X sold my daughter to Y. The order of preliminary marriage is the following: I X gave my daughter to Y in preliminary marriage. Rebbi Ḥaggai asked before Rebbi Yose: If he switched and said, I Y acquired X’s daughter, I Y took X’s daughter in preliminary marriage? He said to him, what is the difference? But if he changed the language of sale to that of preliminary marriage or vice-versa, he did not do anything.

The order of sale is the following: I X sold my daughter to Y. The order of preliminary marriage is the following: I X gave my daughter to Y in preliminary marriage. Rebbi Ḥaggai asked before Rebbi Yose: If he switched and said, I Y acquired X’s daughter, I Y took X’s daughter in preliminary marriage? He said to him, what is the difference? But if he changed the language of sale to that of preliminary marriage or vice-versa, he did not do anything.

The order of sale is the following: I X sold my daughter to Y. The order of preliminary marriage is the following: I X gave my daughter to Y in preliminary marriage. Rebbi Ḥaggai asked before Rebbi Yose: If he switched and said, I Y acquired X’s daughter, I Y took X’s daughter in preliminary marriage? He said to him, what is the difference? But if he changed the language of sale to that of preliminary marriage or vice-versa, he did not do anything.

From where that non-guaranteed property may be acquired together with guaranteed property, by money, document, or by possession? Rebbi Yose in the name of Ḥizqiah; Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Ḥanina Tortaya in the name of Ḥizqiah, it is written (2Chr. 21:3): “Their father gave them many gifts, silver and gold and delicacies, with fortified cities in Jehudah.” So far real estate and movables were at the same place. If real estate was at one place and movables elsewhere? Rebbi Abin bar Ḥiyya said, let us hear from the following: Rebbi Eliezer said to them, it happened that a man from Meron was dwelling in Jerusalem, who was rich in movables. He wanted to distribute them, to give them as gifts. They said to him, you cannot do that except if you acquire real estate. What did he do? He went and bought a rock near Jerusalem and said: The Northern part I give to X with a hundred amphoras of wine, the Southern part I give to Y with a hundred amphoras of oil. The matter came before the Sages and they upheld his words. Rebbi Ḥananiah said before Rebbi Mana: But was he not bedridden? For in general a person might give property rights only in writing, and here even orally. In general, a person might give only if real estate and movables are at the same place; here, however, the real estate was at one place and the movables elsewhere. He said to him: But is there a difference for Rebbi Eliezer? Is not the sick person for Rebbi Eliezer like the sick person for the rabbis? He said to him: The sick person for Rebbi Eliezer is like the healthy person for the rabbis.

MISHNAH: Somebody said to his agent: “Go and marry me preliminarily to woman X at place Y”; if he went and married him preliminarily at another place, she is not preliminarily married. “She is at place Y;” if he married him preliminarily at another place, she is preliminarily married.

MISHNAH: Somebody said to his agent: “Go and marry me preliminarily to woman X at place Y”; if he went and married him preliminarily at another place, she is not preliminarily married. “She is at place Y;” if he married him preliminarily at another place, she is preliminarily married.

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The following is the contract text: “I, X son of Y, contract a preliminary marriage with you, Z, daughter of U, on condition that I give you property A and definitively marry you by day B. If that day should pass without me having taken you in, I shall have no claim on you.” If anything intervened beyond his control? Rebbi Joḥanan said, matters beyond his control are as if he were inactive. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, matters outside his control are as if he had acted. In the opinion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, what would be necessary? “If that day should pass without you having taken me in, I shall have no claim on you.” When Rebbi Joḥanan was dying, he told his daughters to act following Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. He said, sometime in the future there might be a court which follows him; then his descendants might be in danger of bastardy.

HALAKHAH: “On condition that I possess a bet kor of arable land,” etc. Rebbi Ḥananiah the son of Rebbi Hillel asked: If somebody said, my son A should perform action X and receive property Y, and the rest of my sons shall inherit my properties; if he performs, he takes, but if he does not perform, he does not take. Or maybe it is a difference since it is written: “To give to Nine and a half tribes.” It is as if he said, my son A should perform action X and receive property Y, and the rest of my sons shall inherit my properties; if he performs, he takes, but if he does not perform, he does not take from here or from there.

HALAKHAH: “On condition that I possess a bet kor of arable land,” etc. Rebbi Ḥananiah the son of Rebbi Hillel asked: If somebody said, my son A should perform action X and receive property Y, and the rest of my sons shall inherit my properties; if he performs, he takes, but if he does not perform, he does not take. Or maybe it is a difference since it is written: “To give to Nine and a half tribes.” It is as if he said, my son A should perform action X and receive property Y, and the rest of my sons shall inherit my properties; if he performs, he takes, but if he does not perform, he does not take from here or from there.

Rebbi Jehudah bar Sisin, Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazy in the name of Rebbi Aḥa. They formulated the symphōn according to Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Ḥananiah, the colleague of the rabbis, asked: Why does it have to follow Rebbi Meïr but not also the rabbis? Did not Rebbi Abbahu say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The following is the contract text: “I, X son of Y, contract a preliminary marriage with you, Z, daughter of U, on condition that I shall give you property A and definitively marry you by day B. If that day should pass without me having taken you in, I shall have no claim on you.” Why can he not say “on condition” but not double his stipulation? If he did not double his stipulation, could this eliminate the preliminary marriage? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, everywhere Rebbi Meïr holds that from “no” you infer “yes”, except here? Rebbi Mattaniah said, one is more restrictive in matters of incest and adultery.

Somebody put down an amphora in the public domain and then another person came and put another one close to the first. If the first person comes to take his own and would move [the second] and put it down at another place, he would create a “pit”. But could he take a stick and break it or step over it and if it broke, it broke? Let us hear from the following: If a bull came to mount another and the [latter’s] owner came to draw away his own, if he drew him away before it could mount, and [the attacker] fell down and died, he is free from payment. If he pushed [the attacker] which then fell down and died, he must pay. Rebbi Yose said, we can hear from this that if one saw a flood threatening in his irrigation canal, before the flood reached his field he is permitted to divert the water to another place; after the flood reached his field he is not permitted to divert it to another place. If the chrysargyros was imposed, before [the collector of] chrysargyros arrived, one is permitted to say, X is following my profession, Y is following my professon. Once the [the collector of] chrysarguros arrived, it is forbidden. It is permitted to bribe the quartermaster before the Roman [soldiers] arrive; after the Roman [soldiers] arrive it is forbidden.

Rebbi Abbahu stated before Rebbi Joḥanan: “You killed my ox, you cut down my fruit trees,” and the other says, I do not know, he is liable. He said to him, certainly you state that to the rabble. He answered, it is my fault, they said the following: “We testify against X that he killed ox Y” and the other says, I do not know, he is liable. [He said, that was stated.]

MISHNAH: A man may say to another, weed with me and I shall be weeding with you, hoe with me and I shall be hoeing with you, but he shall not tell him, weed with me and I shall be hoeing with you, hoe with me and I shall be weeding with you. All the dry season is one, all the wet season is not; one may not say to him, plough with me in the dry season and I shall be ploughing with you in the wet season. Rabban Gamliel says, there exists predated and postdated interest. How is this? If one indended to borrow from him and sent him [a gift] saying, so you should lend me; that is predated interest. If one had borrowed and returned the money when he sent him [a gift] saying, that is for your money which was not earning for you while it was with me; that is postdated interest. Rebbi Simeon says, there exists verbal interest. One should not say to him, you should know that X came from place Y. The following transgress prohibitions: The creditor, and the debtor, and the guarantor, and the witnesses; the Sages say, also the scribe. They transgress “do not give,” and “do not take from him,” and “do not be a creditor,” and “do not burden him with interest,” and “before a blind man do not put an obstacle; and fear your God, I am the Eternal.”

HALAKHAH: It was stated: If somebody says to another: I am selling you half a field, and X and Y and half of Z surround you. Rav Huna, and Rav Jehudah, and Rebbi Jeremiah. One said, he gives him [an area shaped] like a pandur. And one said, he gives him something like a strip of cloth. And one said, he gives him something like patches.

MISHNAH: One who says, “my firstborn X shall not take a double portion,” [or] “my son Y shall not inherit together with his brothers,” did not say anything since he stipulated against what is written in the Torah. One who distributes his property orally, if he increased for one, or diminished for another, or made the firstborn equal to the others, his words are upheld; except if, however, he formulated it in terms of inheritance, he did not say anything. But if he wrote in terms of gift, whether at the start, or in the middle, or at the end, his words are upheld.

“But if he wrote in terms of gift, whether at the start, or the middle, or the end, his words are upheld.” Rebbi Hoshaia said: “There shall be given to Mr. X the inheritance I want him to inherit.” “X should inherit the gift I want him to inherit.” “X shall inherit the inheritance which I gave to him.” “Write and give field X to person Y.” Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Simeon ben Yaqim brought a case before Rebbi Joḥanan He told them, if it is documentation, then write and deliver. If it is to transfer property, everybody agrees that nobody can transfer property after his death.

If someone said, field X I gave to Y, it is given to him, it should be his, Y should inherit my property, Y should take possession of my property, he did not say anything. It should be given to him as a gift, Rebbi says, he acquired, but the Sages say, he did not acquire; but one forces the heirs to fulfill the deceased’s words. It was stated: Rebbi Simeon ben Gamliel says, also if one writes διέθεμεν in Greek it is a gift. Rebbi Ḥanin in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: I turned to all linguists to know what is διέθεμεν and nobody told me anything.

If someone said, field X I gave to Y, it is given to him, it should be his, Y should inherit my property, Y should take possession of my property, he did not say anything. It should be given to him as a gift, Rebbi says, he acquired, but the Sages say, he did not acquire; but one forces the heirs to fulfill the deceased’s words. It was stated: Rebbi Simeon ben Gamliel says, also if one writes διέθεμεν in Greek it is a gift. Rebbi Ḥanin in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: I turned to all linguists to know what is διέθεμεν and nobody told me anything.

If someone said, field X I gave to Y, it is given to him, it should be his, Y should inherit my property, Y should take possession of my property, he did not say anything. It should be given to him as a gift, Rebbi says, he acquired, but the Sages say, he did not acquire; but one forces the heirs to fulfill the deceased’s words. It was stated: Rebbi Simeon ben Gamliel says, also if one writes διέθεμεν in Greek it is a gift. Rebbi Ḥanin in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: I turned to all linguists to know what is διέθεμεν and nobody told me anything.

One who said, my property should be given to X, if X died to Y, if Y died to Z. The one who was mentioned earlier receives the property earlier. If the second died during the first’s lifetime, the first one has the usufruct; when he dies the property reverts to heirs of the bequeather. If the third died during the second’s lifetime, the first one has the usufruct; when he dies the property reverts to heirs of the bequeather. If both the second and the third die during the first’s lifetime, the first has the usufruct and acquired the real estate, the words of Rebbi. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, he only has the usufruct. Ḥizqiah said, practice follows Rebbi. Rebbi Yannai said, Rebbi agrees that he cannot dispose of it by a death-bed will. Rebbi Joḥanan said, not even as a gift from a healthy person. As in the following: A woman wrote her properties over to a certain man. She needed money and sold it to her husband. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Madia brought the case before Rebbi Yose. Did not Rebbi Yannai say, Rebbi agrees that he cannot dispose of it by a death-bed will? Rebbi Joḥanan said to him, is that not the gift of a healthy person? Since the husband of this woman is obligated to provide for her food, is that not like a death-bed will? So far, he is obligated to provide for her bread and legumes. Maybe eggs? Maybe chicken? Since it was stated that the first has the usufruct and acquired the real estate, that means that she may sell the property even in order to eat delicacies. Rebbi Aḥa bar Jacob said, it was stated there that her burial is part of her upkeep. If she did not have a burial site, since it was stated that the first has the usufruct and acquired the real estate, it means that he may sell the real estate and acquire a burial site.

One who said, my property should be given to X, if X died to Y, if Y died to Z. The one who was mentioned earlier receives the property earlier. If the second died during the first’s lifetime, the first one has the usufruct; when he dies the property reverts to heirs of the bequeather. If the third died during the second’s lifetime, the first one has the usufruct; when he dies the property reverts to heirs of the bequeather. If both the second and the third die during the first’s lifetime, the first has the usufruct and acquired the real estate, the words of Rebbi. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, he only has the usufruct. Ḥizqiah said, practice follows Rebbi. Rebbi Yannai said, Rebbi agrees that he cannot dispose of it by a death-bed will. Rebbi Joḥanan said, not even as a gift from a healthy person. As in the following: A woman wrote her properties over to a certain man. She needed money and sold it to her husband. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Madia brought the case before Rebbi Yose. Did not Rebbi Yannai say, Rebbi agrees that he cannot dispose of it by a death-bed will? Rebbi Joḥanan said to him, is that not the gift of a healthy person? Since the husband of this woman is obligated to provide for her food, is that not like a death-bed will? So far, he is obligated to provide for her bread and legumes. Maybe eggs? Maybe chicken? Since it was stated that the first has the usufruct and acquired the real estate, that means that she may sell the property even in order to eat delicacies. Rebbi Aḥa bar Jacob said, it was stated there that her burial is part of her upkeep. If she did not have a burial site, since it was stated that the first has the usufruct and acquired the real estate, it means that he may sell the real estate and acquire a burial site.

HALAKHAH: So far if real estate and movables were at the same place. If real estate was at one place and movables elsewhere? Rebbi Abin bar Ḥiyya said, let us hear from the following: Rebbi Eliezer said to them, it happened that a man from Meron was dwelling in Jerusalem who was rich in movables. He wanted to distribute them, to give them as gifts. They said to him, you cannot do that except if you acquire real estate. What did he do? He went and bought a rock near Jerusalem and said: The Northern part I give to X with a hundred sheep and a hundred amphoras of wine, the Southern part I give to Y with a hundred amphoras of oil. The matter came before the Sages, who upheld his words. Rebbi Ḥananiah said before Rebbi Mana: But was he not bedridden? For in general a person might give property rights only in writing, and here even orally. In general, a person might give only if real estate and movables are at the same place; here, however, the real estate was at one place and the movables elsewhere. He said to him: But is there a difference for Rebbi Eliezer? Would the sick person for Rebbi Eliezer be like the healthy person for the rabbis? He said to him: The sick person for Rebbi Eliezer is like the healthy person for the rabbis.

Rebbi Idi in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah. The practice for a knotted one is the following. One writes the lender’s name, and the borrower’s name, the witnesses’ names, and the time. Then one knots it and repeats the text below. But should one not be afraid that maybe he falsifies? Rav Huna said, witnesses never sign below unless they first read in the text above: “I X son of Y accept everything written above.”

“Rebbi answered to confirm the words of Rebbi Ḥananiah ben Gamliel: The main text of the document proves whether it is simple or not simple.” What is the main text of a document? Rebbi Abba said, as Rav Huna said: witnesses never sign below unless they first read before them: “I X son of Y accept everything written above.” And did we not state: this is the formula for documents of indebtedness? Rebbi Mani said, this is the formula for knotted documents of indebtedness. Rebbi Abbin said, even if you say, it is the same for simple and knotted, for a simple document it is indispensable, for a knotted one it is not indispensable. Rebbi Jehudah says, if one adds to the practice. A simple document has two [winesses], a knotted one three, but they do it with three. A simple document inside, a knotted one on its back, but they do it inside and on its back.

HALAKHAH: “One writes a bill of divorce for a man,” etc. Rebbi Abba said: He has to know both of them. Rebbi La said, he has to know the husband for his bill of divorce and the woman for her receipt. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Abba: “Rabban Gamliel the Elder instituted that one should write Mr. X and all his names, Mrs. Y and all her names, for the public good.” But even with Rebbi [La] it does not disagree: “In earlier times, his name and her name and the names of his and her towns could change.”

MISHNAH: If somebody paid off part of his debt, deposited his bond with a third party, and told him, if I have not paid him by date x, return the bond to him. If the time has passed while he did not pay, Rebbi Yose says, he shall return it; Rebbi Jehudah says, he shall not return it. If somebody’s bond became illegible, he presents witnesses about it to the court and they confirm for him: The bond of Mr. X, son of Mr. Y, dated from day Z became illegible; U and V were his witnesses.

“If two people lived in the same town,” etc. “They cannot write a bond one on the other.” As one formulates, “I, X ben Y, am taking a loan from you, Z, and U is guarantor.”

HALAKHAH: “Somebody who lent to another by a document,” etc. Rav Huna said, predating is invalid but the document is valid. But did we not state: “A predated prozbol is valid, postdated it is invalid”? That means, Rav Huna, Rebbi Eleazar, and Rebbi Simeon ben Yaqim. Rav Huna, quoted here. “Rebbi Eleazar said, it is valid even if there are no signatures of witnesses on it if only he delivered it in the presence of witnesses; and she can use it to collect from encumbered property. For the witnesses sign on the bill of divorce only for the public good.” How? If about those who denied their testimony, the denied testimony is as if nonexistent, and the document should be valid? If about those who did not deny their testimony, did not Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish say, that they considered witnesses who signed a document as if their testimony had been cross-examined in court? What about it: As one formulates, “I, X ben Y, am taking a loan from you, Z, and U is guarantor.”

It was stated: From earlier times one was writing documents of repudiation: Before X and Y did Z daughter of U repudiate V son of W, by coming before us: I do not like him, I do not want to stay with him, I do not agree to be married to him.

Should a relative be found guilty of a blurted oath? Does it follow what Rebbi Abba said (ben) [in the name of] Samuel: “An oath that X gave a mina to Y,” and it turns out that X had not given; since there is nothing in the future there is nothing in the past. Or the following: “One said to another, ˋwhere is my ox?’ He responded, ˋI do not know what you are referring to.’ It so happened that it had died, or was wounded, or captured, or lost. ˋI require you to swear;’ the other said ˋAmen’. He is not liable.” Rav said, he is not liable for a keeper’s oath but is liable because of a blurted oath. Rebbi Joḥanan said, since it is a religious duty to appease him, he is not liable because of a blurted oath. In Rav’s opinion, is there no religious duty to appease him? One appeases with truthful statements, not with lies.

MISHNAH: If they told him, produce witnesses; he said, I have no witness; produce proofs; he said, I have no proofs. If later he found a proof, or he found witnesses, this is irrelevant. Rabban Gamliel said, what should he do who did not know that he had witnesses but found witnesses; he did not know that he had proof, but he found proof? If they told him, produce witnesses; he said, I have no witness; produce proofs; he said, I have no proofs; when he saw that the decision would go against him he said, X and Y shall come and testify for me, or he produced proof from his money belt, this is irrelevant.

HALAKHAH: They brought in the second,” etc. It was stated: “If they found him innocent, they freed him; otherwise they hold his case over, split into groups of two, eat little and refrain from wine, and discuss during the entire night. The next morning they start early, the beadles of the synagogues come for them. They ask, Mr. X [ben Mr. Y. He says, present.] I was for conviction and I still am for conviction; or I was for acquittal and I still am for acquittal; I was for conviction and now I am for acquittal; one accepts his vote. I was for acquittal and now I am for conviction; argue as before.” It was stated: If one of the judges erred, the clerks of court remind him. If he was for conviction, they tell him, argue as before.

MISHNAH: If they found him innocent, they free him, otherwise he is led to be stoned. The herald goes before him: “X ben Y is led to be stoned because he committed crime Z; U and V testified against him. Anybody who knows of his innocence shall come and argue.”

Rebbi Ḥiyya said that Rebbi Yasa asked: We have stated: “The herald goes before him: ‘X ben Y is led to be stoned because he committed crime Z; U and V testified against him. Anybody who knows of his innocence shall come and argue.’ ” We inferred that he who hears from one who heard has to rend. Does he who hears from one who heard from one who heard have to rend?

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.