yishmael

One who suspends [branches of] a vine on part of [the branches of] a fruit tree, it is permitted to bring seed beneath the remainder. If new [tendrils] spread [over the remainder], he must turn them back. It happened that Rabbi Joshua went to Rabbi Ishmael in Kefar Aziz, and the latter showed him a vine [with its branches] suspended on part of [the branches of] a fig tree. He [Rabbi Yishmael] asked him [Rabbi Joshua]: “May I bring seed beneath the remainder?” He answered him: “It is permitted.” He took him to Bet Hamaganyah and he showed him a vine [whose branches were] suspended on part of a beam belonging to the trunk of a sycamore, which had many beams. He [Rabbi Joshua] said to him [Rabbi Yishmael]: beneath this beam it is prohibited [to sow] but beneath the remainder it is permitted.

One who suspends [branches of] a vine on part of [the branches of] a fruit tree, it is permitted to bring seed beneath the remainder. If new [tendrils] spread [over the remainder], he must turn them back. It happened that Rabbi Joshua went to Rabbi Ishmael in Kefar Aziz, and the latter showed him a vine [with its branches] suspended on part of [the branches of] a fig tree. He [Rabbi Yishmael] asked him [Rabbi Joshua]: “May I bring seed beneath the remainder?” He answered him: “It is permitted.” He took him to Bet Hamaganyah and he showed him a vine [whose branches were] suspended on part of a beam belonging to the trunk of a sycamore, which had many beams. He [Rabbi Joshua] said to him [Rabbi Yishmael]: beneath this beam it is prohibited [to sow] but beneath the remainder it is permitted.

One may fold clothing even four or five times, and spread the sheets on the beds on the Shabbat evening for [use on] Shabbat, but not on Shabbat for [use on] the day after Shabbat. Rabbi Yishmael says: one may fold clothing and spread the sheets on the beds on Yom Kippur for [use on] Shabbat, and the fat pieces of the Shabbat offering may be offered on Yom Kippur. Rabbi Akiva says: those of Shabbat may not be offered on Yom Kippur, nor may those of Yom Kippur be offered on Shabbat.

If excise collectors took his donkey and gave him another donkey, or if bandits robbed a man of his coat and gave him another coat, they are his own, since the original owners gave up hope of recovering them. If a man saved something from a flood or from marauding troops or from bandits: if the owner gave up hope of recovering [the item], it belongs to him. So too with a swarm of bees: if the owner gave up hope of recovering [the swarm], it belongs to him. Rabbi Yochanan ben Baroka said: “A woman or child may be believed if they say, ‘The swarm of bees went away from here.’” A man may go into his fellow’s field to save his swarm and if he causes damage he must pay for the damage that he has caused; but he may not cut off a branch of the tree [to save his swarm] even on condition that he pay its value. Rabbi Yishmael, the son of Rabbi Yochanan ben Baroka, says: “He may even cut off [the branch] and repay the value.”

The legal period of possession [in order to establish ownership] for houses, cisterns, trenches, caves, dovecotes, bath-houses, olive-presses, irrigated fields and slaves and anything which continually produces a yield is three complete years. The legal period of possession [in order to establish ownership] for a field irrigated by rain water is three years and they need not be completed. Rabbi Yishmael says: “Three months during the first year, and three months during the last year and twelve months during the middle year, which makes eighteen months.” Rabbi Akiva says: “One month during the first year and one month during the last year and twelve months during the middle year, which makes fourteen months.” Rabbi Yishmael said: “When does this apply? With regards to a sown field, but with tree plantation, if he brought in his produce (grapes), collected the olives and gathered in his fig harvest, this counts as three years.”

The legal period of possession [in order to establish ownership] for houses, cisterns, trenches, caves, dovecotes, bath-houses, olive-presses, irrigated fields and slaves and anything which continually produces a yield is three complete years. The legal period of possession [in order to establish ownership] for a field irrigated by rain water is three years and they need not be completed. Rabbi Yishmael says: “Three months during the first year, and three months during the last year and twelve months during the middle year, which makes eighteen months.” Rabbi Akiva says: “One month during the first year and one month during the last year and twelve months during the middle year, which makes fourteen months.” Rabbi Yishmael said: “When does this apply? With regards to a sown field, but with tree plantation, if he brought in his produce (grapes), collected the olives and gathered in his fig harvest, this counts as three years.”

If a man sold his fellow a place to build him a house, so, too, if a man contracted with his fellow to build him a bridal-house for his son, or a widow’s house for his daughter, he must build it four cubits by six cubits (80 inches x 120 inches), according to Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Yishmael says: “This is a cattle-shed”. He who wants to build a cattle-shed, should build it four cubits by six. A small house six by eight (120 x. A large house eight by ten (160 x. An eating hall ten by ten (200 x. The height should be [the sum] of half its length and half its breadth. Proof of the matter is the sanctuary. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: “Should all [houses] be according to the building of the Sanctuary?”

If a man lent his fellow money by using a document, he may recover the debt from mortgaged property. But if he had lent only before witnesses (and not through a document), he may recover the debt only from unmortgaged property. If the [creditor] brought forth [a loan document] upon which appeared his (the debtor’s) signature as evidence that he was indebted to him, the creditor may recover the debt only from unmortgaged property. If a man signed as a guarantor after the signatures of witnesses, the creditor may recover the debt only from [the guarantor’s] unmortgaged property. Such a case came before Rabbi Yishmael and he said, “He may recover only from unmortgaged property”. Ben Nanos said to him: “He may recover the debt neither from mortgaged nor unmortgaged property.” He said to him: “Why?” He answered, “If a man seized a debtor by the throat in the street and his fellow found him and said ‘Leave him alone (and I will pay), he is not liable, since not through trust in him did the creditor lend the debtor money.” Rather which type of guarantor is liable? [If a man said], “Lend him money and I will pay thee”, he is liable, for he lent him the money through his trust in the guarantor. And Rabbi Yishmael said, “He who wants to be wise let him occupy himself with cases dealing with monetary matters, for there is no greater branch of Torah than this; for they are like a welling fountain; and he who wishes to occupy himself with laws concerning monetary matters, let him serve [as a pupil] of Shimon ben Nanos.

If a man lent his fellow money by using a document, he may recover the debt from mortgaged property. But if he had lent only before witnesses (and not through a document), he may recover the debt only from unmortgaged property. If the [creditor] brought forth [a loan document] upon which appeared his (the debtor’s) signature as evidence that he was indebted to him, the creditor may recover the debt only from unmortgaged property. If a man signed as a guarantor after the signatures of witnesses, the creditor may recover the debt only from [the guarantor’s] unmortgaged property. Such a case came before Rabbi Yishmael and he said, “He may recover only from unmortgaged property”. Ben Nanos said to him: “He may recover the debt neither from mortgaged nor unmortgaged property.” He said to him: “Why?” He answered, “If a man seized a debtor by the throat in the street and his fellow found him and said ‘Leave him alone (and I will pay), he is not liable, since not through trust in him did the creditor lend the debtor money.” Rather which type of guarantor is liable? [If a man said], “Lend him money and I will pay thee”, he is liable, for he lent him the money through his trust in the guarantor. And Rabbi Yishmael said, “He who wants to be wise let him occupy himself with cases dealing with monetary matters, for there is no greater branch of Torah than this; for they are like a welling fountain; and he who wishes to occupy himself with laws concerning monetary matters, let him serve [as a pupil] of Shimon ben Nanos.

[Cases concerning offenses punishable by] beating [are decided] by three. In the name of Rabbi Yishmael they said twenty-three. The intercalation of the month and intercalation of the year [are decided] by three, according to Rabbi Meir. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: “The matter is begun by three, discussed by five, and decided upon by seven. But if they decided upon it with three, the intercalation is valid.”

Rabbi Yishmael declared three things before the Sages in the vineyard at Yavneh: Concerning an egg which was beaten together, and placed on vegetables of terumah that it acts as a connection; but if it was in the form of a helmet it does not act as a connection. And concerning an ear of corn in the harvesting, the top of which reached the standing corn that if it can be reaped together with the standing corn, it belongs to the owner; and if not, it belongs to the poor. And concerning a small garden which was surrounded by a row of vines that if it has space for the grape-gatherer and his basket on one side, and space for the grape-gatherer and his basket on the other side, it may be sown with seed; but if not, it may not be sown with seed.

They stated three things before Rabbi Yishmael, and he pronounced none of them either unlawful or lawful; and Rabbi Joshua ben Matya explained them. One who lances an abscess on the Sabbath: if it was to make an opening he is liable; if it was to bring out the pus, he is exempt. And concerning one who hunts a snake on the Sabbath: that if he was occupied with it in order that it should not bite him, he is innocent; but if that he might use it as a remedy, he is guilty. And concerning Ironian stewpots: that they do not contract impurity when under the same tent as a corpse; but become impure if they are carried by a zav. Rabbi Eliezer ben Zadok says: “Even if they are carried by a zav they remain pure, because they are unfinished.”

Rabbi Yishmael said three things, and Rabbi Akiba disagreed with him. Garlic or unripe grapes or green ears of grain were being crushed [on the eve of the Sabbath] while it is yet day: Rabbi Yishmael says: “He may finish crushing after it grows dark.” But Rabbi Akiba says: “He may not finish.”

Rabbi Yishmael said three things, and Rabbi Akiba disagreed with him. Garlic or unripe grapes or green ears of grain were being crushed [on the eve of the Sabbath] while it is yet day: Rabbi Yishmael says: “He may finish crushing after it grows dark.” But Rabbi Akiba says: “He may not finish.”

Rabbi Yishmael says: there are three instances of lenient rulings by Beth Shammai and strict rulings by Beth Hillel. The book of Ecclesiastes does not defile the hands, according to the opinion of Beth Shammai; But Beth Hillel say: it defiles the hands. Water of purification which has done its duty: Beth Shammai pronounces it pure, But Beth Hillel pronounces it impure. Black cumin: Beth Shammai pronounces it not liable to become impure, But Beth Hillel pronounces it liable to become impure. So, too, with regard to tithes.

Which Tanna holds that it is atonement? R' Hisda said, R' Yishmael, the son of R' Yohanan ben Broka, as it is taught, 'he gave a ransom from his life', that is the money of the victim. [However] R' Yishmael, the son of R' Yohanan son of Broka says, it means the money of the owner. Is it not that the difference here is that one [the Rabbis] explains it is monetary compensation, and the other [R' Yishmael] explains it is an atonement

Which Tanna holds that it is atonement? R' Hisda said, R' Yishmael, the son of R' Yohanan ben Broka, as it is taught, 'he gave a ransom from his life', that is the money of the victim. [However] R' Yishmael, the son of R' Yohanan son of Broka says, it means the money of the owner. Is it not that the difference here is that one [the Rabbis] explains it is monetary compensation, and the other [R' Yishmael] explains it is an atonement

Which Tanna holds that it is atonement? R' Hisda said, R' Yishmael, the son of R' Yohanan ben Broka, as it is taught, 'he gave a ransom from his life', that is the money of the victim. [However] R' Yishmael, the son of R' Yohanan son of Broka says, it means the money of the owner. Is it not that the difference here is that one [the Rabbis] explains it is monetary compensation, and the other [R' Yishmael] explains it is an atonement

And R' Yishmael? it is written '[The] ransom from HIS life', [meaning the life of the owner] And the Rabbis [interpretation of this verse] Yes, it is written ransom is from his life, however the value is assessed according to the victim.

Rabbi Yishmael says (his response because he sees the verse as referring to Shabbat): Just as plowing is optional (not a Mitzvah) so too reaping is optional (i.e. these acts are only forbidden on Shabbat if they are done voluntarily as opposed to for Mitzvah reasons). It excludes the reaping for the omer (offering) as it is a Mitzvah.

A certain Rabbi asked Rava: From where do you know (really R. Yishmael) that this plowing is voluntary? Maybe it is plowing for the Mitzvah of the Omer and even in this case, God said, "you shall desist." He said to him: If he were to find the (field) already plowed, then he would not have to plow again.(Therefore), plowing is not a Mitzvah.

But I'd this logical?! Whether [one holds like] the opinion that it is a mitzvah [for the Goel HaDam to kill the murderer] or whether [one holds like] the opinion that it is permissible, is it permitted [for a son to kill his father]? But Rabba bar Rav Huna said, and so too was taught in a baraisa of the academy of Rebbi Yishmael, For everything a son may not be made into an agent [of the court] against his father to hit him or curse him, except in the case of one who instigates [idolatry] upon which the Torah says (Deuteronomy 13,9) "do not spare him and do not conceal him".

Are subject to forty lashes. These are the words of Rebbi Yishmael,

What is the reason of Rebbi Yishmael? The Torah says (Deuteronomy 28, 58), "If you do not guard yourself to perform all of these laws" and (Deuteronomy 28, 59) "And G-d make wondrous (הפלאה) your plagues" I do not know what this word "הפלאה" means. But when the Torah elsewhere says (Deuteronomy 25, 2) "And the judge should cast him down and hit him before his face", then I must say that this word "הפלאה" means malkus. And the Torah said over there (Deuteronomy 28, 58), "If you do not guard yourself to perform all etc.". [showing that all prohibitions are punishable with malkus.]

It was taught in a barasia of the house of Rebbi Yishmael, (Leviticus 14, 39) "And the priest left (שיבה)", (Leviticus 14, 44) "And the priest came (ביאה)". This is "שיבה" and this is also "ביאה". [A gezaria shava can be made because they have the same meaning dispute being different words.]

Rava[, who explains the dispute between Rebbi Akiva and Rebbi Yishmael differently,] says, If [the witnesses] warned him [the sinner that he would be liable] to court execution, then everyone would agree that he is not both flogged and executed. When do they disagree? When [the witnesses] warned him [that he would be liable] to malkus, for Rebbi Yishmael holds that a prohibition that has a scriptural warning for court execution can also be liable to malkus, and Rebbi Akiva holds that a prohibition that has a scriptural warning for court execution cannot also be liable to malkus.

Rava[, who explains the dispute between Rebbi Akiva and Rebbi Yishmael differently,] says, If [the witnesses] warned him [the sinner that he would be liable] to court execution, then everyone would agree that he is not both flogged and executed. When do they disagree? When [the witnesses] warned him [that he would be liable] to malkus, for Rebbi Yishmael holds that a prohibition that has a scriptural warning for court execution can also be liable to malkus, and Rebbi Akiva holds that a prohibition that has a scriptural warning for court execution cannot also be liable to malkus.

And why was kares repeated by [the prohibition of cohabiting with] his sister according to the Rabbis [Rebbi Yishmael and Rebbi Akiva]? To [teach us that sacrifices are] separated [with regards to bringing a sacrifice for an inadvertent offence], as Rebbi Yochanon said that if a person did all [of these kares prohibitions] in one lapse of unawareness he is liable [to bring a chatos sacrifice] for each and every one of them.

And [what do the Rabbis, i.e. Rebbi Akiva and Rabbi Yishmael do with achoso d'reisha, if they do not learn out the principle of not deriving punishments]? That verse is needed to teach us that there is a separate kares prohibition for concocting [the anointing oil] and for anointing [with the original anointing oil].

[Because Rebbi Yochanon holds] according to Rebbi Yishmael who says, He may even separate pe'uh from the dough. But according to Rebbi Yishmael a way to nullify the commandment can also be found, in a case where he eats the dough?

[Because Rebbi Yochanon holds] according to Rebbi Yishmael who says, He may even separate pe'uh from the dough. But according to Rebbi Yishmael a way to nullify the commandment can also be found, in a case where he eats the dough?

Who is this statement in accordance with? It is in accordance with the following Tanna, That it was taught in a baraisa, Rebbi Yosi said over three things from three elders. Rebbi Yishmael said, A person may ascend with his maaser sheni to Jerusalem and eat it nowadays. And this can be logically derived, A Bechor needs to be brought to "the place" and maaser sheni needs to be brought to "the place". Just as bechor is only possible in the time of the Temple, so is Maaser only possible in the time of the Temple.

And what does [Rebbi Yishmael] hold? If he holds that the original sanctity of the Temple was for its time and also all future time, then even a Bechor should be able to be brought nowadays. And if he holds that the original sanctity of the Temple was for its time but did not extend to future time, then he also should inquire about a Bechor!

that the Torah says, (Deuteronomy 12, 17) "Do not eat it in your gates" and then later on says, (Deuteronomy 15,22) "In your gates you shall eat it--both the tamai and the tahor", and a baraisa was taught about this in the academy of Rebbi Yishmael

"Nor does he take a bribe against the innocent" like Rebbi Yishmael Ben Yosi

"He who despises unlawful gain", like Rebbi Yishmael ben Elisha.

"Who shakes his hands from accepting a bribe", like Rebbi Yishmael b'Rebbi Yosi.